Congress’s Bipartisan Budget… “Deal” or Budget “Breaker”

December 11, 2013 in Congress, Debt Crisis, Debt Limit, Depression, Economic Deception, Economy, Political Class, Political Deception, Political Incompetence, Quantitative Easing, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Sequestration, Taxiation with Representation

SequesterWe have a Bipartisan “Deal” in Congress that will roll back the Sequester and add back at least $63B in additional Debt. The “Deal” will result in raising Revenue to offset the new spending and to make it appear like spending has been reduced! For those of you that don’t understand the Washington jargon, raising “Revenue” means raising “Taxes”.  

When  our good friend of Liberty and Fiscal Responsibility, Louie Gohmert  (R-TX) has qualms about the ” Deal”, then Houston, we have a problem!

The “Deal” is great for most of our “Political Class” on both sides of the aisle that just want to continue their comfy spending habits without any accountability,   interference or distressing phone calls from their constituents. Hence, this “Deal compromise” promises to exacerbate and accelerate our present economic ticking time-bomb.

On his “The Economic Collapse Blog” of December 10th, 2013, with our economy in such a precarious situation, Michael Snyder asks, How Far Will Stocks Fall This Time When The Fed Decides To Slow Down Quantitative Easing? Read his article at  http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/how-far-will-stocks-fall-this-time-when-the-fed-decides-to-slow-down-quantitative-easing

Chart-By-DayOnBay-425x328

We already have a monumental Federal Deficit of $17.2 Trillion and super-Monumental Unfunded Liabilities of anywhere between $60 and $90 Trillion “…or 550 percent of our GDP. And the debt per household is more than 10 times the median family income.”

Folks, we have Local, State and Federal Governments that are totally out of control and are literally taxing us to death and a Federal Reserve that has been feeding $85 B/ month in Quantitative Easing into our banking system. Every time the Fed attempts to withdraw what some characterize as the QE “Heroin Fix” our economy pulls back. Will the imminent pull back by the Federal Reserve of of QE3 be the trigger that will plunge us into an unprecedented economic Collapse?

Whatever the case, as you will see from the following signs, Americans can no longer afford the debt being placed upon us and future generations by our Legislators without some sort of personal financial buckling!

The time has come to stand up and be counted. Enough is Enough! Our Governments continue to squander and misappropriate our hard earned treasure on cronyism. Career Congressmen and Senators become multimillionaires while working as public servants.

Meanwhile, the “Standard of Living” for American who work deteriorates as both the “Government class” and their rapidly growing “class of non-producer perpetrators” at the Local, State and Federal levels continue to feed on and to suck the “Systems” dry.

The following are the first 10 signs that Americans will be wiped out by an Economic Collapse and  are excerpted from an article by Michael Snyder, on June 24th, 2013, in his Economic Collapse Blog at :  http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/how-far-will-stocks-fall-this-time-when-the-fed-decides-to-slow-down-quantitative-easing

#1 According to a survey that was just released, 76 percent of all Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. But most Americans are acting as if their jobs will always be there. But the truth is that mass layoffs can occur at any time. In fact, it just happened at one of the largest law firms in New York City.

#2 27 percent of all Americans do not have even a single penny saved up.

#3 46 percent of all Americans have $800 or less saved up.

#4 Less than one out of every four Americans has enough money stored away to cover six months of expenses.

#5 Wages continue to fall even as the cost of living continues to go up. Today, the average income for the bottom 90 percent of all income earners in America is just $31,244. An increasing percentage of American families are just trying to find a way to survive from month to month.

#6 62 percent of all middle class Americans say that they have had to reduce household spending over the past year.

#7 Small business is becoming an endangered species in America. In fact, only about 7 percent of all non-farm workers in the United States are self-employed at this point. That means that the vast majority of Americans are depending on someone else to provide them with an income. But what is going to happen as those jobs disappear?

#8 In 1989, the debt to income ratio of the average American family was about 58 percent. Today it is up to 154 percent.

#9 Today, a higher percentage of Americans are dependent on the government than ever before. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government. So what is going to happen when the government handout gravy train comes to an end?

#10 Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.

 

 

 

“A Seismic Shift in Obamacare Sentiment on Capital Hill” has Democrats Turning on Obamacare

October 23, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Economic Deception, Hope and Change, Liberty in Jeopardy, ObamaCare, Obamanation, Patriotism, Political Courage, President Obama, Progressivism, Republicans Vs. Tea Party

Seismic Shift

While Senator Ted Cruz (TX) went home to a hero’s welcome, Senator Mike Lee (UT) found himself  in an unpopular quagmire as a result  of  our “Dear Leader”  and “Liar in Chief” Barack Hussein Obama’s unwarranted order to  barricade and close National Parks that resulted in nine UT  counties declaring an economic  state of emergency.

This just goes to prove that the price of freedom is not free and that  a few of our “Washington Patriots” will have to pay a price. One of the things that Progressives understand is  is that in today’s society,  sacrifice for the greater good is a virtue that has been on the wane which allows them to exploit political circumstances  without much fear of  repercussions.

Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee placed their careers and fortunes on the line because they understood that their sacrifice was necessary to safeguard the future of America, their families and generations to come.

Even now, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are excoriated by the leadership in their own party as much as from the   Obamanite pinheads. Meanwhile, because of the sunlight brought to bear by these two patriots, even the Democrats are beginning to understand the physical and economic devastation that lurks in the future from Obamacare.

Did Karl Rove Really Surrender to the Tea Party or is He Just Posturing?

February 6, 2013 in GOP in Retreat, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Tea Party

Rep-TPDid Karl Rove Really Surrender to the Tea Party or is He Just Posturing? Last  Monday Tea Party Patriots blasted Rove with a press Release that stated:

 Rove’s Republicanism a Failure; 

Waste of Donors’ Money

Top Down, Insider Party Planning is Antithetical to Conservatism

WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest tea party organization, blasted Karl Rove’s attempt to control local and state primaries with his new elitist, Washington insider group that suggests it will pick the winning and losing candidates in local races.

“Karl Rove blew hundreds of millions on losing candidates in 2012 and now he’s hitting up donors to give to a new entity that presumes to pick winners and losers in local Republican races,” said Jenny Beth Martin, National Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots.

“Instead of returning to conservative principles, Rove and the consultant class are pouring millions into picking off conservative leaders.  Watering down conservative ideas is not a winning strategy.

“It was Karl Rove’s ‘big government’ policies in the Bush Administration that led to the skyrocketing government spending and the economic disaster the country now finds itself in.  Now, he expects top donors to invest in his project.  Now, he presumes to tell Americans who they should vote for in primaries, when his own track record is not one of success.

“The Tea Party and the conservative movement stand on principles based on the founder’s vision of limited government.  The consultant class has been on the wrong side of history and it is time for conservatives to wake-up and stop funding their sabotage of conservatism.”

Tea Party Patriots is a national grassroots coalition with more than 3,400 locally organized chapters and more than 15 million supporters nationwide. Tea Party Patriots is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. Visit Tea Party Patriots online at www.TeaPartyPatriots.org.

And today we have the following Article from Tea Party Nation that echos the same sentiments:

Karl Rove Surrenders

Karl Rove surrenders

 

Karl Rove’s war against the Tea Party is over.  At least for the moment.  Rove made headlines by announcing a new group to vet Republican candidates for office and presumably try to kill Tea Party challengers to the GOP establishment.

Suddenly, Rove surrendered.

What happened?

He saw the power of the Tea Party movement.

On February 2nd, the New York Times reported that Rove was working with big Republican donors to stop “Far right and Tea Party candidates” from being nominated.

The Tea Party already views Rove as a poster child for the Republican Establishment and one of the people who deserves the most blame for the rise of Barack Obama.

Rove’s comments were like adding gasoline to fire.

The Tea Party immediately went to war with Rove.  My article on Rove was quoted in a number of news outlets.  Other major conservative sites such as Breitbart and WND went after Rove as well.

There are many things you can say about Karl Rove, but he is not a fool.

He saw the Tea Party was rising against him and his position was indefensible.

So Rove went on Sean Hannity’s show last night and surrendered.

Rove said, “I don’t want a fight,” and proceeded to show the Tea Party candidates he allegedly supported in 2010 and 2012.

Rove has backed down and now this issue will fade away.

But does anyone believe Rove really wants Tea Party candidates to win?

Not a chance.

Like I said, Rove is no fool.  Sun Tzu advised the wise man knows when to fight and when not to fight.  Rove knew this was not the time to fight.    It was a fight he would not win.

Rove will choose his battlefield and his battlefield is not in the bright light of public opinion.  Rove works behind the scenes.  This is why I do not trust him.

I said a couple of days ago that Rove is the poster child for the crony consultants that plague the GOP.

The Republican Party must change because if it does not change, all it will offer us is Jeb Bush in 2016 and the Republicans will keep their losing streak alive.  Rove will be in the thick of things pushing Jeb Bush or one of the other RINOs.

Given his track record in 2012, no one with any sense at all should give him a dime.

The greater issue for 2014 and 2016 is not opposing Rove.  One of the things I have learned is if you spend a lot of time opposing someone or something, you cannot win.

We need a Tea Party version of Crossroads GPS.  We need a major donor base that can work with Tea Parties across the nation to help get conservatives elected.    The beauty of working with Tea Party groups is that we know how to be very efficient with money.  This is a skill born of necessity.

Rove spent over $300 million last year on the election and did not even make an impact.  If a fraction of that money had gone to Tea Party groups, we could have made a huge difference.  Remember, a shift of 400,000 votes in four states would have meant that today the media would be in mourning that Barack Obama was now in retirement in Hawaii.

This is one of our tasks for 2014 and 2016.  We cannot ignore the role money plays in helping elect good candidates and we cannot pretend we are so pure that we should not use money.  You don’t show up to a gunfight with a knife and in politics you need money to win.

As for Rove, maybe he should consider routing some of his money through Tea Party groups.

It would certainly improve his winning percentage.

Read the story and comments at:  http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/karl-rove-surrenders

 

[subscribe2]

The GOP Seminar in Surrender

December 5, 2012 in America's Collapse, Congress, Debt Crisis, Fiscal Cliff, Mitt Romney, Obama-Nomics, Obama's America 2016, Obamanation, Paul Ryan, Political Deception, President Obama, Redistribution of Wealth, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Speaker John Boehner, Taxiation with Representation

[Boehner and the Republicans have Caved!- Remember “The play’s the thing”]

The GOP Seminar in Surrender

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

SOS

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, this morning there was a joint press conference that featured the so-called Republican leadership of John Boehner and Eric Cantor and about 15 other people that were standing there. I don’t know why, but they were smiling. And what we got today was a seminar on how to surrender. It was weak. The Republicans have conceded the language. They have conceded the silly language of baseline budgeting. I think it’s time for a re-teaching of what baseline budgeting is, because until that’s addressed, all of this is smoke and mirrors. All of this fiscal cliff stuff, deficit reduction talk, there isn’t any.There aren’t any spending cuts, even if they claim there are because of the current services baseline. All there will ever be until that’s fixed is cuts in the rate of growth of spending.But there won’t be any real spending cuts. And the Republicans showed today that they’re not even interested in it. And now they’re ceding the language. So now deductions are loopholes. You know what that sets up? That sets up the premise that 100% of income is subject to taxation and that everything that we might deduct from our overall gross earnings is a loophole, not a deduction, not a legitimate deduction. They just gave that away by conceding on the language here. A loophole is not a deduction, but it has become one.

I mean, stop and think. When you think of a loophole in the tax law, what do you think of? You think of an unintended error that allows people to get away without paying their taxes. That’s what you think a loophole is. Well, sorry. Now a standard, legal itemized deduction and everyone one of them have become loopholes. And such, they are subject to elimination. So now the premise of 100% taxation, the premise is now on the table. And all that means is that all money is Washington’s, and what we end up with is totally up to their discretion and their big-heartedness or mean-heartedness, what have you.

This seminar in surrender today also –– we got the sound bites coming up, you’ll hear it — validated the false premise that confiscating additional private property will result in greater tax revenue going forward. The Republicans have just given in. They have compromised, what have you, on the premise that raising taxes on the rich will fix the problem. They have conceded that the problem exists in part because the rich aren’t paying their fair share. They must feel so squished, so defeated, so universally disliked. I think we all had a sense of this. The first few days after the election, you start listening to Republicans from the consultant class to the elected class, all talk about what they had to do to start winning elections. It basically was, “Well, we have to adopt the liberal premise on things without actually saying so. We gotta be open to amnesty, relax our views on abortion. We gotta concede that many of the Tea Party’s a bunch of kooks,” all that.

Well, it turns out that that apparently is exactly what they think they’ve gotta do. Because once you concede the premise that taking private property from people is justified and will actually reduce deficits, ’cause it won’t, it can’t. The only thing that can reduce deficits is two things: economic growth and spending cuts. And nobody has anything on the table that’s gonna promote economic growth, and of course nobody has anything on the table that’s gonna result in any genuinely reduced spending.

You know, if it weren’t for the fact that my expectations going into this were so low to begin with, I’d be really mad. But my expectations on this have been fulfilled. My expectations here thus have made it possible that I’m not blowing a gasket here. I’m sure some of you, contrary to me, probably had high expectations. You probably thought, “Well, we elected the Republicans. They know that they’re the last wall of defense. They’re the firewall.”

Nope.

Some of you, I’m sure, are livid and outraged. Believe me, intellectually I’m with you. Emotionally, my expectations on this were so low that I’m not angry. In fact, they’ve been met. Obama’s gonna end up getting what he wants. We’re using his language. We’re now calling new taxes “revenues.” We have accepted the premise that “new revenues” will result in greater tax receipts going forward. Yeah, let’s listen. Maybe I’m wr… No. I was gonna say, “Maybe I’m wrong.” (laughing)

Here’s Boehner on Capitol Hill, a little press briefing on the fiscal cliff…

BOEHNER: If the president doesn’t agree with, uh, our proposal and our outline, I think he’s got an obligation, uh, to send one to the Congress — and a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress. If you look at the — the plans that the White House have — have talked about thus far, uh, they couldn’t pass either house of the Congress. We’re ready and eager to talk to the president and to work with him to make sure that the American people, uhh, aren’t disadvantaged, uhh, by what’s happening here in Washington.

RUSH: Well, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that Obama doesn’t want deal to with you. He wants to go over the cliff. He doesn’t want to deal with you, except to the extent he can get to you concede to him. He has no desire to deal with you. Here’s Eric Cantor…

CANTOR: They don’t want to sit down with the president! We want to talk specifics. We put an offer on the table now. He has out-of-hand rejected that. Where are the specifics? Where are the discussions? Nothing is going on. Meanwhile, the people of this country are the ones that suffer. So we ask the president, “Sit down with us, be serious about the specifics of spending, so we can stop the wasteful spending in Washington and finally address the problem.”

RUSH: Now, I… It’s just the same old lingo. Those two bites do not feature the ceding of the language that I heard (i.e., “deductions” being “loopholes”). But again, in that sense, it’s not just these guys. I mean, the Republican Party made that part of their presidential campaign. You know, Romney was suggesting that we could “raise” $1.2 trillion or something by eliminating deductions and so forth. By the way, I have it here somewhere.

Obama, back in 2011, said, “No way,” or… Nah, where did he…? I thought I had it right here at the top. I’m sorry, I don’t. Obama has contradicted himself. Whatever he’s saying today, he said just the exact opposite in 2011 about deductions and so forth. Which is instructive and informative only in the sense that whatever he’s saying now doesn’t matter and can’t be trusted. He’s out there saying, “The economy’s poised to take off!”

Sorry, the math doesn’t work out. It just doesn’t. It just isn’t there. Let me take a break here. I’ve got to anyway. I want to find this point of contradiction with Obama. There’s a lot of other interesting stuff out there today. Folks, I’m sorry, but this stuff, frankly… I don’t want to disappoint you, but as I said: My expectations going into it were not very high anyway. So I’m not all that surprised at the way this is shaping up and the way it’s gonna end up going down.

I’ll be shocked, pleasantly so, to be wrong if indeed I am.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, I found it. You know where I put it? I’ve got three pages here on Ryan and Rubioand the speeches they made at the Jack Kemp Foundation. The Kemp Foundation has an annual dinner to celebrate Kemp. They met at the Mayflower Hotel last night and it was obvious… Both Rubio and Paul Ryan, in their speeches, did everything they could to distance themselves from the 47% comment that Romney made.

That really has got the Republican Party shaken up.

I mean, everybody in it is flabbergasted.

Bobby Jindal, Rubio, now Paul Ryan. They all are just flabbergasted over that, and they think it’s one of the reasons Romney lost. So they’re all making tracks to distance themselves from that whole 47% comment that Romney made and the premise that is behind it. Both their speeches, you could say, were an attempt to get out from under the legacy of that comment and make sure they have no contact with it, no relationship with it whatsoever.

They don’t agree with it, don’t want any part of it.

We’ve got sound bites of both of their speeches coming up as well, as the program unfolds.

Anyway, I had put this story about Obama underneath that, and here he is: “In negotiations on the looming fiscal cliff, Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising tax rates on the top 2%.” It was the top 1%, by the way. Now it’s the top 2%. Remember he started out wanting $800 billion? After he won the election, he started flexing his muscles and jacked that up to $1.6 trillion.

And Boehner has come along and offered $800 billion with the premise of eliminating “loopholes.” I can’t tell you how the ceding of the language hurts. You know, the language matters. Words mean things, and to let the left once have another word and total co-opt it and destroy its real meaning… We’ve just allowed it to happen here. So now every legitimate deduction is a “loophole.”

From now on going forward, the mortgage interest deduction is a “loophole.” The charitable deduction is a “loophole.” The earned income tax credit’s a “loophole” now. Well, you know what low-information voters think a “loophole” is. You know what people who file a one-page tax form think a “loophole” is. And the vast majority of Americans file a one page, the 1040-EZ form.

“How much did you make? How much will you give us? Here’s what here taking. Send it in.” And they’re done with it. They don’t know itemized deductions or the earned income tax credit. All they know is what they make and what they pay — which, in many cases, income tax-wise isn’t much. But they hear the word “loophole” and they think tax cheat. And so now every legit, by law, itemized deduction is considered a “loophole” for the express purpose of eliminating them.

Well, this is our private property we’re talking about. Our money is as much our private property as anything else that we have earned and that we own. And Boehner has said (summarized), “All right, I’ll give you $800 billion in new revenue.” They live in this world. They think, because of the election, that the American people want new taxes and want new “revenue.” I’ll boil it down to the essence.

It’s clear that they have no interest in teaching conservatism. It’s clear they have no interest in defending it or standing up for it or explaining it, even. And I think one of the reasons is that many of them really aren’t conservatives. It used to be that “Republican Party” and “conservative” meant the same thing. I don’t think they do anymore. It’s been that way for a while. But they don’t explain it. They don’t take the opportunity to contrast it because they don’t know it.

It’s like they or some consultants convince them that all they gotta do to win these precious independents or win the votes of people who are voting against them is go ahead and give them what they want, which is taxes on the rich. And “the rich” is now defined as $200,000 a year. Anyway, “In negotiations on this looming fiscal cliff, Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising taxes top 2%. In a Bloomberg interview yesterday, Obama said, “It’s just a matter of math.

“You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … [T]hat’s not a realistic option.” Yet it was just over a year ago, in the same negotiations with Republicans going on now on the debt reduction deal that never came to fruition, the White House proposed doing just that. They proposed $800 billion, raising revenue, by closing loopholes and deductions.

Yesterday Obama says, “You can’t do it! There’s not that kind of money there.”

A year ago he was all for it!

Well, how do you negotiate with somebody like this?

You don’t!

And then why do you beg somebody like this to come sit at the table with you and give you a proposal?

Take it to him, for crying out loud!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, here is what Obama said in July of 2011. This was during another such negotiation as this. It wasn’t a fiscal cliff negotiation, but it was a debt reduction deal. Debt limit, all that. And here’s what Obama said in July of 2011. “What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.”

He said that a year ago. Now, he did not mean it. Remember, July ’11, it’s reelection time in their mind. He didn’t mean it. He doesn’t mean lower tax rates. He would never do it, but he talked about it. The important thing is, the take-away here is that in July of 2011 Barack Obama articulated the very deal Boehner has offered. After winning reelection last month, Obama said, to hell with that, and jacked up his demand to $1.6 trillion. He wants the Clinton tax rates back, which is close to 40% on the upper earners.

Yesterday Obama said: “It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … That’s not a realistic option.”

Let me read these quotes again, back-to-back.

Obama, July 2011: “Give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.” That’s July last year.

Yesterday: “It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … That’s not a realistic option.”

Okay, so if you’re Boehner and Cantor and these guys, which Obama do you deal with here? My point is you don’t deal. This is like trying to get out of quicksand, herd cats, or swim in Jell-O. Whatever analogy that you want. Now, here’s Boehner. This is also from the press conference this morning.

BOEHNER: This week we made a good-faith offer to avert the fiscal crisis.

RUSH: Yeah.

BOEHNER: And that offer included significant spending cuts and reforms, and it included additional revenue.

RUSH: Yeah.

BOEHNER: And frankly it was the balanced approach that the president’s been asking for. Now we need a response from the White House.

RUSH: He’s accepted the premise. This is my point. Okay, spending cuts will never happen, additional revenue, why don’t we just call it taxes? “We’ve agreed with the president to raise taxes $800 billion.” Why not just say that? Instead of this “new revenue” garbage. We’ve already lost the word “investment.” “Investment” now means tax increase. “Investment” means more private property of yours taken away. If somebody could convince me that our budget problems were because we’re undertaxed then maybe I’d have a different view, but it’s not. We do not have a taxation problem. We have got a wildly out-of-control spending problem. But we’ve just accepted the premise.

By the way, the new revenue that Boehner offered was $800 billion. Boehner offered exactly what Obama asked for last July, and Obama says, “Well, the math doesn’t work out on that.” I’ll tell you what it reminds me of. My first ever contract in this business was in 1986. I started in this business 1967. So essentially it was 20 years before I had a contract. It was a big deal to have contract. Not everybody did. It was a sign that you had advanced climbing the ladder and all that. I didn’t have an agent. I don’t have an agent now. Why give somebody 20%, 5%, whatever, when I can do it myself?

At any rate, I am, quote, unquote, “in negotiations” with the general manager. And we set a meeting. We’re in the middle of the talks, as it is said. We have a meeting scheduled for 7:30 one morning. My program starts at nine. I show up at 7:30, the general manager is in his office on the phone, puts his call on hold, said, “What are you doing here?”

“I’m here for our meeting.”

“We don’t have a meeting.”

“Yeah, we have a contract…”

“No, there’s no meeting.”

“What are you talking about?”

He started thumbing through his calendar. “I don’t have anything on the calendar here. I don’t have time for you today.”

I ran out, I said, “What the hell just happened?” It was a typical ploy. I didn’t know what was going on. We all learn as you go through these things. It didn’t take me long to learn what had happened, but at the moment I’m thinking, “Did I get something wrong?” But what had happened was I had been put totally on the defensive. And what had really been conveyed was, “I don’t care about you. You’re not important. Why do you think I’ve got a meeting with you? Who do you think you are?” That was the message.

Well, that’s all that’s happening here. A year ago Obama had made the comment to Boehner. A year ago, $800 billion, we can raise that if we close loopholes. So Boehner offered it this year. “What are you talking about? The math doesn’t work out. I don’t know what you’re talking about.” But to complete the analogy, if I would have acted then like the Republicans are acting today, I woulda walked out of the general manager’s office, I woulda gone on the radio and started crying about it. “What do you mean? Come on, we were supposed to meet. Will you meet with me?” They’re saying, “We’ve submitted a proposal. All we want is the president to react to our proposal. We’ve done what he wanted. Could he just submit a response?”

I don’t know, maybe they don’t know or maybe they don’t understand or they don’t agree that what the president is trying to do is render them irrelevant. There’s a lot of ego attached to positions of power in Washington, and it may well be that if you’re Speaker of the House, it’s inconceivable somebody would want to render you irrelevant, in your own mind. I don’t know. I’ve never been Speaker of the House. But I know egos. I’ve been surrounded by ’em all my life and I have a healthy one myself, that’s in check, by the way, contrary to popular opinion. (laughing)

But, again, we’ve ceded the lingo. We’re now calling tax increases revenue. We’ve agreed $800 billion of revenue. We’re accepting the premise that it’s a tax problem and, yeah, and that it’s a balanced approach. And we’re doing this with a guy that we know has run up the national debt $6 trillion in four years. This guy has added to the national debt more than all the previous presidents combined.

Now, the Republicans also have a history, a behavioral pattern you can predict. They believe Obama won the election, that means he should get his judges and he should get his budget, and that’s what it means. And by the same token, when we win elections… except it never works out that way. You never hear the Democrats adopting our language. You never hear the Democrats abandoning their core beliefs and what they believe. In fact, when they lose, you’d be hard-pressed to know it by watching the media and listening to the Democrats each and every day after they lose an election.

Now, you notice that in July of 2011, Obama said that we could raise $1.2 trillion by eliminating loopholes. That’s 50% more than Boehner says they could raise, $800 billion. Obama said you could get $1.2 trillion closing loopholes in July of 2011. So Boehner said, “Okay, well, here’s $800 billion.” Obama said, “No, no, no, math doesn’t work out. You can’t do that. I mean, that would mean eliminating the charitable deduction,” when in fact that’s what he wants to do. You know, I guess my point is if we’re gonna let him have his way, do it. Don’t compromise yourself in the process. And don’t make it look like his way is also yours.

But look, that’s just me, folks, I’m just a guy on the radio here. I’ve never done their job. It’s easy to throw spitballs here from the peanut gallery. But there is a pattern. There is a pattern that’s undeniable here in every debt deal that’s negotiated, be it the debt limit, be it this fiscal cliff, be it the budget. There’s a pattern, and it always involves us relaxing what we believe, due to the premise that we think we’re hated and so we gotta do stuff to make people like us. I still think that’s at the root of a lot of this, plus the fact that they don’t know conservatism. They really aren’t conservatives, and thus taking the occasion, the opportunity to teach it, to be instructive, is really not relevant, either.

Let’s take a brief time-out. We’ll be back, and — there’s other stuff happening out there. We’ll get to it when we get back.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To prove my point, CNN is overjoyed. Here is their headline for their report on the Boehner press conference. You ready? Quote: “The Rich Will Pay More in Taxes, Boehner Says.” There you have it. And so you see, the Republicans have now agreed with the premise that the problem is that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. We have just agreed with Obama’s campaign premise.

The rich aren’t paying their fair share!

The Republicans have agreed to this, they’ve recognized this, and Boehner says those days are over. “The rich will pay more in taxes.” Now, some of you might be saying, “But, Rush! But, Rush! You know, the media would say that no matter what.” Nope. Not in this case. Not if Boehner and the Republicans had steadfastly opposed raising taxes on anyone. “But, Rush! But, Rush! They can’t win that.”

That’s not the point. The point is what you stand for when this is all said and done. You have something to fall back on and go back to, in order to move forward. We’ve just given away something that used to be part of our brand. “That’s right, Rush, and the brand is what’s killing us. Republicans love the rich, and Boehner knows it.” That could be at the root of this, too. It could be.

These guys, elected Republicans, believe that the average American thinks that the only people the average Republican cares about are the rich. “Let’s get rid of that! Let’s raise taxes on them. To hell with it! I’m sick and tired of being called a friend of the rich.” When in fact it’s Obama who has all the crony capitalist deals with all the rich guys. Could be that. Whatever, it’s defensive. And whatever, it’s reactionary.

It certainly isn’t proactive.

From the article: “Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded on Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.” So you see, in the Drive-Bys now we got the framework for a deal! “Finally we’re gonna blame the rich. We should have been doing that all along, and now Boehner’s finally agreed. Okay, now we can move forward.”

They’re blaming the rich.

The last group of people with any money in the private sector have now, officially, been targeted.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, there it is up on CNN; “Obama Demanding Tax Hike on Wealthy,” and of course the Republicans agreed to do that today and actually earlier in the week, by reducing “loopholes.” But Obama’s not gonna be content with that. He wants the rates to go up, too — make no mistake — and they will. Here. I’ve got Obama in his own words, back-to-back. Let’s go July 22nd at the White House. This is Obama, a press briefing on the debt ceiling talks at that time…

OBAMA JULY 22, 2012: What we said was, uh, “Give us 1.2 trillion in additional revenues,” which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions, and engaging in a tax-reform process that could have lowered rates generally by broadening the base.

RUSH: That’s last year, July of last year. “Yeah, we could raise $1.2 trillion just by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.” Here’s Obama yesterday…

OBAMA DECEMBER 4, 2012: It’s not me being stubborn. It’s not me being partisan. It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions.

RUSH: Yeah, you did.

OBAMA DECEMBER 4, 2012: But a lot of your viewers understand, uh, uh, that the only way to do that would be if you completely eliminated, for example, charitable deductions. Well, i-i-i-if you eliminate charitable deductions, that means every hospital and university and not-for-profit agency across the country would suddenly find themselves, uh, on the verge of collapse. So that’s not a realistic option.

RUSH: Yeah?

Last year it was!

Last year it was a totally realistic option, right out of Obama’s mouth.

This year, ain’t no way. You’d have to eliminate ’em all. And then he says, “Yeah, and what’s wrong with that? Hee-hee-hee-hee. I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for hospitals! I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for universities. I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for nonprofits.” That’s what he wants, anyway.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Doug in Seattle. I’m glad you waited. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hi.

CALLER: Good morning, Rush, from sunny liberty sicko Seattle.

RUSH: Yes, sir. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Well, 23, 24-year-listener, first-time caller, first time I’ve ever called a radio show in my life.

RUSH: Oh, I’m honored.

CALLER: Got through to Snerdley on like the third ring, so unbelievable.

RUSH: Well, I’m glad you made it. Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Thanks. Well, I agree that any tax hikes by Obama or the Republicans for that matter is not gonna solve anything, but I have an idea for a very simple plan, very understandable by even the American people. I know that’s a tough nut to crack, and could put Obama in a bind. And here’s the plan. Are you ready?

RUSH: I’m ready.

CALLER: Very simple. You redefine middle class to about four to 500 K. That gives the people in the high cost areas, New York, California, Washington state, you know, which really is middle class in a lot of those places, gets them into the middle class. You lower the tax rates for the middle class down to 15 or 20%.

RUSH: They already are.

CALLER: The maximum you’re gonna pay is 15 or 20. If you want to make it lower for people in the lower middle class, or lower class, that’s great, no problem. And here’s the biggest thing. Any savings by the middle class, capital gains and gains they make, capital gains, dividends, interest if they have money in a bank or they own a bond —

RUSH: Okay —

CALLER: — anything they make in savings is tax-free, no tax ever.

RUSH: I’ve got to take a break here, but I’ve actually thought of something similar to that. Be back in just a second.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: If there was no tax on savings, like our previous caller said, you’d have to get out of the way for all the capital flooding into this country. Why do you think people go offshore, is to escape this kind of stuff. There are clearly all kinds of ways to build up this economy. Obama’s not interested and the Republicans ought not participate with him in his ideas.

 

END TRANSCRIPT

Read more at:       RushLimbaugh.com!

 

The Coming Republican Fiscal Cliff Betrayal

November 29, 2012 in America's Collapse, Bail Out, Budget, Congress, Fiscal Cliff, Freedom, Government, Liberty, Political Deception, Politics, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Socialism, Tax Hike

Republicans and Taxes

 

False congressional fiscal conservatives begin to reveal their true selves.

Andrew Napolitano | November 29, 2012

 

When President Obama won re-election last month by a larger margin than even his most fervent supporters had expected, though with fewer popular votes than he received in 2008, most commentators initially opined that not much had changed in Washington. The president would remain in the White House for another four years, the Democrats would keep control of the Senate, and the House would stay in Republican hands. Most Republicans re-elected to both houses of Congress had publicly pledged not to vote to raise taxes under any circumstances. And most of those Republicans have adhered to that promise—until now.

RELATED ARTICLES

David Harsanyi| 11.29.12

A. Barton Hinkle| 11.28.12

Ira Stoll| 11.26.12

MORE ARTICLES BYAndrew Napolitano

11.15.12 7:00 am

11.08.12 7:00 am

11.01.12 7:00 am

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, the false congressional fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party began to reveal their true selves. Led by the Republican presidential standard bearer in 2008, Arizona Sen. John McCain, at least a half-dozen Republican members of Congress have renounced their public promises never to vote to raise taxes. In the case ofC Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., Congressman and Senator-elect Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., they had restated their promises, directly or indirectly, as recently as last month during their successful campaigns. Did they blatantly dupe the voters?  Did they genuinely change their minds? Did they ever sincerely accept the pro-freedom anti-tax logic?

The Founders certainly embraced the pro-freedom anti-tax logic, as they gave us a Constitution that barred the federal government from imposing any direct tax on any persons. That was part of the genius of the document. If the feds really needed cash, they’d need to tax the states. If the states were feeling over-taxed, they could block federal taxes in the Senate, where for 135 years senators were chosen by state governments as delegates to the Senate, rather than elected by voters. This procedure, too, was part of the Founders’ genius. It came about in order to assure a place at the federal table for the states, many of which were older than the federal government and all of which retained their sovereignty when they voluntarily joined the union. This procedure for choosing senators was also a check on the growth of the federal government.

Those constitutional provisions were cast aside during the progressive era about 100 years ago, when, during a period of just five years, the Constitution was amended so that the states lost their place at the federal table and Congress could tax incomes, and the feds got a new printing press for cash in the form of the Federal Reserve.

I have described this dreadful time in our history in my new book, Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. They did so by inverting the concept of limited government. With the exception of Abraham Lincoln, every president from George Washington to TR’s predecessor, William McKinley, accepted the truism that the federal government is one of limited powers, and it may only in engage in behavior that is specifically authorized by the Constitution or reasonably inferable therefrom.

Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who ran against each other and who hated each other, turned this value on its head. They jointly argued that the Constitution does not mean what it says and is not the Supreme Law of the Land as it states. They held that the federal government can do whatever it wishes unless those wishes are expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

For 100 years, the Republican Party resisted the progressive onslaught. As recently as this past election just a few weeks ago, Republicans argued that increased tax revenue, whether from increased tax rates or from decreased tax deductions, effectively moves wealth from the productive sector and delivers it to the consuming sector—which would be the government.

This argument is really one of the basic laws of economics, so why are Republicans now rejecting it? I suspect that they are drunk with power and have concluded that they—just like Obama did—can assure their re-elections, their continued possession of governmental power, if they deliver bigger pieces of the federal pie to the folks back home. Stated differently, they are unwilling to address a system that soon will deliver more in entitlement payments and interest payments on government debt than it collects in revenue by reducing the entitlements, shrinking the government, cutting the debt, returning to the confines of the Constitution and letting hardworking Americans retain what is theirs. Instead, they now want to raise federal taxes.

They would be unwise to try to pull this off—and would be wise to recall recent history. The last Republican president to pledge “Read my lips. NO NEW TAXES” and then violate that promise was dispatched by the voters to a hotel suite in Houston, rather than to four more years in the White House. I bet George Herbert Walker Bush today would stick to his pledge.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent isTheodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.

The Tea Party Influence – The New Faces Of The GOP

August 26, 2012 in 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, America's Collapse, Audit the Fed, Bail Out, Budget, Constitutional, Debt Crisis, Economic Deception, Economy, Election, Freedom, Gas Price, Immigration, President Obama, Presidential Candidates, Presidential Candidates on the Issues, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Tax Hike, United States Constitution, US Sovereignty

Tea Party activists may keep low profile at first GOP convention
By Cristina Corbin Published August 25, 2012 FoxNews.com
Next week marks the Tea Party’s first Republican convention.
But despite its role in helping the party win the House majority in 2010, the movement is expected to keep a relatively low profile inside the arena, activists say. Some Tea Party groups are deliberately giving the party space to spotlight its nominee, though others claim they’re being snubbed by GOP leaders.

[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8P59bHnRz8′]

The Tea Party, of course, is composed of thousands of different groups, each with its own causes. A Tea Party scene could erupt in Tampa at any moment. But unlike some other factions heading into the once-every-four-years affair, the Tea Party does not appear to have a concerted agenda.
Gop Platform Emerging Draws Praise and Criticism
[yframe url=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShUpHGnccos’]

Instead, the movement may just settle for speaking roles for favored politicians and shout-outs in the platform.

The four-day convention in Tampa will kick off Monday with speeches from Tea Party favorites, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Senate candidate Ted Cruz of Texas. The party’s draft platform that will be voted on includes many of the conservative policies championed by the movement.

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based Tea Party-aligned think tank started by former House GOP leader Dick Armey, announced Wednesday that nearly all of its “Freedom Platform” has been adopted by the GOP, including a repeal of President Obama’s health care law, an end to tax hikes and an audit of the Federal Reserve.

“They were very open to our ideas and willing to work with us,” FreedomWorks vice president Russ Walker said of the platform-writing committee chaired by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven and Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn.
The Tea Party’s visibility beyond that, though, may be minimal at the convention, activists say. The expectation has drawn mixed reactions from the loosely organized anti-tax movement.

“They like the work we’re doing, but they’re afraid because they don’t want to turn off independents with the Tea Party brand,” said Todd Cefaratti of the group, TheTeaParty.Net. The group has filed a petition called “Let Them Speak,” urging the Republican National Committee to allow Tea Party leaders to speak at the convention.

“You get these moderate Republicans and they say ‘I don’t want to offend Grandma Independent,’” Cefaratti said. TheTeaParty.Net is a chief sponsor of the “Unity Rally 2012” to be held at a Tampa church on the eve of the convention, featuring speeches by Tea Party darlings and former presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain.

“It’s our response to a lot of our leaders being shut out of the convention,” Cefaratti said.
Another group, The Kitchen Table Patriots, also expressed resentment over the Tea Party’s representation at the convention.

“The amount of effort that the GOP went through to make sure that no Tea Party person went to the convention was unbelievable,” said Anastasia Przybylski, one of the group’s co-founders. “I did not see it coming.”

Przybylski’s counterpart, Ana Puig, claims the GOP in Bucks County, Pa., spent $70,000 to derail her run to become a delegate at the convention. Puig is now paying her way to go as an “honorary delegate,” she said, meaning “I can do everything except vote.”

“What is the convention going to accomplish except that Mitt Romney will formally be the candidate? It’s a shoulder-rubbing event,” Puig said.

Puig, however, said she is happy the Tea Party’s platform has been well-received by the RNC, adding that she’s hopeful “we would see a trickle down effect to the GOP on the local level,” she said.

“I am looking at this trip as a way for us, Tea Party, and GOP to try to mend some fences and move side by side to secure a big win in November.”

But not everyone within the movement believes Tea Party leaders should be on prominent display during the convention.

“This is the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan show and it should be,” said Sal Russo of the Tea Party Express, one of the most visible factions of the movement. “We don’t have an agenda beyond that.”

“I would consider this an extremely successful convention for the Tea Party,” Russo said, noting that Romney was always among his group’s top three picks for a presidential nominee. “We thought we shouldn’t try and intrude on a convention that we’re happy with.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, echoed Russo’s sentiment, characterizing the convention as “more style than substance.”

“The purpose is to legally nominate their candidate,” Martin told FoxNews.com. “Tea Party Patriots are far more concerned about what laws are going to be passed than what they’re doing at a party in Florida and Charlotte.”

“As long as our values are represented, we are making an effect. What we will be happy about is when bills are signed into law that repeal the president’s health care law, and when the budget is balanced and when we’re on the road to recovery,” she said. “The convention is just a very small step along the way.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/25/tea-party-movement-role-republican-convention/#ixzz24hnWubRea>

Sarah Palin Hints at 3rd Party Option if Republicans Fail to Deliver on their Platform Planks

August 26, 2012 in Politics, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, RomneyRyan, Tea Party

Logo
  • Sarah Palin says a third party option not out of the realm of possibility

    by Bratton | August 25, 2012

    Sarah Palin said Saturday a third party option is not beyond the realm of possibility.

    Palin, a former Alaska governor and the GOP 2008 vice presidential nominee, on “America’s News Headquarters” thanked President Obama for his service, but said now it’s time go. She says Gov. Mitt Romney deserves a chance.

    “If you don’t know who you dislike or like more, (Obama or Romney), go ahead and give Romney a shot. We don’t want to repeat the failed policies of Obama. President Obama doesn’t get free market or American Exceptionalism,” she said.

    Despite helping Republicans win control of the House in 2010, the Tea Party has taken a more low-key approach this election cycle.

    Gov. Palin, who now is widely considered a “Tea Party Activist,” says don’t count the movement out. She says the patriots are hard at work around the country.

    “The Tea Party is a grassroot of independent Americans. They know that they are taxed enough already. They want to shrink government and make it smarter and make it as less relevant to us in our lives as possible,” Palin added.

    When asked if she would consider creating a third party if neither Gov. Romney nor President Obama would budge from their current positions on a variety of issues, Palin left open the door.

    “Look what happened in the mid 1800’s. The Whig party went away and the Republican Party surfaced. Because the electorate got sick and tired of the party fighting for power and not doing the will of the people.”

    Palin went on to say history could repeat itself.

    “If history is an indication it is a possibility,” she said. “If the Republicans don’t remember what the planks in the platform represent … that is opportunity to prosper and thrive in the most exceptional nation in the world. We do that through a free market. If the Republicans become like the liberal left and democrats, I wouldn’t be surprised if history didn’t repeat itself.”

    By Regina Bratton

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/08/25/sarah-palin-says-third-party-option-not-out-realm-possibility#ixzz24h63h5wB

“The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated”?

August 1, 2012 in Congress, Election, Freedom, Politics, Republicans Vs. Tea Party

Headlines proclaiming that the, “Tea Party ‘Is Dead’: How the Movement Fizzled in 2012…” are greatly exaggerated as demonstrated by Ted Cruz’s amazing victory over Texas’s powerful establishment GOP Lt. Governor, David Dewhurst. Cruz’s victory should give pause to our own MAGOP Establishment headed by freshman Bob Maginn. Maginn recently orchestrated the disenfranchisement of a majority of lawfully elected delegates to the Republican National Convention by chicanery and deceit.

Ted Cruz wins Texas Senate primary in a victory for tea party

By Paul Kane,

Onetime long shot Ted Cruz won the Republican nomination in a U.S. Senate race in Texas on Tuesday, providing tea party activists with renewed momentum in what they said was their biggest victory of the year.

Cruz, a 41-year-old former Texas solicitor general and a first-time candidate for elective office, is the tea party’s first bona fide star of the 2012 campaign: a charismatic speaker with an up-by-the-bootstraps biography who upended the Republican establishment in the nation’s largest red state.

With all precincts reporting, Cruz won 13 percent more votes thanwho spent freely from his vast personal fortune and had endorsements from most of the state’s influential Republicans, including Gov. Rick Perry.

Tea party leaders hailed Cruz’s 56.8 percent to 43.2 percent victory as a sign of the movement’s political maturation. After bursting onto the scene in 2010, the tea party this year suffered defeats in a few Senate primaries, appeared divided in several GOP contests, and before Tuesday mustered just one clear victory — in Indiana, where state Treasurer Richard Mourdock ousted 36-year Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), whose missteps contributed to his primary defeat.

Following Mourdock’s victory in early May, conservative activists mapped out a strategy to emphasize the Lone Star State. The first step was keeping Dewhurst below the 50 percent threshold in a multi-candidate primary on May 29, triggering a runoff. That gave them two months to mobilize for a one-on-one contest.

Cruz’s win, they believe, could be a springboard to victories in other primaries this month.

“Texas built on Indiana,” said Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, a Washington-based group that helps finance conservative anti-establishment candidates. “Activists all over the country are watching Texas. We’ve kind of nationalized the race.”

The next big Senate primary will come Tuesday in Missouri, where a trio of conservatives are fighting for tea party support.

The following week, Wisconsin will provide another clear contest between the establishment — former governor Tommy Thompson — and outsiders. Most conservatives, including Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), have thrown their support to former congressman Mark Neumann, but some have lined up behind investor Eric Hovde.

In late August, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) — a longtime hero to anti-spending groups — will try to fight off a challenge from businessman Wil Cardon, who is spending millions of his own money trying to portray himself as a true outsider.

A conservative state

Cruz — whose father immigrated from Cuba in 1957 with $100 sewn into his underwear — is almost assured of joining the Senate. Given Texas’s Republican tilt, Democrats have not put many resources into the general-election contest to replace retiring Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R). Former state representative Paul Sadler won the Democratic primary on Tuesday night and will face Cruz in November.

Like Lugar, Hutchison hails from the more mainstream wing of the GOP, and their potential replacements are almost certain to lean much further right.

If and when Mourdock and Cruz get here, the caucus becomes more conservative,” said Paul, whose 2010 primary victory over Kentucky’s Republican establishment was the tea party’s first major win.

In 2010, the movement had its share of ephemeral victories, nominating some candidates who lost general-election battles. Democrats think that pattern could play out again, and in Indiana they are already running ads against Mourdock, who on Tuesday attended the weekly Senate GOP luncheon and mended fences with Lugar in an effort to rally establishment support.

Republicans in Washington, who stayed publicly neutral in the Texas race, acknowledged that the tea party is still viable, but they hoped that its energy can be steered into supporting presidential challenger Mitt Romney and Republican congressional candidates.

“Part of what it says is, people are mad at Washington, D.C. They’re mad at what they perceive to be the establishment, and they want some change. And I certainly understand why,” said Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Paul, along with several other tea-party-aligned Republican senators, stumped for Cruz at a rally of thousands in Austin last week. “The narrative that the tea party is not a big deal and that it’s over, I think that’s a wrong narrative,” he said Tuesday.

A Texas-size win

Kibbe said Cruz’s win is the biggest this year for tea party activists, calling it “an 11 and Indiana a 10” on the scale of importance. The reason, according to Kibbe and other tea party leaders, is because of the sheer size of Texas.

In the 2010 primaries, the movement fared best in smaller states without large media markets — places such as Delaware, where neophyte Christine O’Donnell used grass-roots support to sweep past a 30-year veteran of state GOP politics. Just 50,000 people voted in that primary. The tea party’s feat was repeated in other small-turnout states, such as Nevada and Alaska.

This year, tea party leaders sought mostly pure conservatives but also candidates with more political and professional experience, aiming to appeal to activists as well as independents in the general election. “You’re not going to see any Christine O’Donnell train wrecks,” Kibbe predicted, noting O’Donnell’s defeat by nearly 20 points in that fall’s election.

Cruz epitomized that effort. Unlike some of the anti-intellectual candidates of the tea party past, he boasted of his undergraduate degree from Princeton University, his national debating championship, his Harvard law degree and his Supreme Court clerkship.

“I think he’s got the pedigree, he’s got all of it,” Paul said. “In fact, we’ve joked that he’s too smart for the Senate to fit in.”

Still, he entered the race a big underdog to Dewhurst, who has served a decade as lieutenant governor, a position that allows him to run the state Senate. Perry, who has been a larger-than-life figure in Texas politics, heartily endorsed his understudy, and Dewhurst poured $16.5 million of his own money into the race.

Strategists said Dewhurst’s campaign was premised on clearing the 50 percent threshold in the May primary, when 1.4 million Republicans voted. Once Cruz and other candidates dragged him to less than 45 percent of that initial ballot, Dewhurst was left Tuesday with an electorate half the size and composed of the most committed conservatives.

 

Read more at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ted-cruz-wins-texas-senate-primary-in-a-victory-for-tea-party/2012/07/31/gJQAW2i5NX_story.html?wprss=rss_congress

Massachusetts May Soon Be the Joke of The Country

November 27, 2011 in Politics, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Scott Brown

When The Elected State Committy Members Vote November 30, 2011

REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Click here for their Contact Info
If We Do Nothing There is no need to select a party in this state Because there will be no Difernce.

Mass Gop Party Chair Election & GOP chair pick Bob Maginn’s wife backs Occupy Boston

It’s Mitt & Scott’s Party Now

  Scott Brown and Mitt Romney, preparing for the 2012  microscope, are installing a faithful friend at the State GOP

Read more: http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/130020-its-mitt-andamp-scotts-party-now/#ixzz1ew10e36s

http://www.votecorevalues.org/

The Massachusetts Tea Party groups along with the Mass Republican Assembly are being targeted.

November 23, 2011 in Politics, Propaganda, Republicans Vs. Tea Party

The Massachusetts Tea Party groups along with the Mass Republican Assembly (actual traditional Republicans) are being targeted because of our effectiveness and impact. An excerpt from an email sent by Celeste Martin,President of the state Federation of Republican Women. Romney supporter and partner in the establishment led RINO infested Mass GOP “leadership”.

Action Needed By you Contact Your REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS  NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Press Release

Massachusetts Republican Assembly Hosts GOP Chair Debate:  Event Sparks Clear Battle Between Conservative Base and Establishment Regulars.

While McNamara Taps Former Candidate Kamal Jain To Head “Financial Transparency Committee” — Maginn Resorts To Funding Threatened State Committee Seats For Vote; Conservative Base Rejects Business As Usual From GOP

Worcester, MA. November 13, 2011:  The Massachusetts Republican Assembly struck a nerve with upper echelons of the Party following Sunday’s GOP Chair debate in Worcester. What started as a vibrant surge of interest in the vacated Chairmanship culminated with two candidates in attendance. Moderator Bill McCarthy (MARA member and State Committeeman) first introduced former candidate for State Auditor, Kamal Jain, who briefly spoke on matters of financial transparency & in-state resources and concluded by formally stepping down, throwing full support to McNamara.

Since Maginn declined to attend, this left Frank McNamara alone to weather the barrage of questions from the four MARA panelists. However, it was a question from the capacity audience regarding Maginn’s $2400 donation to ultra-liberal, Chuck Schumer, that captured the crowd’s emotion and post-debate conversations.

 

I cannot conceive of any set of circumstance under which I would contribute $2400 to Chuck Schumer!”Frank McNamara, GOP Chair Candidate

      When pressed by Assembly panelists on the classic conservative ideals that dominate the group’s interests, McNamara seamlessly navigated questions with prompt unscripted replies that resonated with debate-goers. The mood of voters can best be illustrated in the results of the Straw Poll which yield a single vote for Maginn and remaining votes soundly in favor of Frank McNamara for the next Massachusetts GOP Chairmen. “The results of the Straw Poll clearly indicates that voters are looking for a profound shift away from the Status Quo,” said Steve Aylward, Vice President of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly.

GOP Machine Reacts to Conservative Push

      Merely days after the Worcester event, the differences between the two remaining candidates couldn’t be more obvious. In a leaked email sent to State Committee members only hours before the scheduled candidate reception AND State Committee meeting, Maginn, referring to Committee members facing a challenge in the March election said, “Our team will give you support as one of my key early supporters. Also wanted to let you know I’m looking in to setting up a separate fundraising entity that will provide funding to support State Committee member elections.” Some are calling it a flat out bribe and others say it’s just business as usual, but either way, under represented conservatives are not happy.

 

“As town committees struggle to find the resources to put up websites & get the word out about what they are doing – on the streets, where it counts – it’s a little hard to read that email.” – Kim

     

      The extent of GOP angst circulated quickly as word of ostracized groups bubbles to the surface. Establishment resistance became clear to conservative activists when the Republican Assembly and Massachusetts’ Tea Parties were named in correspondence from State President of the National Federation of Republican Women. “Make sure they take a look at the Massachusetts Republican Assemblies, as they are causing a huge amount of trouble in this state along with the Tea Parties. They are causing trouble with the MAGOP…” – Celeste Wilson

      The winds of profound change are blowing through the Commonwealth as battle lines are drawn between under represented small town conservatives seeking acknowledgment of their values and Party insiders that promise the Status Quo.

      In a memo dated 11/19, State Committeeman and NFRA Northeast Regional Coordinator, Mike Potaski, urged interim Chairwoman Kangus to avoid utilizing voting procedures that would compromise the secret ballot and allow for “intimidation” of committee members through precise identification of individual votes. Assembly & Tea Party members pledge to be out in force, on the night of the election, to evaluate election integrity.

 

The Republican Assemblies is the nation’s oldest Republican advocacy group with State Chapters located across the country. Our goal is to bring classic conservative ideals back to the Party platform and offer the conservative base a set of resources for local Republican advancement. We are known as:

The Republican Wing of the Republican party

For further information please contact Dave Kopacz (413) 896-4078 President@MassRA.com

# # #