Saturday, December 22, 2012

Stickin' It to The Man ^ | 12/22/2012 | Cindy Simpson

Obviously, most won't admit or recognize that they're afflicted with Stick-it-to-The-Man-e-osis. In their feverish state, many Obama-supporters believe that they won a "mandate" to Obama-money, whether it grows on trees or piles up in bottomless stashes of The Man. But some have woken up from their delirium to find, instead of gas in their car's tanks and paid-off mortgages, pink slips in their mailboxes or reduced working hours. Others will find that they will probably not be able to keep either their doctor or their insurance, and that a very powerful Man -- Uncle Sam -- has invited himself into the examining room.
Many conservative writers have observed the irony that the stick-it disease produces in other segments of Obama-supporters in headlines such as this one: "Unions tearing down tents... and themselves." Columnist Caroline Glick recently noted that "Israel's supporters seem to have never gotten the memo. So here it is: Obama wants to fundamentally transform the U,S, relationship with Israel... As he sees it, to paraphrase Jim Baker, "F#&k the Jews, they voted for us anyway." In the Washington Times, Jeffrey Kuhner addressed the ugliness of racial-identity politics and their potential repercussion. He concluded: "Black racialism could fuel the rise of an angry white nationalism. That would be very bad for Americans -- white and black."
Many of the groups that supported Obama, whatever their reasoning, are beginning to realize that their strategy is indeed backfiring. All while Obama continues to agitate those afflicted with Stick-it-to-The-Man-e-osis with his divisive rhetoric that pours salt on the wounds the contagion opens or inflicts.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

NRA Call for Armed School Guards “Reckless,” Says Senator

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 21 Dec 2012 | John Semmens

Maintaining that laws banning guns are ineffective at deterring criminals, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre urged that we “harden potential targets. The placement of trained and armed security guards in vulnerable locations would be a more potent defensive measure than the placement of signs declaring these locations ‘gun-free zones.’”
LaPierre pointed out that “Connecticut’s law banning assault weapons had no impact on the madman who killed 20 school children. Government officials themselves don’t place their trust in gun control laws. The President has armed guards to protect him. Many members of Congress have concealed carry permits. They put their trust in self defense. Why shouldn’t our children have a similar protection?”
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) called LaPierre’s plan “reckless. How can more guns be the answer? What if the armed security guard turns out to be a madman? The NRA proposal would, in effect, allow armed lunatics to infiltrate our schools and be perfectly placed to carry out their evil agendas.”
In further support of his position, the Senator reminded that “the DOJ’s plan to arm the Mexican drug cartels should have dispelled all illusions that simply increasing the number of guns would be a good strategy. Many of those guns have been used to murder hundreds of people.”
Representative Jim Himes (D-Conn) went even further saying that “those who use the Second Amendment to block the government from confiscating all unauthorized firearms have blood on their hands. There is no question in my mind that public safety requires the elimination of all privately owned guns. Laws making it illegal for private citizens to own guns would greatly simplify law enforcement.”
Himes pooh-poohed the notion that an armed citizenry might be a barrier to tyranny. “First of all, we have free elections, so tyranny is not a realistic possibility in America,” Himes insisted. “Even if it were, does anyone doubt that the firepower the government could muster would easily outgun civilian resistance? In a worst case scenario, I think most would agree that the potential risk of government oppression with gun control is preferable to the proven risk of random violence when the general population is allowed to have weapons.”

Is President Obama Really A Socialist? Let's Analyze Obamanomics

Forbes ^ | 12/20/2012 | Peter Ferrara

President Obama says that income taxes must be raised on the rich because they don’t pay their fair share. The indisputable facts from official government sources say otherwise.
The CBO reports based on official IRS data that in 2009 the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all federal income taxes, three times their share of income at 13%. Yet, the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, paid just 2.7% of total federal income taxes on net that year, while earning 15% of income. That means the top 1% paid almost 15 times as much in federal income taxes as the entire middle 20%, even though the middle 20% earned more income.
Moreover, the official data, as reported by CBO and the IRS, show that the bottom 40% of income earners, instead of paying some income taxes to support the federal government, were paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of federal income taxes as a group on net.
Any normal person would say that such an income tax system is more than fair, or maybe that “the rich” pay more than their fair share. So why does President Obama keep saying that the rich do not pay their fair share? Is he ignorant? Wouldn’t somebody in his Administration whisper to him that he is peddling nonsense?
The answer is that to President Obama this is still not fair because he is a Marxist. To a Marxist, the fact that the top 1% earn more income than the bottom 99% is not fair, no matter how they earn it, fairly or not. So it is not fair unless more is taken from the top 1% until they are left only with what they “need,” as in any true communist system. Paying anything less is not...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The New Robber Barons ^ | December 21, 2012 | Paul Driessen

An oil and natural gas boom is underway in the United States, born of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” It has created tens of thousands of well-paying jobs directly, and hundreds of thousands more in hundreds of businesses that supply and support the industry and its workers.

In North Dakota, the unemployment rate is 2.4 percent, in large part because of a huge increase in natural gas and crude oil production from deep shale rocks that yielded nothing prior to fracking. The new technology is also driving job growth, higher incomes, and increased tax revenues for hard-pressed state and local governments in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Texas and other states.

Meanwhile, 350 miles north of Edmonton, Alberta, other innovators are producing billions of barrels from oil sands that stretch across an area the size of Utah. Shallow deposits are accessible via surface mining, while deeper lodes are tapped using in situ drilling and steam injection. As work is completed in an area, the land is restored to woodlands, grasslands, lakes and marshes, and the process moves on.

As with fracking, the oil sands create tens of thousands of high-paying jobs and generate millions in revenue, benefitting people from Fort McMurray, Calgary and Vancouver to Ottawa and Halifax, and throughout the United States. Construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline would multiply these benefits.

And yet, despite ample evidence that responsible development of these enormous energy resources could power a national economic, manufacturing and employment renaissance, the Obama Administration’s environmental ideologies and political debts to radical green groups could delay or stymie progress.

The new robber barons in the Executive Branch and Congress are not content only with taxing job creators and saddling our children and great grandchildren with trillion-dollar IOUs. They are using hard-earned tax money to finance wind, solar, biofuel and other schemes that primarily reward crony capitalist campaign contributors. They’re also locking up centuries’ of oil, gas, coal and uranium that could generate an economic revival, millions of jobs, and billions in federal, state and local royalty and tax revenues.

Some say the way these robber barons use, abuse and ignore laws to advance this agenda reminds them of the infamous James Gang, which plundered banks and trains until Northfield, Minnesota citizens ended their lawless ways. Others say a better example is the Chicago-based Al Capone mob.

Still others point to the Capitol Hill “fiscal cliff” negotiations, as providing clues as to what lies ahead. President Obama says he favors a “balanced” approach to avoid fiscal calamity, but insists on raising taxes on high-income citizens – and will not discuss reining in entitlement expenditures that are lead life preservers on taxpayers and our economy. His Treasury Secretary tells us, “There are no options.”

The President’s unique concept of “balance” also defines his “all of the above” energy program. Like Humpty Dumpty, his words mean just what he chooses them to mean – as in all of the above-ground projects, but none of the below-ground resources. Perhaps the real question is, who is to be master … of our lives, natural resources, nation and pursuit of happiness?

Thus the Administration banned oil development on 1.6 million more acres of federal lands in the West and millions more on the Outer Continental Shelf, while delaying leasing and drilling in still more areas – on top of vast acreage and resources that Congress placed off limits through legislation. The ruling czars and robber barons also imposed ethanol-in-gasoline requirements that turn 40% of the nation’s corn crop into fuel, converting an area the size of Missouri from growing food crops to producing fuel that we could get by drilling, and driving up the cost of countless food products.

Their wind and solar programs waste billions of tax dollars on expensive, unreliable electricity projects that blanket habitats and steal our wildlife heritage, in violation of clear environmental laws.

Meanwhile, EPA issued still more hugely expensive rules that effectively ban the use of coal in electricity generation – sending coal’s contribution from 45% a few years ago to 35% today, and killing thousands of mining and utility jobs. Its latest rules demand that the transportation sector slash its soot emissions another 20% – ostensibly to reduce asthma, other illnesses and “thousands” of premature deaths.

In reality, the only health or environmental benefits exist in EPA computer models, press releases and cover-ups of illegal experiments on humans, whose response to being subjected to “dangerous” levels of soot actually disproved EPA’s claim that tougher standards are needed. EPA has also ignored the significant health risks caused by its regulations, especially for newly unemployed workers.

In the midst of all this, at the just concluded United Nations climate change negotiations in Doha, Qatar, Obama Administration representatives entertained brazen proposals to require developed countries to compensate less developed countries for “climate change damages” – under a wealth redistribution scheme that could potentially cost the United States taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Also in the works are EPA rules and treaty agreements to force the US to curb fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions.

Inconvenient facts about these decisions were simply ignored – or treated much the same way as Steven Spielberg handled his powerful and entertaining Lincoln movie. It was released after 2012 elections, many believe so that minority and other voters would learn too late that it was our sixteenth president and other Republicans who championed the end of slavery – and northern and southern Democrats who fought to prevent passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, outlawing the heinous practice.

The robber barons say whatever is expedient – and then pursue policies that undermine the overall public welfare, while postponing many costly and politically explosive actions until after the elections.

They also ignore and undermine the recent International Energy Agency forecast that, by 2020, the USA could be producing more oil than Saudi Arabia, currently the largest oil producer on the globe, thanks to advances in seismic, fracking, deepwater drilling and other technologies. A March 2012 Citi Global Problems and Solutions report painted a clear picture of the benefits that domestic energy development could bring – if government “public servants” and environmental “public interest” groups would permit it.

Cumulatively, the new production, reduced consumption and numerous activities associated with these technologies “could increase real GDP by an additional 2% to 3%, creating from 2.7 million to as high as 3.6 million net new jobs by 2020,” the Citi report stated. They could also shrink America’s “current account deficit” by 2.4% of GDP (a 60% reduction in the current budget deficit)and cause the dollar to appreciate in real terms by +1.6 to +5.4% – all by 2020.

In the next few decades, Citi concluded, the energy sector “could drive an extraordinary and timely revitalization and reindustrialization of the U.S. economy, creating jobs and bringing prosperity to millions of Americans, just as the national economy struggles to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.” It would also “improve national energy security and reverse perennial current account deficits” for decades to come.

However, as the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research has made clear, these enormous benefits “are at risk if new restrictions are imposed on the industry, from delays in approval of liquid natural gas exports, to opposition to expanding ports for coal export, to opposition to pipelines and refineries, and to the threat of redundant federal regulations on the technology of hydraulic fracturing.” Worse, foregoing these enormous benefits would bring little or no improvement to the environment or human welfare.

Abundant, reliable, affordable energy is the backbone of the US and global economy. Perhaps one day renewable energy will become a viable alternative to the hydrocarbons that sustain jobs and energize virtually everything we make, ship, eat and do. Until then, America and the world need to promote regulatory sanity and increased production of our enormous base of coal, oil and natural gas resources.

Obama Vacations Again On Our Dime: Where's Jake Tapper Now?

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 12-22-2012 | MOTUS

“Closed until next year”

It’s a good thing Big Guy doesn’t have Jake Tapper to kick around any more.(snip)As I noted the other day, just because Big Guy said “I don’t think I’ve been on vacation,” doesn’t mean he hasn’t been.

(snip)the balance of this post is dedicated to your recipes for Sweets and Treats.This is my traditional Christmas bread because I’m always so busy this time of year I forget to eat the bananas and they all turn black and mushy. As it turns out, that is the key to:

Best Ever Banana Bread

2 ripe bananas mashed (by ripe I mean black – to the point of fermentation BLACK – is that racist?)

2 eggs (snip)

I’ve been making this ever since I found the recipe in the December Bon Appétit magazine in 1981. Wow! That’s over 30 years! Where does the time go, mon chéri? Only 3 days till Christmas, and 10 to the Eggnog Summit.

Also in the news today: Coming Soon, the much anticipated Annual Announcement of Doug Ross’ 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog winners. MOTUS has been fortunate enough to have WON every year since Big Guy was swept into office -“co-inkidentally”, the first year Doug gave out the most coveted award in the intertoobs! I sure would like to add this year’s professionally designed icon to my collection in the sidebar, so keep your fingers crossed!
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Uses Funeral Service to Talk About Himself

Weekly Standard ^

 Daniel Halper December 22, 2012 10:34 AM

Obama Uses Funeral Service to Talk About Himself!

President Barack Obama used the funeral for Hawaii senator Daniel Inouye to talk about himself. In the short 1,600 word speech, Obama used the word "my" 21 times, "me" 12 times, and "I" 30 times.
Obama's speech discussed how Inouye had gotten him interested in politics. "Danny was elected to the U.S. Senate when I was two years old," he said.

Speaking to the audience at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., Obama talked about his family and their vacations. "Now, even though my mother and grandparents took great pride that they had voted for him, I confess that I wasn't paying much attention to the United States Senate at the age of four or five or six. It wasn't until I was 11 years old that I recall even learning what a U.S. senator was, or it registering, at least. It was during my summer vacation with my family -- my first trip to what those of us in Hawaii call the Mainland," said Obama.
So we flew over the ocean, and with my mother and my grandmother and my sister, who at the time was two, we traveled around the country. It was a big trip. We went to Seattle, and we went to Disneyland -- which was most important. We traveled to Kansas where my grandmother's family was from, and went to Chicago, and went to Yellowstone. And we took Greyhound buses most of the time, and we rented cars, and we would stay at local motels or Howard Johnson's. And if there was a pool at one of these motels, even if it was just tiny, I would be very excited. And the ice machine was exciting -- and the vending machine, I was really excited about that.
But this is at a time when you didn’t have 600 stations and 24 hours' worth of cartoons. And so at night, if the TV was on, it was what your parents decided to watch. And my mother that summer would turn on the TV every night during this vacation and watch the Watergate hearings. And I can't say that I understood everything that was being discussed, but I knew the issues were important. I knew they spoke to some basic way about who we were and who we might be as Americans.
And so, slowly, during the course of this trip, which lasted about a month, some of this seeped into my head. And the person who fascinated me most was this man of Japanese descent with one arm, speaking in this courtly baritone, full of dignity and grace. And maybe he captivated my attention because my mom explained that this was our senator and that he was upholding what our government was all about. Maybe it was a boyhood fascination with the story of how he had lost his arm in a war. But I think it was more than that.
Now, here I was, a young boy with a white mom, a black father, raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. And I was beginning to sense how fitting into the world might not be as simple as it might seem. And so to see this man, this senator, this powerful, accomplished person who wasn't out of central casting when it came to what you'd think a senator might look like at the time, and the way he commanded the respect of an entire nation I think it hinted to me what might be possible in my own life.
Obama also mentioned the heroic life of Inouye. "And so we remember a man who inspired all of us with his courage, and moved us with his compassion, that inspired us with his integrity, and who taught so many of us -- including a young kid growing up in Hawaii –-- that America has a place for everyone," Obama concluded.

How 'Cliff' Talks Hit the Wall

WSJ ^ | December 21, 2012 | PATRICK O'CONNOR and PETER NICHOLAS

Congressional leaders and President Barack Obama called Friday for a return to negotiations to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, a day after talks cratered in a very public fashion when Republicans abandoned House Speaker John Boehner's backup plan.

In truth, talks to secure a big deficit-reduction deal had already broken down Monday afternoon in the office of Mr. Boehner (R., Ohio)......
[snip]A review of the negotiations, based on interviews with a dozen aides and lawmakers, suggests the problems lay in Mr. Boehner's inability to coax his rank-and-file to support a deal that raises taxes on higher-income Americans. Another factor was what Republicans saw as President Obama's unwillingness to bend when a deal was in sight, jamming the speaker with a deal his party couldn't swallow.
[snip] At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"

"You get nothing," the president said. "I get that for free."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

U.S. ending pursuit of illegal immigrants who commit minor crimes

mercurynews ^ | 12/21/2012 | Matt O'Brien/Contra Costa Times

Federal agents no longer will scoop up jailed illegal immigrants who had been picked up by police for traffic offenses and other petty crimes, the nation's top immigration enforcer announced Friday.
"We are changing who" we seek to detain and deport to focus more on serious criminals, said John Morton, the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Morton changed the national policy just as sheriffs around the Bay Area were rethinking their cooperation with the controversial federal Secure Communities immigration program, out of concern that it was leading to deportation of too many minor offenders.
The shift responds to the frustrations of immigrant communities in places such as Contra Costa County, which has turned over to federal agents so many illegal immigrants that it is now among the top counties nationwide in sending people without criminal records to deportation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

John Kerry as Secretary of State - Lets Review His Dark Past

The New American ^ | 21 December 2012 | Bob Adelmann

Senator John Kerry's impeccable credentials as a "climate hawk," membership in Yale's secret society Skull and Bones, and a voting record that almost completely ignores the Constitution, qualify him to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

Senator John Kerry to Replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State

The New American
21 December 2012

When Susan Rice, the United States' Ambassador to the United Nations, withdrew her name from consideration for the post of secretary of state last week, rumors abounded that next in line would be Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.). That rumor was confirmed on Friday, putting in place the first change in President Obama’s second term as Kerry is set to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary.

This is a position that Kerry has coveted ever since Obama was elected in 2008. It was Kerry who first introduced Barack Obama and launched his political career in 2004 by inviting him to give the keynote speech at the Democratic convention. He endorsed Obama in January 2008, and when the position of secretary of state went to Clinton, Kerry put his head down and went to work for the president, carrying out several diplomatic missions for him, including behind-the-scenes trips to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria to "engage" the political powers there.

The only problem with Kerry, according to David Sanger, writing for the New York Times, is that he is a white male, and Kerry "would be the first white man to serve in the post since Warren Christopher left the job in early 1997. His successors have been Madeleine K. Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Mrs. Clinton."

Other than that, Kerry fits the mold perfectly. A graduate of Yale, where he majored in political science, Kerry joined Skull and Bones, the secret society that has had unheralded but remarkable influence in American political affairs for decades. Antony Sutton, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, wrote a major investigative work covering Skull and Bones, America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones, which he considered his most important work. Far from being a campus fraternity, Skull and Bones is a recruiting tool to absorb the best and the brightest into the insider establishment. Other members of the Skull include Tafts, Rockefellers, Pillsburys, and Bushes, and many have become senators, judges, Cabinet secretaries, and even presidents (i.e., George W. Bush).

By itself that would almost be enough to qualify him for the position. But Kerry's voting record as senator from Massachusetts sealed the deal, as he opposes privatizing Social Security, supports abortion (even though he was raised as a Roman Catholic), approves same-sex marriage, opposes capital punishment, and supports gun control laws. He voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), along with Most Favored Nation status for China. His Freedom Index rating, based on his voting record in the Senate, is 13, indicating a complete disregard for any of the limitations the Founders built into the Constitution, which qualifies him perfectly for the position.

Green liberals naturally are delighted that nothing will change and that some things might actually get better under Kerry at State. Lisa Hymas, writing for, a “green” blog, says that Kerry will “be the most ardent climate hawk ever to hold the office.” She then quoted from an interview Kerry had with Grist in 2007. Said Kerry at the time: "Global climate change is a security issue on a planetary scale." And in a Senate speech last June, Kerry said that "climate change is one of two or three of the most serious threats our country now faces, if not the most serious."

As secretary of state, opines David Goldwyn, a supposedly internationally respected energy consultant (according to Hymas), Kerry "would not only put climate change in the top five issues he raises with every country, but he would probably rethink our entire diplomatic approach to the issue."

It's helpful to remember that he pushed "cap and trade" legislation, which would have required "nothing less than a reorganization of society and technology that will leave most remaining fossil fuels safely underground," according to Larry Lohman in New Scientist magazine. Happily, such legislation failed, with no thanks to Kerry.

On the matter of the Keystone XL pipeline, Kerry has obfuscated his green-at-any-cost ideology while chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2011:

There's a lot at stake here and I’ll do my best to leave no question unanswered including every possible economic and environmental consideration before a final decision is made.

But Joe Romm, writing at Climate Progress, is certain where Kerry stands on the issue:

I'm not sure Kerry could become Secretary of State fast enough to influence the Keystone XL pipeline decision, but it is hard to believe he would not have raised this issue with the President, since a go-ahead decision would immediately undercut the Administration's credibility on the climate issue both at home and abroad.

For further proof that Kerry's position as secretary of state will change nothing, one needs only to note Hillary Clinton's remarks at the influential, internationalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in July, 2009. First, she acknowledged that the CFR is the center of influence in the American government:

I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it's good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won't have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.

Youtube: Hillary Clinton admits that the CFR runs the Government; Council on Foreign Relations

Then she proceeded to expound on America's role as interventionist in other countries' affairs, all in the name of "solving problems":

We have the chance, and a profound responsibility, to exercise American leadership to solve problems in concert with others. That is the heart of America's mission in the world today.

She specifically ignores any limitation placed on such intervention by the Constitution:

The question is not whether our nation can or should lead, but how it will lead in the 21st century. [Emphasis added.]

And then she spells out the agenda:

We want to reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat. We want to isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world.

We want to encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue and achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East....

We want to combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future.

She has no problem working closely with avowed enemies of the United States:

We will also put special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia, and South Africa -- to be full partners in tackling the global agenda. [Emphasis added.]

I want to underscore the importance of this task, and my personal commitment to it. These states are vital to achieving solutions to the shared problems and advancing our priorities -- nonproliferation, counterterrorism, economic growth, climate change, among others.

She is comfortable with current U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, and ultimately defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and to prevent their return to either country.

She is following the lead of President Obama, as will Kerry, on nuclear weapons:

President Obama is committed to the vision of a world without nuclear weapons and a series of concrete steps to reduce the threat and spread of these weapons.

And on his green agenda:

Our Administration is also committed to deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with a plan that will dramatically change the way we produce, consume and conserve energy.

Now we must urge every other nation to meet its obligations and seize the opportunities of a clean energy future.

She summarized the agenda for herself and for incoming Secretary Kerry nicely:

We are both witness to and makers of significant change. We cannot and should not be passive observers. We are determined to channel the currents of change toward a world free of violent extremism, nuclear weapons, global warming, poverty, and abuses of human rights.

About the only thing that will change when John Kerry takes the reins at the State Department is that he is male, and taller.


WORD ON THE HILL: PAUL RYAN to Replace John Boehner as Speaker!

Reaganite Republican ^ | 21 December 2012 | Reaganite Republican

Yep, ya heard it here first: TEA Party
on the verge of taking-over Congress...

Speaking on the O'Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham said a 'well-placed conservative voice on the Hill' told her he's beginning to hear rumblings of a move to replace John Boehner as House Speaker.

And the name that keeps coming up? I LOVE IT...
Besides the fact that Speaker Boehner's recent 'Plan B' collapse displayed for all his weak leadership and general lack of support, seems that Boo-Hoo Boehner's private dealing with Obama -outside normal committe channels- was really that last straw... it's just not working for our side, period.

As we speak, TEA Party types are working to re-establish the secret vote (rather than public roll-call) so as to make it far easier to go against Boehner in next month's vote without exposing themselves to the sort of retaliation that four TEA Party members felt last month for daring to challenge ossified, ineffective Gee Oh Pee leadership... Breitbart has more on the GOP rebels' plan to unseat Boehner on January 3rd.

Godspeed Congrssman Ryan...