"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan." Proverbs 29:2
When Konni Burton spoke at a pro-Scott Turner for Texas House speaker this past January, people around Austin threw a fit. This time, it's D.C's turn. This is going to irritate people who deserve to be irritated:
Bottom Line: One of the longest standing unwritten rules in politics is that that elected officials should 'interfere' in the 'internal affairs' of other governmental entities. In reality, this appeal to governmental solidarity protects the status quo. Good for Konni for refusing to play that game.
"He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Proverbs 29:1
In the short run, it probably doesn't mean much; of course, in the short run, the Lege is out of session.
In the longer run, see the Bible verse quoted above.
As Erick Erickson explained, the major thing that changed during August was the voter anger Republican U.S. House members saw at home. While we didn't attend, we heard reports that several Republican U.S. House members in North Texas had raucous town hall meetings. That made Bohener's position untenable.
Meanwhile, Article 3, Section 24 of the Texas Constitution forced the Texas House to adjourn in May. Also, the Texas House rules make it a lot harder to depose a speaker mid-session than the U.S. House. So Straus can lay low (for now).
Election 2014 gave the American people a New Hope; if the Empire chooses to Strike Back in 2015, the Jedi WILL return in 2016.
And that's just as true in Austin as it is in D.C.
Bottom Line: This is a perilous time for incumbent Republican "leaders." Voters are fed up with legacy Republicans colluding with Democrats to enact the crony agenda. Across all levels, we've seen this playbook. Bohener's demise proves seemingly safe "leaders" can collapse in a heartbeat. The timing is anyone's guess, but Mr. Straus' days are numbered.
"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan." Proverbs 29:2
Since learning about John Bohener's resignation, we've seen considerable chatter on social media about Jeb Hensarling as the replacement; it makes a lot of sense.
Kevin McCarthy is the consensus pick of the legacy R's. His record, to put it mildly, underwhelms. We deserve better.
On the other hand, getting one of the usual suspect conservative rabble-rousers (eg. Louie Gohmert), absent another round of elections, seems a long-shot.
WASHINGTON—With Speaker John Boehner set to resign his post as leader of the House of Representatives at the end of next month, speculation again will turn to whether Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Dallas, will seek the post or the chamber’s number two spot should that become available.
....
Before running for Congress, Hensarling was on staff for former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, and has championed many of the same economic and banking ideas the outspoken Gramm championed. He arrived in Congress long before the Tea Party emerged, but he has been a leading figure in the intellectual wing of that movement seeking to rein in the size of government. He’s also been the point person in fights over the Fed, over Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms, and, most importantly in terms of Boehner’s predicament, over the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank.
He has attacked the so-called crony capitalism that he says the Bank, which helps finance exports by American firms, represents. His quiet rebellion has over the past two years grown into a major battle ground between more traditional (and business-friendly) Republicans and those closer to Tea Party populism.
He took over the House Financial Services Committee as chairman in early 2013 and immediately began seeking to overhaul America’s system of home financing, an ambitious effort that put him in conflict with some more traditional Republicans. The bill did not get a vote in the full house.
....
Hensarling has been mentioned before as a possible Speaker or Majority Leader, most recently when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was ousted by a Tea Party rival in the June 2014 Ohio primaries (*). At the time, Hensarling, repeated his position that he was happy as chairman of the influential House Financial Services Committee and did not make a public run for a higher post.
[Author's Note: Emphasis added.]
(*) -- We can't believe the DMN editors missed this, but Cantor was from VIRGINIA, not Ohio.
You can tell a lot about a man by the enemies he makes, and within Texas' political circles, Jeb Hensarling has all the right enemies.
Bottom Line: We'll refrain from making any commitments until we see how the race shapes up, but if Jeb Hensarling throws his hat in the ring, that could make a lot of sense.
"Deliver the poor and needy; Free them from the hand of the wicked." Psalm 82:4
In the midst of a longer story about the (commendable) efforts to remove John Bohener in the U.S. House, DFW radio host Grant Stinchfield relays this ASTONISHING (*) story about Pete Sessions:
In the fall of 2013 Congressman Pete Sessions looked me in the eye and told me I needed to get out of radio because I was making enemies. Here clearly didn't like my limited government, anti-incumbent message I push over the air. We were in a suite at Cowboys Stadium. The Cowboys were playing the Redskins, but the game I was focused on was my own match, Conservative vs. Establishment, Stinchfield vs. Sessions. I leaned in slowly towards the Congressman, I smiled back at him and whispered, “I think you should get out Congress, its YOU who are making enemies.” We didn’t speak again.
It was at that moment I lost all respect for the man who was supposed to be representing “we the people” in Washington. I realized Rep. Pete Sessions, sadly represents only himself and the ruling class of career politicians he conspires with. If Sessions is afraid of a radio host, how is he going to take on the President of the United States?
....
Every time he puts self-interest above national interest he harms America. Tell Rep. Sessions what I told him in that suite at Cowboys Stadium, It’s time he gets out of office because he’s making enemies at home, enemies out of conservative voters.
"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11
To understand University of Texas Chancellor Bill McRaven, you have to examine his performance in his last job as the head of U.S. Special Forces. Cahnman's Musings has previously examined his role in destroying the bin Laden death photos. We've also looked into his failure to comply with Federal open records laws.
Betrayed: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL's Father, by Billy Vaughn, details the actions of the government following the Extortion 17 fiasco in Afghanistan in August 2011. It was Navy Seal history's deadliest day. Billy Vaughn's son, Aaron, was on-board.
In May 2011, Seal Team 6 conducted the raid that killed Usama bin Laden. They died less than four months later. Almost immediately, the government's story began unraveling.
Three day's after President Obama's announcement of bin Laden's death, Aaron Vaughn called his family in a panic (44). They needed to instantly close their social media accounts and scrub their presence from the internet. In an astonishing breach of protocol, senior government officials had already blabbed about Seal Team 6's role in the raid (52-3). Because of that, the military was concerned about retaliaton against their family members. This was the beginning of the journey.
Following Aaron's tragic death that August, the government's story became increasingly suspect. They lied to the families about the media presence when the coffins returned stateside (67). Almost immediately, questions arose about both the competence and loyalty of their Afghan counterparts (75). The team was transported into a combat zone "in these slow, outdated troop transport carriers, rather than the usual MH-47 Chinooks that are designed to get in and out of of hotspots quickly" (101). Their number of missions had grown unsustainable (102). Worst of all, the rules of engagement prevented the SEALs from properly engaging the enemy (103). As Billy Vaughn explains, "something was starting to become very clear: weak-willed 'winnning hearts and minds' ideology had taken priority over keeping my son, the men on that chopper, our miliatry, and even our nation, secure" (105).
As the Vaughn family's questions mounted, so did their inquiries in official Washington. They were ignored by John Boehner and Harry Reid (106). A staffer for their own U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio, rudely blew them off (107). Further investigation led "to the appalling realization that the mightiest military in the world is being ripped asunder by a regime in Washington, D.C., putrefied with political correctness, moral depravity, and utter corruption" (114). And that was before they learned that the landing zone hadn't been properly secured (131). It's here where Mr. McRaven enters the picture.
In November 2012, the Vaughns attended a Naval function in Florida where Mr. McRaven was the guest of honor. Billy Vaughn wanted to share some of the things he'd learned to prevent future tragedies. Their conversation speaks for itself:
When the admiral finished speaking, I approached him, took off my sunglasses, shook his hand, and said, "My name is Billy Vaughn, you probably don't remember me..."
Admiral [sic] McRaven responded cheerfully, "Well, of course, I remember you."
I asked if I could speak with him privately. Hesitant, he paused, and then agreed to meet me behind the bleachers after he finished shaking hands and taking pictures with people in the audience.
....
As the admiral approached, I spoke quickly, not wanting to was any time with pleasantries. "Sir, I just wanted to know if anything is being done differently to protect the lives of our men in battle."
Since Admiral McRaven told me he knew who I was, I thought I didn't have to explain my connection to the Extortion 17 shoot-down. He had replaced Admiral Olson, as US Special Operations Commander, just a few days after Aaron died, and I wanted to know if the military strategy had changed.
I meant this in the most respectful way, but for some reason he became irritated when he spoke with me, "What's the matter with you? Don't you think I care about every guy we lose?"
I responded respectfully, "Well, Sir, I'm hoping you can share some things that will convince me that you do."
I genuinely hoped that a man in his position would know if anything had changed since Extortion 17 went down. I felt the burden as a parent to make sure that nothing like this ever happened again to our military. Admiral McRaven got defensive, put his hand on my shoulder and drew me closer to him with a smirk on his face, which was quickly becoming a brighter shade of red, and said, "Let me give you a few facts, IF your son did die...."
In lightning speed I raised my tone higher than his and said, "What do you mean IF my son was killed? You said you recognized me, and you knew who I was. I'm the father of Aaron Vaughn and he was killed."
This was not going well. There had not been a single military officer who had shown any notion of disrespect toward me since Aaron had died. He flashed a deer in the headlights look, and then immediately apologized. "I'm sorry, I didn't recognize you."
I can't remember what he said next, but he gave me the impression that he thought my son was connected to Benghazi. "I'm not talking about Benghazi. My son was killed on August 6, 2011." At this point, I was thinking, "he's just another politician. He pretended to know who I was, and now he's pretending to know something aboput me that he really didn't remember."
I went on, "You can smile and smirk if you want to, Sir, but let me give you three facts..."
Interrupting me nearly mid-sentence, he raised his voice and said, "Okay, I know who you are!"
Ignoring the interruption and it's content, I continued quickly, "Sir, whey was there no pre-assault fire that night?"
He snapped back, "They can get pre-assault fire any time they want it!"
I responded, "Well, Sir, according to the sworn testimony, they can almost never get pre-assault fire."
His next words only fueled the fire. "Well, what do you want to do, shoot up an entire village?"
"No Sir, but according to the sworn testimony, the village was on the ridges of the valley. There had already been a three-and-a-half hour operation underway and the chopper was shot down in the valley. Also, after the chopper was shot down, the Air Weapons Team did not take out the men who shot the RPG because there might have been friendlies in the building below the tower."
In a calmer tone he said, "There were a lot of mistakes made that night. This war is complicated."
The last comment -- sort of a confession -- struck me. There are mistakes made in every operation; I'm willing to admit that. But I was primarily concerned about the ideology causing our men to die needlessly. It was also the timing of the way Admiral McRaven said, "This war is complicated," because I was just previously forewarned by someone in Washington, D.C. that the flag officers, like Admiral McRaven, are known to say these very words when they want to avoid questioning. It seemed to imply that I could not possibly understand if he were to to go into greater detail.
I was now experiencing this warning firsthand.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the chance to tell him the third fact, and he still never answered my concern on whether he was doing something differently to protect our men in the battlefield. So all I could say was, "Sir, a man in your position, if he had the nuts and the guts, could speak up and change the way we conduct this war, and save our warriors."
Admiral McRaven, who is quite a bit taller than me, then jabbed his finger in my face.
I pointed my finger back at his chest, saying, "Let me tell you something, Sir. You can make a scene if you want, but there are people watching us right now, and I don't think either one of us want that.
He agreed and backed off.
I then calmly said, "What we need to do is get together and have a cup of coffee sometime." In agreement, we shook hands, and he told me to contact his office when I had an opportunity to stop by.
(145-9)
As the Vaughn's dug deeper, they were continually approached by military members who new first hand how the U.S. government's senior leadership was weakening the military; this set the stage for their follow-up visit with Mr. McRaven:
On January 4, 2013, Admiral McRaven arrived in a black SUV with tinted windows. The SUV pulled into my driveway, all the way up to the garage, and Admiral McRaven and a staff member got out. The driver then backed into the street and reversed into my driveway to park. I chuckled because it appeared as though they had intended to make a speedy getaway when our visit was over.
Karen and I welcomed Admiral McRaven and his subordinate into our home. We greeted each other and met his advisor, who was exceedingly polite and gracious. Admiral McRaven was a complete gentleman this time, leading me to believe it would be a positive encounter as I had hoped. He apologized for not knowing who I was. I accepted his apology and appreciated his concern. The four of us then sat at our dining room table.
Admiral McRaven started out by kindly giving us his condolences and expressed that he wanted to answer any questions we had. He told us he wanted to help us with our 'grieving.'
The 'grieving' angle must be a talking point all officers are keyed in on, since we've heard it time and time again. It's dismissive and insulting. It's as though any question or concern you have is only due to your "grief," not the very real possibility your question is valid.
The admiral wanted to emphasize that nothing about the meeting would be political. Karen and I were primarily concerned about our men and women in the military and the questions surrounding Extortion 17, so naturally we agreed the meeting was not about politics.
We started with small talk and about a half hour into the conversation, Admiral McRaven assured us, "I just want you to know that the military would never hold anything back from the parents."
To which Karen very respectfully responded, "What about Pat Tillman?"
Admiral McRaven lunged forward in his chair, his face instantly reddened, his voice churlish -- as though Karen had no right to say such a thing -- he nearly shouted, "What about Pat Tillman? It was just a simple case of friendly fire!"
The room fell silent, stunned.
Of course, it was just a 'simple case of friendly fire.' The problem was that it took the Tillman family three years to get the truth about the events surrounding Pat's death. Three years of being blatantly lied to by the United States military.
It hadn't been Karen's intention, but clearly she struck a nerve. Much earlier in our search for truth, we had spoken with a man who serves on Admiral McRaven's staff. In that conversation...he finally said, "Billy, the damn Army will lie." Then shortly thereafter, he made a statement, which bluntly ended that portion of the conversation, "Remember Pat Tillman."
We didn't know what to say next. The admiral did not realize the full impact of the revealing statement he'd just made. I finally spoke softly, "The military is holding something back from the parents right now."
....
Further into our conversation, the admiral unexpectedly and with no apparent reason began touting the virtues of our current president. After a comment or two, I said, "Well, look, Sir, you are not going to get me to agree with you about President Obama.
Admiral McRaven laughed and said, "Okay, I know."
A short time later, he became more emboldened. "I know President Obama and I see him often. I don't just know him as a president, I know him as a man." He pounded his fist on our table. "And he's a good man."
Politely, I touched his arm, "Sir, I'm going to have to ask you not to mention that man's name in my house."
He said, "Okay." Then the admiral -- who said none of our discussion should be political -- continued weaving the praises of President Obama into our conversation any time he saw an opening.
By the time of this meeting, I had been personally reviewing the redacted files we received at Virginia Beach for almost a year. I was very well up-to-date with the material, but felt I'd receive a fuller picture of the shoot-down through Admiral McRaven's eyes. Would they have the answers to my questions? I didn't know -- but I had been hopeful.
That didn't last long.
....
After a few seconds, I asked, "Why was there no pre-assault fire before Extortion 17 went in, you know, just to soften then landing zone?"
With absolutely no hesitation, the admiral replied, "The Operation was already over. By that time, the Rangers were already in the questioning phase of those they'd detained in the earlier raid and nothing else was going on."
Was this all Admiral McRaven had for his defense? If Operation Lefty Grove was "already over" then why was Extortion 17 sent in at all? Why was the IRF (Immediate Reaction Force) spun up with such hastiness that routes and landing zones were being determined after the chopper was already in the air? And why was the landing zone considered hot?
....
The misinformation continued and suspicions rose.
Around this point came yet another interjection about President Obama's qualifications and great, fearless leadership; this time it was in reference to Operation Neptune Spear.
The admiral explained to us that the president had nothing to gain from taking out Bin Laden. He then elaborated on the fear factor behind the president's brave decision to do so, telling us "There was only a forty percent chance that Osama was going to be at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan."
I told Admiral McRaven, "I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. I don't think the president had any choice but to go after Osama [sic] bin Laden."
He quickly replied, "How so?"
"Because the CIA had located him, and if people learned that Osama bin Laden was there, and it leaked that Barack Obama still refused to take him out, it would have devastated him politically."
At some point, the conversation shifted back to the matter at hand. I asked, "Why were our men on the wrong chopper?"
His countenance became a bit haughty and even defiant towards me.
....
And then came another round of praise for President Obama when I expressed a very painful concern, "It's hard for me to admit this, but I'm afraid my son's death is going to be in vain because the president has decided we're going to lose the war in Afghanistan."
His response caught me off guard, "Well I can't guarantee how Afghanistan is going to turn out, but I can tell you that President Obama is getting us out of Afghanistan."
Only two months earlier in our discussion at the Navy SEAL Mueseum, he'd snapped at me when I'd said the same thing. His response then: "We're winning the war in Afghanistan."
Had something changed in the previous two months or had he only been honest in one of our two conversations? I came back at him with a little frustration, "Yeah, but at what cost?"
His answer blew my mind: "President Obama got us out of Iraq!"
Unable to contain myself I blurted out, "And look how well that turned out. Now Iran is transporting weapons through Iraq to Syria and threatening Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East."
Still to this dat, I cannot believe what he said next, "Well, you know George Bush got us into the war in Iraq!"
This statement literally shook me. It was a childish argument and very unbecoming of a man of such high stature.
....
We were now faced with the heavy realization that one of the most powerful men in the special forces world had no intention of changing a single method of operation. [Author's Note: Which is EXACTLY what he did with Bill Powers.]
(154-67)
All this from the man openly rumored to be on Hillary Clinton veep short list:
Bottom Line: Before he carried water for Bill Powers and Joe Straus, Bill McRaven carried water for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The Extortion 17 fiasco was well known by the time the U.T. system brought Mr. McRaven in as Chancellor. For the scandal-plagued U.T. politburo to hire someone with Bill McRaven's record at this moment in it's history tells you everything you need to know about the U.T. politburo.
"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11
[Author's note: We began the audio recording approximately 5 minutes after 7. To find the relevant section of the audio recording, subtract five minutes from the time listed below. Anything in the 8pm hour will appear after the 1 hour mark.]
Highland Park -- On Thursday night, we attended Congressman Pete Sessions' town-hall meeting in Dallas County.
We arrived around 6:30 for the scheduled 7pm event. We spoke with several members of Congressman Sessions' staff. After explaining we were with Agendawise, the Congressman's staff suggested a good location to set up our camera and that was that.
Approximately 15 minutes later, we returned with the camera and set it up without incident; we then kept to ourselves for another five minutes.
Around 6:50, we spotted Joseph Wade Miller, a personal friend who works with Heritage Action. Joesph is a well known critic of Congressman Sessions. This is when things got more interesting.
After we had spoken with Joseph for a couple minutes, Congressman Sessions press secretary Caroline Boothe (who had been extremely helpful a few minutes earlier) informed this author that it was "against office policy" for anyone to film the town-hall except for members of the Congressman's staff.
Think about that. The Congressman's staff first suggested a location from which to film, then left us alone for several minutes after the camera had been setup. They only attempted to shut down filming after they realized that this author was friends with one of their prominent critics.
In a move we shortly came to regret, we decided to play nice and not film. While the first amendment gives us that right, we weren't in the mood to make a big deal out of it. Also, we were uncertain if the Texas Open Meetings Act applies to Federal officials.
Shortly after the town-hall began, it became obvious why Congressman Sessions' staff didn't want his boorish, condescending behavior captured for posterity.
Sessions began the town-hall by filibustering over the alleged "student success act" they'll be voting on in D.C. next week. Sessions attempted to brag about how the bill would consolidate dozens of Federal agencies into one but failed to make a convincing argument when challenged about eliminating the agencies under consideration. Alice Linahan addresses the federal "student success act" here.
At 7:39, a woman asked Sessions why, given Sessions' record on funding Obamacare and amnesty, he could be trusted to reduce the Federal role in education. Sessions responded by browbeating the woman over where she'd find funding for a couple of obscure "disability" programs. The crowd wasn't buying it.
.@PeteSessions tells audience that there are no mandates in HR5, that's states have the authority to opt out of all mandates. #NotTrue#HR5
— Joseph Wade Miller (@J_Wade_Miller) April 10, 2015
At 8:01, Sessions attempted to cast Bohener's re-election as speaker as old news; in an unintentionally prophetic moment, he mentioned that there would be another election in 2017.
.@PeteSessions "You are darn right I'm a Boehner guy", to audience in Dallas.
— Joseph Wade Miller (@J_Wade_Miller) April 10, 2015
At 8:21, local activist (and friend of this website) Ken Emmanuelson asked Sessions another question about Obamacare. Sessions grew testy while overselling the alleged benefits of sequestration. He even attempted to claim you couldn't defund Obamacare:
.@PeteSessions tells audience that neither Obama's amnesty nor Obamacare can be defunded if mandatory $, as a technical action #NotTrue
— Joseph Wade Miller (@J_Wade_Miller) April 10, 2015
After Emmanuelson's question, Sessions was asked about the Export-Import bank; while Sessions made several excuses for the 'work' of the bank, he agreed to defer to whatever (documented Ex-Im opponent) Jeb Hensarling decides.
After an hour and a half of this rigmarole, we grew tired and hungry and had stopped paying attention when another flare-up occurred over procedural rules:
.@PeteSessions states that there have been no actual 72 hour rule violations. This is factually incorrect. #NotTrue
— Joseph Wade Miller (@J_Wade_Miller) April 10, 2015
Boorish condescension is an unattractive trait in an elected official. At his town-hall meeting Thursday night, Congressman Pete Sessions demonstrated it in abundance. No wonder his staff didn't let us film the meeting.
"He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Proverbs 29:1
Prior to election 2014, the Texas Legislature and the U.S. Congress weren't particularly similar. Since then, however, legacy Republicans at both levels have deployed an identical playbook. On that note, where have we heard this before?!?
A new bombshell report from Politico found that House Speaker John Boehner had several days of secret negotiations with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the recently emboldened former Speaker, leading up to his decision to flip-flop and fund President Obama’s executive amnesty—including a pre-hashed out deal to use the hoopla around Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Tuesday address to Congress over Iran’s nuclear ambitions as political cover to sneak in the extraordinarily controversial vote. Even with the bombshell report, however, Boehner’s office continues to deny any deal took place.
“It was Monday at 5:30 p.m. when Pelosi and Boehner agreed that it was ‘best to take up the matter on Tuesday immediately after Netanyahu’s address in order to deal with the matter as quickly as possible upon return of the Senate papers,’ according to an aide familiar with the conversations,” Politico’s Lauren French wrote on Thursday evening.
That part of a supposed deal between Pelosi and Boehner came after what French reported were several days of negotiating and dealmaking between the current and former Speaker.
....
“The vote Tuesday is just the latest chapter in a long-running saga between Democrats and Boehner,” French wrote. “The Ohio Republican is often forced to turn to Pelosi to deliver votes when legislation, like government spending bills and increases to the debt limit, fail to garner enough support from Republicans. That gives Pelosi, who has watched her caucus sink into the deepest minority Democrats have experienced in decades, an unusually powerful hand in times of crisis.”
....
Mooney’s not alone in raising the question of just how much rope Boehner has left before he hangs himself with these Democrat deals. Technically, on Tuesday, to pass the bill to fund executive amnesty after spending months saying he wouldn’t, Boehner violated the so-called Hastert Rule yet again. As such, it’s worth revisiting what Denny Hastert—the Boehner predecessor for which the rule is named—said when Boehner first began flirting with using Democrats to achieve his big government agenda.
“Here is the problem. Maybe you can do it once, maybe you can do it twice, but when you start making deals when you have to get Democrats to pass the legislation, you are not in power anymore,” Hastert, who served as House Speaker from Jan. 6, 1999, through Jan. 3, 2007, said in a Fox News interview when Boehner used Democrat votes to pass the fiscal cliff deal through the House in late 2012.
....
Boehner, as of late, has become addicted to using Democratic votes to pass significant pieces of legislation. In his first term as Speaker, he did it once in March 2011 and one more time on the first day of 2013 to pass the fiscal cliff vote. In his second term as Speaker, though, he did it six times, spread out over two years. And now, on the first major consequential vote of his third term as Speaker, he did it again—and notably, this time, there is a Senate Republican Majority. If Boehner keeps doing this, he’s likely to eventually infuriate enough Republican members for an eventual internal conference coup against his speakership.
A number of right-wing Republicans, long wary of Boehner's commitment to GOP efforts attacking President Obama's policy priorities, have openly considered a coup in an attempt to transfer the gavel into more conservative hands.
But Democrats from across an ideological spectrum say they'd rather see Boehner remain atop the House than replace him with a more conservative Speaker who would almost certainly be less willing to reach across the aisle in search of compromise. Replacing him with a Tea Party Speaker, they say, would only bring the legislative process — already limping along — to a screeching halt.
“I'd probably vote for Boehner [because] who the hell is going to replace him? [Ted] Yoho?” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Wednesday, referencing the Florida Tea Party Republican who’s fought Boehner on a host of bipartisan compromise bills.
Bottom Line: The only reason Democrats are part of the discussion in either the Texas or the U.S. House is because 79 and 75 Republicans, respectively, were too callow and feckless (or too corrupt?!?) (or too stupid?!?) to stand with their own voters instead of Marxist Democrats; that's not sustainable.
"He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." Proverbs 29:1
On the one hand, we're upset we didn't personally think of this analogy; on the other hand, ouch:
While the Texas House is controlled by Straus, widely seen as moderate if not liberal, the Texas Senate is controlled by a conservative majority and is all but guaranteed to be presided over in 2015 by a Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, one of the most conservative lawmakers in the state, which is saying something in Texas. Just as numerous bills and pro-growth reforms have been passed by Speaker John Boehner’s House, only to languish in Harry Reid’s Senate, next year could provide an analogous situation in Austin, in which the state senate passes a host of conservative reforms – such as tax relief and school choice – only to see them die in Speaker Straus’s House. Straus’s acolytes are already making clear that the Texas House will be a graveyard for conservative and free market reforms passed by the senate.
....
Rep. Villalba detailed specifically how Speaker Straus and company plan to obstruct senate-passed reforms, explaining that the House Calendars Committee is where conservative bills will be strangled in the cradle.
“Calendars decides what bills get to the floor for a vote,” said Villalba. “I can tell you right now most bills die in Calendars… because Calendars is, again, loyal to the speaker.”
Got that, Texas senators? Don’t even think about trying to make the state more economically competitive with Speaker Straus in charge of the House. But it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, one Texas representative, considered to be one of the GOP’s top rising stars, not just in Texas but the nation, is challenging Straus to be speaker in 2015.
....
While any challenge to Straus would be an uphill battle, many Austin political insiders concede that if any lawmaker could knock him off, it’s Turner. Helping Turner is the fact that Straus has seen the ranks of his supporters in the House dwindle over the past year. Half a dozen Straus supporters decided to retire and have been replaced with conservatives. Five Straus allies lost in the June primaries to more conservative challengers.
The outcome of Turner’s challenge to Straus will have major consequences for the state. While Texas has relatively low taxes and a business tax climate superior to most states, it is not without challenges. The state’s gross receipts tax, known as the Margin Tax, is a major hindrance to the state realizing its full economic potential. This is a tax that economists of all political stripes agree is one of the most economically damaging ways to raise revenue. It is a highly complex tax assessed on different industries in different ways. The compliance costs of this tax for some companies are greater than their liability and even businesses that fail to turn a profit still have to pay it. Rep. Turner introduced legislation in 2013 to do away with this onerous levy, but the bill died with Straus at the helm.
....
Texas voters have been putting conservatives in statewide office for years and continue to do so. In a few short months we’ll find out if Texas will have a new House Speaker who is in sync with the state’s electorate, or if the Texas version of Harry Reid will continue to obstruct in Austin.
Granbury, TX -- Cahnman's Musings was in town to cover the packed Texas House candidate forum between 9-term incumbent (Joe Straus lieutenant) Jim Keffer and grassroots challenger Cullen Crisp. It's not a secret that Jim Keffer is in trouble. The Texas House forum was similar to other events this cycle. Crisp hit Keffer for increasing spending by 26% and Keffer made the usual excuses. The real story, however, was the U.S. House forum that took place immediately prior.
5-term incumbent Michael Conaway is a George W. Bush crony from West Texas. His opponent, Wade Brown, currently serves as an officer in the United States' Marine Corps reserve. Brown is taking his second shot at Conaway, having waged an unsuccessful campaign in 2012.
Brown hit Conaway for his vote in favor of TARP in 2008 and several other atrocious pieces of legislation in the ensuing years. Conaway made the same excuses D.C. Republicans always make. As a point of comparison, Conaway's voting record is very similar to John Cornyn.
Brown, by contrast, offered a detailed plan to force Obama and Harry Reid to negotiate. Brown's plan begins with across the board spending cuts to every line item of the Federal Budget and increases the political pain on Democrats from there. In the event that Democrats refuse to negotiate, Wade Brown is willing to shut down the Federal Government indefinitely.
Brown hammered U.S. House Republicans, led by John Bohener, for their failure to stop Obama's illegal and unconstitutional war in Libya. The Constitution and Federal law make clear that the President DOES NOT have the authority to commit American armed forces to a major conflict absent Congressional authorization. Unfortunately, Republicans under John Bohener failed to stop Obama's war in Libya, and Benghazi was the result.
The candidates also clashed over John Bohener's "leadership" (or lack thereof). Conaway said "Bohener's doing a good job." Brown said Bohener "led the House the wrong way" and that "I'm not going to sacrifice my vote for the home team."
This is an interesting race. It's not on anyone's radar screen outside the district. Based on the crowd reaction in the packed room, however, it's obvious where the energy in this race lies. While Brown's campaign is severely underfunded, Conaway's nervousness was palpable. Keep an eye on CD-11 March 4th.
-----
We went out to lunch with some local Tea Party leaders after the forum. We interviewed Wade Brown at lunch. This is our interview:
-----
Visit Wade's website here; donate to his campaign here.
Pierson, who has a complimentary quote from Cruz splashed on the homepage of her website, flexed her insurgent moxie by pledging to oppose John Boehner as House speaker.
“I do support replacing John Boehner as speaker. I think his leadership has gone completely against the grain of what the mainstream Republicans on the ground feel,” she told reporters during a question-and-answer session with the candidates.
Sessions adviser Brad Todd summarily dismissed Pierson's chances, quipping, "She’s so far behind she’d need airfare to catch up."
Read the whole thing, including an enlightening discussion of the U. S. Senate race in Kentucky, here.
-----
Read our endorsement here; donate to Katrina's campaign here.
Last night, John Bohener screwed America's finances; in so doing, he put each of you under our microscope.
Washington, at least for now, is a lost cause; Austin isn't.
The 83rd Texas Legislature has a once-in-a-generation opportunity. With structural reforms to state spending, School Finance, and Medicaid the 83rd Legislature can lay the foundation for another two decades of prosperity. Our challenge is to get good legislation to Governor Perry's desk without watering it down.
Joe Straus can dole out campaign cash and committee assignments, but we live in your districts. The grassroots might not be able to control events in Washington, but we can be a pain in your ass. Ask Vicki Truitt.
The 83rd Texas Legislature needs to deliver. Structural reforms to state spending, school finance, and Medicaid need to reach Governor Perry's desk without getting watered down. Choose wisely, Texas House Republicans, choose wisely.
Cahnman's Musings will continue to monitor the economic clusterfornication in Southern Europe. In the meantime, I want to comment on a domestic controversy that will impact U.S. policy in the region.
On June 13, five conservative members of Congress sent letters to the Inspectors General of five federal departments. The letters, based on credible reports of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. government during the Bush (2nd term) and Obama administrations, inquired about the efforts the government was making to get to the bottom of the controversy.
The letters were met with silence until last week, when John McCain threw a hissy fit on the floor of the United States Senate over one aspect of the controversy. In so doing, Sen McCain called the questions "nonspecific and unsubstantiated," a claim directly contradicted by the text of the original letter. Shortly after Sen. McCain's hissy fit, House Speaker John Bohener followed suit.
This controversy offers a unique opportunity to set the historical record straight about communist subversion in the 1940's and 50's. In the 1940's and 50's, the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were infested with Soviet agents; Alger Hiss being the most prominent. Strong circumstantial evidence suggests something similar with the Muslim Brotherhood today. We need to get to the bottom of this controversy. No hissy fit from John McCain or John Bohener will stop us.
We voted for Michelle Bachmann in the Presidential Primary and we re-affirm our vote today. We stand unapologetically and unconditionally with the five conservative Congressmen calling for these investigations. We urge our readers to contact their Congressmen and support the five conservatives.
It’s hard to believe, but the numbers show that a whopping eighty percent of Farm Bill spending goes toward food stamp and nutrition programs. The rest is welfare of a different kind: corporate welfare. The bill includes pork-like programs that do more to support special interests than small farmers, since the benefits go toward the biggest and best-connected farms that know how to navigate the Washington maze.
Every five years Congress must vote to reauthorize these USDA programs or watch them expire, meaning that the so-called Farm Bill is an opportunity to make serious reforms and real cuts to the billions we waste on farm subsidies and food stamps.
The Senate already rammed the Farm Bill through, and they failed to make meaningful cuts. The House of Representatives is expected to take up the issue this week, and they need to hear from you that you oppose spending hundreds of billions of dollars on even more food and farm welfare.
With all due respect to AFP, the real outrage isn't the content of the bill, it's the fact that a group of allegedly conservative representatives, who were elected with an explicit mandate to cut spending, are doing a farm bill in the first place. Our government has operated has operated exclusively via continuing resolution for three years now (*). Nothing ever gets done under normal business these days, yet the House GOP is taking the time to do a farm bill. Why?!?
The answer, of course, is pork. Much like the Highway Bill House Republicans passed earlier this year, farm subsidies are a favorite tool for big-spending Republicans to continue business as usual. I've written about dismantling the U.S. Department of Agriculture before, because nothing good comes out of Federal farm programs. That Congressional Republicans have chosen to make agricultural pork a priority clearly demonstrates how little they've learned.
After 18 months, the failures of Republicans in the 112th Congress are myriad. They caved on the Debt Ceiling. On Fast and Furious, they have combined buffoonish rhetorical bluster with far too little action far too late. They've caved (multiple times) on the Keystone Pipeline. They haven't (with the notable exception of Congressman Pete King) lifted a finger to address the ongoing infiltration of the U.S. Government by the Muslim Brotherhood. Heck, they caved on defunding Obamacare. On each of these examples, the Republican position has enjoyed public support, yet Republicans in Congress have allowed Barack Obama to psych them out using Alinsky's first rule. Given countless opportunities to go for the jugular against Obama, House Republicans flinch every single time.
In the 113th Congress, this cannot continue.
As long as the conservative grassroots continues to do what we've been doing for three years, Republicans will win bigger in 2012 than they won in 2010. Simultaneous with winning the current election, the conservative grassroots needs to lay the foundation to hold President Romney and the 113th Congress accountable in 2013 and 2014. On a practical level, that means a post-election, mid-November, leadership fight. John Bohener (along with Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan) and Mitch McConnell have repeatedly demonstrated inept political judgement combined with spines on linguine. In 2013, Louie Gohmert and Jim DeMint must run Congress.
Returning to the original topic of this post, you can help AFP kill the Farm Bill here.
* I apologize for linking to Wikipedia but it's the site that presents the data most clearly.
John Boehner has proven himself an ineffective leader in opposition. He cannot be trusted to maximize the majority this upcoming election will yield. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to address this more systematically before the convention.
