John Boehner Breaks Down in Remarks on Republicans Controlling the House

An emotional Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) breaks down during remarks on Republicans taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives on election night, November 2, 2010.

John Boehner

John Boehner Breaks Down

I live-blogged election results last night until about 12:30 a.m. CDT. Read it here.

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Obama Urges Latinos to "Punish Our Enemies:" John Boehner Counters 'Our Enemies' The Patriots

Obama tries to rally Latino voters, telling them if they do not vote to "punish our enemies...
"it's going to be harder," (assumed to mean keeping Democrats in office). I don't know if this is the first time a president has referred to American voters with a differing political philosophy,  as 'our enemy,' but we must understand, Barack Obama, has no respect for our constitutional right to vote him and his marxist bunch out of office. His Department of Justice has no respect for the sanctity of our right to vote - at all, and in fact has refused to protect us at the polls. See the video below.

John Boehner

OBAMA: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ — if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election — then I think it’s going to be harder. And that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2nd.” Source.

Congressman John Boehner plans to address "our enemies" tonight at a rally. His remarks will reportedly include this:

When Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush used the word ‘enemy,’ they reserved it for global terrorists and foreign dictators — enemies of the United States. Enemies of freedom. Enemies of our country...

Today, sadly, we have president who uses the word ‘enemy’ for fellow Americans — fellow citizens. He uses it for people who disagree with his agenda of bigger government — people speaking out for a smaller, more accountable government that respects freedom and allows small businesses to create jobs. Mr. President, there's a word for people who have the audacity to speak up in defense of freedom, the Constitution, and the values of limited government that made our country great. We don't call them ‘enemies.’ We call them ‘patriots.’” 

This rhetoric is not new. Obama infamously said, if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That quote is from a speech in Philadelphia June 2008. Obama brought more than a gun to the fight for U.S. presidency, he brought the corrupt ACORN and their rampant voter fraud. This election of 2010, ACORN and SEIU have already brought the big guns to the fight.

The goal of Tuesday's election day is to disarm Barack Obama, do it without a gun...do it with the will of the people.

Obama "Our Enemies" (Video)

Linked by The Lonely Conservative

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Content Scrapers: Until I can figure out what to do about your confiscation of my work for your own website, please be sure to give a link back as shown above.

Mitch McConnell to Obama - No Compromise on Tax Hikes

This is interesting. President Alinsky Obama officially made House Minority Leader John Boehner his target in this campaign season. He wants the voters to fear the man with the tan. John Boehner then came out and said he'd be willing to go along with a bill raising taxes on the rich, while leaving tax cuts for the middle class in place, if that what his only option.



Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, has thrown a monkey wrench into matters. McConnell is hardly an ultra conservative, but in this case, he's indicating there will be no compromise.

Reuters: In a political gambit, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell proposed a freeze on all tax brackets, insisting that cuts for wealthier Americans, as well as for the middle class,must be kept in place.

"I'm introducing legislation today that ensures that no one in this country will pay higher income taxes next year than they are right now," McConnell said on the Senate floor.

With control of the Senate, Democrats should be able to dictate whether there is a vote on the tax question ahead of the election but it is far from clear if they have enough party unity on the issue. McConnell may be hoping for enough defectors to bring his measure to the floor.

If Congress fails to take any action on the tax cuts enacted for all Americans under George W. Bush, Obama's

Republican predecessor, then they will expire at the end of this year.

Positions are so deeply entrenched and the risks so high for both sides that lawmakers may opt to put the issue on hold until after the election.

What's Obama to do now? He's chosen his target, honed in on it, and now this? Will he have two targets? Won't that be less effective? I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the White House right now.

This is a risky move on the part of McConnell, and he's never struck me as one to take big risks. I think it's worth it, though. There are at least a few Democrats who are well aware that raising taxes on anybody during a recession will hurt an already fragile economy.

Let's just hope this gamble pays off for Senator McConnell, the economy and the American people.

Hey, whoever said politics was boring?

Cross posted from The Lonely Conservative

Newt Gingrich Obama Pandering to Islam

Newt Gingrich is currently doing a good job denouncing jihad and its supporters, but I remember before the election when he refused to say that Obama might have Islamic leanings, or that he might be sympathetic to Islam...although we "nobodies" out here knew it and backed it up with facts. Nevertheless, yesterday Newt gave a quote to the NYT saying he is not surprised that this president panders to Islam and has done so by defending the plans for the Ground Zero mosque.

Ground Zero Mosque proposed site

From Newt:

“There is nothing surprising in the president’s continued pandering to radical Islam,” he said. “What he said last night is untrue and in accurate. The fact is this is not about religious liberty.”

Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.”

“It’s profoundly and terribly wrong,” he said.

House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH) is also lambasting Obama's endorsement of the mega-mosq, saying Obama's comments are "deeply troubling." Rep. Peter King (R-NY) says while the Muslims involved in erecting the mosque have the right to do so, it "offends too many people." From King:

The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from Ground Zero. Unfortunately the president caved into political correctness."

I don't think Obama bowed to political correctness. I believe his comments, which were more or less spit-out, chin-in-air, were combative. If he cared about the offensive nature of this 'place of worship,' he could have acknowledge the right to build it, then suggested that doing so is so painful for so many, that moving it to another location would be wise. But, he didn't do that. Not surprising! Thanks to JihadWatch.

A Bold Plan for November Elections, Paul Ryan's Roadmap or Rely on Voter Anger Alone?

For months now we've heard that the GOP will unveil a new, a "Contract with America." We've expected the unveiling in September after the Labor Day holiday, and it appears John Boehner (R-OH-8th) is holding to that plan. But what if the Party decides to hold back on key issues, and skips controversy which may become cannon fodder for Democrats? How would you feel about candidates simply assuring voters that the party has a plan? Stir up anger in the voters and they'll flood to the polls to vote for Republicans? Put us in office and we'll show you what we can do. If that's what this race comes down to, I'll need to find something to smash. In the video below, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-1st) has an opinion and a roadmap.

 Paul Ryan

Among the most discouraging election news is an apparent debate within the Republican party:

Some of the party’s most influential political consultants are quietly counseling their clients to stay on the offensive for the November midterm elections and steer clear of taking stands on substance that might give Democratic opponents material for a counterattack…

 "The smart political approach would be to make the election about the Democrats," said Neil Newhouse of the powerhouse Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, which is advising more than 50 House and Senate candidates. "In terms of our individual campaigns, I don't think it does a great deal of good" to engage in a debate over the Republicans' own agenda.

Of course we must talk about Democrats, but spare us the "my good friend across the aisle" rhetoric. We've heard them all too often. We hate them!

Here's my roadmap:

1) Blame Democrats,

2) Tell us how you will slay the looming monsters, and

3) Make us angrier then we thought we could be.

4) Stop representing yourself and start representing the U.S. (Excellent suggestion by reader PoliticalJules)

Do them all. Don't leave out any one of the three four. Know that your political life and the futures of your families ride on this election.

 We don't need consultants. We need mountain climbers, tough politicians that come to work every morning remembering their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

If you can't explain to the people, the enormity of the issues facing us, you're not ready for prime time. Guess what? We know the issues. We want to know that you know them also. Congressman Boehner has promised:

"...a full plate of policy proposals that will give voters a clear sense of how they would govern."

Bring it on. We are ready to climb to the summit with you, but if you want to defeat patriot spirits throughout America, then tell us nothing. Tell us everything, and fan our fury at the same time. This is how we'll win big in November. Congressman Paul Ryan has some ideas and he says it's time to "decide what kind of country we want to be."





Rep. Paul Ryan - What Kind of Country Do We Want to Be? (video) 

Thanks to Hot Air

John Boehner Gives $1M to NRCC: Battleground Fund: Repubs Still Far Behind Dems

House Majority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH) will donate $1 million to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). In an unusual move, the "Battleground" program asks lawmakers to pool their donations to reach a $20 million goal to take back the House of Representatives in November. The Politico article linked below says while Republican have greatly increased their war chest, they still fall far behind Democrats.

One Million Dollars - One for the Gipper

From The Hill:

The money will come from Boehner's campaign account, and will be on top of the $755,000 he's already contributed to the committee, and in addition to the $30,000 from his PAC. 

Boehner's contribution could be seen as setting an example for rank-and-file members to pony up for this fall's midterm efforts. 

The top House Republican has said Republicans could compete in as many as 100 congressional districts this November, and the NRCC's support could be key in converting many of those opportunities.

More from Politico:

Boehner was joined by a number of other Republicans on Wednesday morning in pledging huge transfers of money to the NRCC, the committee charged with helping Republicans take back the House.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) delivered a $250,000 check to the committee, while Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) kicked in another $100,000.

Reps. Wally Herger (R-Calif.), Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), John Fleming (R-La.), Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) and Steve Scalise (R-La.) all committed to delivering anywhere between $60,000 to $100,000 to the NRCC as well.

I applaud these men for kicking-in to take back the House. They have to do this, however, because no one gives to any GOP establishment fund anymore. Unfortunately, we've found our money is best spent when it goes directly to a candidate we support.

The Obama Mystique: Why it is all a Joke. McCartney, too

Another party in the White House and Sir Paul McCartney was the star, but on this evening "Sir" did not fit his rude and inane behavior. The Obama's presented McCartney with the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. The whole scene is just too delicious: The Obamas surrounded by, and being serenaded by, some of the biggest names in the music industry - no captain's of industry, of course - none of those in the Obama White House. No one there really making the country run. No one there creating jobs. No one there manufacturing anything tangible.  Perhaps no one there with an over-sized I.Q. but the Obama mystique was as thick as an oil spill.

George W. Bush

Adding to the mystique, Michelle wore a dress in silk satin silk (the pool reporter wasn't certain, but it looks like silk to me) charmeuse in a shade of "blush, with a jeweled belt, and here it is - the chicest touch: as The First Lady "sat, a pink petticoat peeked out. The adoration was palpable, and McCartney was soon to show his rear-end, and his I.Q. See two videos below.

Standing inside our White House, McCartney said this:

After the last eight years, it's great to have a President who knows what a library is

In the video, Jerry Seinfeld is standing in the White House right next to McCartney. Anyone know why the taxpayers should be wining and dining Jerry Seinfield? Stevie Wonder was there...again. Faith Hill (she's a Liberal folks), Elvis Costello and Emmy Lou Harris were there. The bright spot of the evening (because it is always about the Obama's) was Paul serenading Michelle with "Mee-shelll."

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) replied about the G.W. comment:

Like millions of other Americans, I have always had a good impression of Paul McCartney and thought of him as a classy guy, but I was surprised and disappointed by the lack of grace and respect he displayed at the White House. I hope he'll apologize to the American people for his conduct which demeaned him, the White House and President Obama.

Connie Hair, writing at Human Events, leveled her site:

McCartney is the third recipient of the Gershwin Prize. Hailing from England and having earned no university degrees of his own, the Beatle may not know W. as the first American president to earn a master's degree in business administration. (The fact the MBA is from Harvard really irks the left.) Not to mention Bush is married to a librarian. 

G.W. was the first and only President to hold an MBA. He also received a BA in History from Yale. Lord knows, we could use some knowledge of business and true history in the White House.

From Thomas Lifson at American Thinker, speaking of the Left's fondness for denigrating W.'s education and/or ability to learn:

Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two—year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year's interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the minuscule degree of slack cut for even the most well—connected students, when their performance did not make the grade.

There is simply no way on earth that the son of the then—Ambassador to China (technically, head of the Beijing Liaison Office), or anyone else, could have coasted through Harvard Business School with a 'gentleman's C.' I never, ever heard of a case of an incompetent student being allowed to graduate, simply because a certain family was prominent. On the contrary, I did hear stories of well—born students having to leave prior to graduation. The academic standards were a point of considerable pride.

Hopeful Liberals can only estimate Barack Obama's intelligence "quotient," his SAT, LSAT score and his college GPA. We hear a lot of very high numbers, making Liberals go all misty-eyed and weak-kneed at thought of the capabilities of his pristine half-African brain...but there nothing - not one single thing to base it on. It's all myth, as are his policies, which have yielded nothing for this country. All of his records - that's ALL of his records, are hidden from the public. An inquiring mind would wonder why. If they were stellar, they would not be hidden. But that doesn't stop Progressives from telling us that Obama would be a member of MENSA if he provided the pertinent records and surely his IQ is in the 130 to 145 range. It's all myth.

They don't stop there. There is no information on Michelle's scores either, but this website, which writes for our gullible children, says "it is safe to say that she is just as smart as her husband." Personally, I have no doubt of that. I "doubt" plenty, but do not doubt that the two share similar brains - but don't forget, Barack gets the benefit of "the other side of Valerie Jarrett's brain (his Senior Adviser).

Obama received a J.D. from Harvard Law. He surrendered his law license. His hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune, says as a civil rights lawyer, Obama was the "strong, silent type."

A review of the cases Obama worked on during his brief legal career shows he played the "strong, silent type" in court, introducing himself and his client, then stepping aside to let other lawyers do the talking. 

Transcripts show that at court hearings, Obama identified himself, then let [Paul] Mollica begin speaking. Maria Valdez of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund sometimes spoke. The U.S. Justice Department joined in.

Letting the heavy-hitters at the Justice Department make the arguments appears to have been a sound strategy -- Obama's side won, even without him talking.

Odd, because the man hasn't shut-up since the day he won the presidential nomination.

"I was one of the better writers [Obama said]. I ended up doing the more cerebral writing, less trial work," Obama added. "That's actually something I regret -- not doing more trial work."

"He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss.

A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: Zero.

His practice was confined mainly to federal court in Chicago, where he made formal appearances in only five district court cases and another five in cases before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- a total of 10 cases in his legal career.

Obama sued on behalf of ACORN for Motor-Voter registration. For this, he is idolized today:

Transcripts show that at court hearings, Obama identified himself, then let [Paul] Mollica begin speaking. Maria Valdez of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund sometimes spoke. The U.S. Justice Department joined in.

Letting the heavy-hitters at the Justice Department make the arguments appears to have been a sound strategy -- Obama's side won, even without him talking.

Among Bush's finest attributes - he is not a lawyer. Among Obama's finest attributes, he's tall. Among McCartney's finest attribute: Penning Let it Be.

Paul McCartney Bashing Half of America (video)
Michelle Obama wearing...oh, who cares? (video)

Barack Obama John Boehner Funny or Die Video: Obama Advises Boehner

This is the way it works...for now.

Obama Reacts to Health Care Vote from Jordan Peele (video)

John Boehner Hell No Speech Health Care Debate

If you missed Boehner's excellent speech tonight before the health care vote, here it is. It is worth a watch.



Related and Background Posts:
Why the Senate Bill Funds Abortions

Health Care: Stopping at the Constitution - Not the White House - Not Congress

John Boehner - Have you read the bill? Hell No you Haven't? (video)

Linked by MarathonPundit - Thank You!

Linked by The Lonely Conservative - Thanks LC!

John Boehner: I Wouldn't vote for Gitmo plan "if you put a gun to my head" (video)

House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) said he wouldn't vote for the plan to close Gitmo "if you put a gun to my head." See an excellent video with a very pithy Boehner below (makes me want to jump-up and cheer).

John Boehner

"They want $500 million from this Congress to rehabilitate this prison in northwest Illinois. I want to see who the members are who are going to vote for this. I wouldn't vote for this if you put a gun to my head."

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) recently said that he would vote to close Gitmo if Obama and Holder would agree to move terrorist trials out of New York City. The appropriate response from Graham would be, move the damn trials out of New York City. Period. How do you bargain one for the other?

In the video below, Boehner says he doesn't believe Congress will appropriate "one dime" to rehab an Illinois prison. See an incredulous Candy Crowley (I think it's Crowley) who simply cannot believe we would not close Guantanamo Bay prison facility, which is such a contentious image to terrorists around the world.

Note to Crowley: if Gitmo doesn't raise visions of sugar plums for terrorists, that's a good thing. Enough of the "image mongering." Guantanamo has been run with honor and millions in taxpayer dollars. Do you not know that American is hated around the world now, more than when George Bush was president? If you think Muslims are offended, what is Poland feeling at the abandonment of the missile shield program, because...because...Iran, believed to be almost at the summit of a nuclear warhead, doesn't even have a long-range missile?  Closing a state-of-art prison facility because we think it "offends" Muslims is not clear thinking, and should not be an option. I like the new Boehner in this video.




John Boehner with CNN's Candy Crowley (video)

War of the Earmarks: House Republicans Ban All Earmarks: Dems Ban Earmarks for For-Profit Companies

There is a war for the most dramatic earmark ban in the U.S. House of Representatives. Who takes the prize: Dems or Republicans? 

Democrats announced a ban on earmarks going to "private companies." Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) announced today that House Republicans are banning all earmarks for the rest of this Congressional year, in an effort to quash "back room deals" to buy votes for health care, including funds to nonprofits, such as universities:

Pence said Democrats were cutting "backroom deals" to persuade reluctant House Democrats to vote for the president's proposal, and said "the American people want us to change business as usual." Source: The Daily Caller

Democrats said their ban "is a key step in restoring trust in Congress. They think we are idiots.

It ensures that for-profit companies no longer reap the rewards of congressional earmarks and limits the influence of lobbyists on members of Congress. 

While the story seems to be that earmark spending has little to do with reducing spending, maybe the real story is what the GOP intimated: quashing back room deals to buy votes for health care. 

Boehner calls for Pelosi Hoyer Investigation: Boehner Introduces Privileged Resolution

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) introduced a Privileged Resolution on the floor of the House today, calling for an investigation into Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and their handling of the Rep. Eric Massa scandal and claims that he had inappropriately groped House staffers.

This threat to Pelosi and Hoyer, may explain this report yesterday:

House Democrats, armed with a thick docket of Republican ethics cases, are putting the GOP leadership on notice: Throw mud at them and they'll pitch rocks at a Republican glass house."

Boehner either didn't get the memo or is not intimidated by the Democrat's rocks.

Pelosi allegedly told Roll Call that she only learned of the accusations against Massa on March 10th, yet a report in the Washington Post on March 11th claims the Speaker knew about the sexual harrassment claims  as early as October 2009.

The Privileged Resolution goes on, but the short story is, Boehner believes Pelosi may not have acted against one of her own, in an appropriate manner, and cites this House Rule:

Whereas, clause one of Rule XXXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, titled “Code of Conduct,” states “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House”

The Resolution calls for the formation of an Investigative Subcommittee, and protection from deleted emails, text messages, voicemails and other records, and the findings reported to the House no later than June 30th, 2010.


Obviously, there was no justice for the abused staffers, if there were abused staffers, and how often do you see an Ethics investigation begin, and shut down, in one week's time, with no conclusions reached - especially when the charges involve sex?


Read the full Privileged Resolution at Daily Caller.


Related and Background:
Massa Groping Charges Dropped

Republicans Meet Obama for Televised Health Care Feb 25th: Boehner Cantor Letter to Rahm Emanuel

More snake oil peddled by the President today, as he told reporters at a White House briefing that he will start from scratch with the health bill...but...but...he will not ditch the bill now in existance. What?

So I am going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals," he said.

The President well knows the the positions that are not negotiable for Republicans, and he is not open about them: tort reform, no single payer, no payment for abortions and strong consideration of purchasing insurance across state lines.

Throughout this process, none of the above have been considered - even slightly, by Democrats. How many times do Republicans have to lay this out before him?

What I will not do, what I don't think makes sense and I don't think the American people want to see, would be another year of partisan wrangling around these issues, another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the House and the Senate in which there's a lot of posturing."

What America doesn't want is this health care bill, and we don't want to hear anymore about it. There is nothing Obama needs to explain to us. We know the bill hasn't been read, and had it been read it was deceptive and dishonest: abortion in - abortion out, single payer in - single payer, death panels in - death panels out. We have been schooled in backroom manipulations , and we know whatever passes will be secretly amended. So start over, take some time with it, or get on with a reconciliation vote so that we show you real American rage, really is.

Yesterday, House Republican leadership sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. In short, the letter asks if we come to the table:

 1) Is the President ready to start over, and if he is not, Republicans see the Senate Health Care Bill as a jobs killer.

2) Is the President ready to show good faith by declaring "reconciliation to pass the bill" off the table?

3) Will Democrats voting against your legislation be admitted to these bi-partisan meetings?

4) Will all legislation be available to Congress and the public 72 hours before a vote?

5) Will "officials and lawmakers" from individual states be invited - especially from those states which have pending legislation to disallow your mandated purchasing of government health care?

6) Among the "experts" the President says he wants to participate in this bi-partisan meeting, will those who currently say the Senate plan will raise, will the experts the Congressional Budget Office, and will Republicans be allowed to bring their own experts?

7) Will Unions and other special interest groups be invited to the televised bi-partisan meetings?

8) Will the President pledge that all future meetings be open, transparent and televised, including those on Capitol Hill?

9) And the letter expresses frustration at the Presidents continual accusations of Republican "obstruction," saying it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan talks last May - and presented their plan - which was rudely ignored.

So, that my synopsis for a quick read. Here's the letter:

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama's announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks.  In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it.  Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.  Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people?  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is "absolutely not" resetting the legislative process for health care.  If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation?  As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.  Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand?  Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. 

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills?  This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?  As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance.  Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have "experts" participate in health care discussions.  Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such "experts?"  Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs - just the opposite of their intended effect - and jeopardize seniors' access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent?  Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate? 

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March.  Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders.  Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks.  We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake.  Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can't afford and don't support.  'Bipartisanship' is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support.  Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President's rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality.  We cannot help but notice that each of the President's recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. 

For instance, the President decries Republican 'obstruction' when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.  The President says Republicans are 'sitting on the sidelines' just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word.  The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely, 

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs followed his reponse, representing the White House.

1) The President reached out in a bipartisan manner in March 2009.

2) He has continued to reach out

3) He has been very clear about his support of the House and Senate bills

4) He looks forward to reviewing Republican proposals

5) The President is open to "including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny."

Neither Congress or the President find any Republican ideas that meet their scrutiny. It's that simple. This meeting is for show. 

Stephen Colbert Paul Begala: Obama to Clock John Boehner? Colbert Confirms a One Term Obama Presidency

The best of the video is before Begala arrives, but it essential to hear Colbert confirm that this will be a one-term presidency for Barack Obama. And then there's the comment from Begala about what Obama will do to House Minority Leader, John Boehner. When Colbert mentions Strom Thurmond, remember he was a Democrat back them.

Thanks to NetRightNation via NewsBusters
 

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Democrats Must Fight Back - Paul Begala
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Colbert and Begala: Obama to Clock Boehner (video)

Doug Hoffman Loses NY23: Conservatives Win Battle of Principle

It has just been announced that Doug Hoffman lost the NY23 special election for the U.S. House to Democrat David Owens. So be it. Message to Newt Gingrich: This is not a win for you. Message to John Boehner: This is not a win for you. Message to Eric Cantor: This is not a win for you.

The problem is, you backed the wrong candidate from the beginning, plying hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign of the wrong candidate until she quit and endorsed a Democrat.

You, the leadership, are to blame for this loss. Count the days you dithered away after Sarah Palin endorsed this conservative candidate. And take note Newt: Nancy Pelosi will not be Speaker for Life. Conservatives across the country won the battle of principle tonight.

Pentagon - Funds for Soldiers Not Jets: John Boehner Trip Around the World

The eight new jets Congress wants to ferry their members to unknown destinations will cost the Pentagon $550 million. The Pentagon wants to fund soldiers and not congressional jet travel. To fly in the face of conservatism, House Minority leader, Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) is planning a trip around the world with five other members of congress.

Congressional Jets

Congress says the jets are used 44 percent of the time for military and only 14.5 percent of the time for lawmakers. The question is, why would the military need a business-class passenger jet to ferry military officials? The requested C-40's, known as the 737 is "designed to be an office in the sky." Throughout it is configured with first-class accommodations, including a "distinguished visitor" compartment with sleep accommodations. Now what does that mean? Is Speaker Pelosi considered a "distinguished visitor," or must she sleep in her first-class, leather-clad seat. The Obama administration pushed "lawmakers" to drop plans for F-22 fighter jets, but requested a mere $220 million to buy four passenger jets. Congress is bestowing him with double the funding and double the jets. An existing fleet of about two dozen passenger jets is currently maintained by the Air Force for Congress, the administration and military chiefs. The Wall Street Journal says that the demand for travel by congressional officials is "growing." Another question is why?

Congressional Jet Travel (photo)

Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said the Department of Defense did not request the additional jets and does not need additional jets. "We ask for what we need and only what we need," Morrell said. The Wall Street Journal give an example of August 2009 travel for Congress:

This month, for example, 11 separate congressional delegations will swing through Germany. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio is leading five other lawmakers on a trip around the world. Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) is taking a group of senators and their spouses to Europe for three weeks.

A spokesman for Mr. Boehner said he couldn't comment on the trip for security reasons. A spokeswoman for Mr. Shelby said the same.

I would say to John Boehner, keep your delegation at home. I also want to know what Democrats are traveling at taxpayer's expense, if not this month during their vacation, then in September or October or November. In Boehner's defense, there is no reason for him to be in the halls of Congress because there is nothing there for a Republican to do...but why a trip around the world? And why am I paying for it?

Congressional Jet Global Travel

From the Wall Street Journal:

Lawmakers typically fly on military jets, where members of the Armed Services carry bags and take drink orders. When flying on military jets, lawmakers are permitted to bring along spouses at no cost.

Congress and the administration has severely criticized private business for leaving their big carbon footprint on the world through their jet and luxury car travel. Perhaps this is the most ridiculous statement out of the House in a while, other than Pelosi's "swastika" comment:

Ellis Brachman, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said the changes were part of "Congress's normal oversight responsibility" to make sure "the troops have everything they need."

The Pentagon is right to be outraged about this unnecessary spending during some very tough economic times, and it is sad to note that the Pentagon and the soldiers will lose this fight. To say that I am disappointed in Congressman Boehner is an understatement. He and his friends must cancel this trip around the globe. I also suggest that Congress serve the drinks and carry the bags for the soldiers. Photos and graphics courtesy WSJ

Boehner and Hoyer on Fox News Sunday: Boehner: Defending the Simulus (Video)

Listen to Boehner tell Hoyer that Republicans were not opposed to a stimulus, they were opposed to the Democrat's stimulus. Saying that jobs should have been created by small businesses as Republicans proposed, Obama and Hoyer bray about th teachers and firefighters who have not lost their jobs. The fact is, few jobs have been created, basically no sustainable jobs have been created, but...well one job created by stimulus funds is...innovative??? The show opens with this video within the video, of how a town used their stimulus windfall. Rep. John Boehner key quote: "Trust small business and the American people to invest their own money." In response to Rep. Steny Hoyer's whine that the Democrats inherited this terrible economy, my hubby points out that the Democrats had been in power for two years before Barack Obama came to the Oval Office, and sat in the Senate those two years.

Boehner and Hoyer on Fox News Sunday

Boehner Promises to Stand Strong on These Issues

The simple message for Conservatives: now is not the time to go "all wobbly." We have two years to work toward rebuilding our representation in the House and the Senate, but today, we still have a small voice in Congress. House Republican Leader, John Boehner, in an op-ed written for RedState.com, lays out the issues we can expect the Minority Leadership to stand against. After Boehner's list you'll find links to all Senate and House Committees as well as the ranking Republican committee member for each.

* If an Obama presidency means “spreading the wealth around” by raising taxes on small businesses, families and investment to pay for more spending in Washington, DC, Republicans will have no choice but to fight it vigorously in favor of a pro-growth plan for rapid economic recovery.

* If an Obama presidency means cutting defense and troop funding while we're fighting a war against terror, Republicans will stand opposed on behalf of our military men and women and the nation they protect.

* If an Obama presidency means doing the bidding of radical special interests by taking away workers’ right to secret ballot elections, forcing workers to join unions, rolling back school choice for low-income children on behalf of powerful Washington teachers unions, and making it easier for dishonest trial lawyers to extort money through job-killing, frivolous lawsuits, Republicans will fight to put the country's interests first.

* If an Obama presidency means blocking production of American energy that would help lower costs, create jobs, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, Republicans will fight for enactment of an energy plan that does "all of the above" – increased conservation, innovation, and domestic production.

* If an Obama presidency means spending billions of dollars annually on wasteful pork-barrel projects, including taxpayer-funded “monuments to me” and earmarks “airdropped” into bills at the last possible minute to avoid scrutiny, Republicans will fight it vigorously.

* If an Obama presidency means repealing state and federal laws that protect the rights of unborn children and respect the sanctity of innocent human life, we’ll fight it vigorously.

If an Obama presidency means regulating free speech and stifling dissent on the airwaves [the Fairness Doctrine], Republicans will fight it vigorously.

* If an Obama presidency means forcing people out of their private health insurance and into a government-run program, Republicans will oppose it and fight for real solutions that keep Americans’ health care in the hands of patients and doctors, not government bureaucrats.

* If an Obama presidency means ignoring the looming fiscal tsunami in our entitlement programs –- ducking a problem that could eventually make the current financial crisis look like a tempest in a teacup – Republicans will have no choice but to fight it and demand responsible reforms to protect current and future generations of Americans.

* If an Obama presidency means cutting off job-creating trade with the rest of the world, Republicans will stand opposed and fight to open foreign markets to products created by American workers.

* If an Obama presidency means blocking investigation of the role Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, ACORN, and subprime mortgages played in the financial meltdown, Republicans will fight for accountability, transparency, and real reform to ensure taxpayers are never again put at such risk

If an Obama presidency means sweeping ethical issues involving Members of Congress under a rug, Republicans will fight for transparency and accountability, while holding ourselves to the highest possible ethical standards.

*****

Everything begins in Committee. Below you will find the House and Senate Committees with a link to the Committee homepage. If the ranking member, or other Republican committee members is/are not from your state, don't let that slow you down. Pick your issues. Stay up-to-date. Make the contact. Catch the legislation early and often. Give Congress the courage to do the hard work needing to be done.

Senator John Boehner, House Republican Leader 

The website for the House Republican Leader, John Boehner, should be on your toolbar or in your favorites folder for easy access.

List of House Committees Homepage:

Senator Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senate Republican Leader
 

Another link for your toolbar:
Republican Senate Homepage List of Senate Committees Homepage

*****

Other Sources:
The Congressional Record (the official record of the proceedings and debates in Congress) House.gov House Legislative Archive
List of U.S. Representatives Senate Legislation Records
List of U.S. Senators
The Library of Congress
Congress.org To Go