Thank you John Boehner for trying to stop the CAP AND TRADE BILL !

John Boehner gave it his best shot of Friday by going over the addtional 300 pages added to the CAP AND TAX TRADE BILL in the middle of the night that NO ONE read. They not only did not read the additional 300 pages they did not even read the 1200 original pages before voting on it Friday. 8 republican traders voted for it putting the vote over the amount needed to send it to the senate. Let's all pray that it is stopped DOA when it gets tot he senate.
Boehner is right...It is a PILE OF SHIT ! John Boehner is a good man and he needs to commended greatly for trying to stop this disgusting tax bill. HAVE YOU READ THE BILL YOURSELF. If you have not I ask you to go and read it. ALL AMERICANS RICH OR POOR WILL PAY DEARLY FOR THIS TERRIBLE BS BILL. The government in place TODAY wants to totally control our lives. What happened to the Constitution of the United States. Our health and well being in all assepts of life is being decided by 435 House of represetatives and 100 senators. WHAT A CROCK OF BS. These folks are insane. Especially the PRESIDENT who coudl care less about us THE FOLKS. All he cares about is appeasing the people and all the special interest groups that helped get him selected. A terrible self centered arrogant person leading this country is the WRONG direction. WAKE UP FOLKS. WAKE UP ! Get up off your butts and get out their on the streets and let your voice be heard. A march on Washington in HUGE numbers may help. Get it going. Lets do it now. !

Boehner: Climate bill a 'pile of s--t'

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) had a few choice words about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) landmark climate-change bill after its passage Friday.

When asked why he read portions of the cap-and-trade bill on the floor Friday night, Boehner told The Hill, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s--t."

Using his privilege as leader to speak for an unlimited time on the House floor, Boehner spent an hour reading from the 1200-plus page bill that was amended 20 hours before the lower chamber voted 219-212 to approve it.

Eight Republicans voted with Democrats to pass the bill; 44 House Democrats voted against it.

Pelosi's office declined to comment on Boehner's jab. But one Democratic aide quipped, "What do you expect from a guy who thinks global warming is caused by cow manure?"

Even though Sen. Majorty Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) holds the bill's fate in his hands, House Republicans intend to hammer Speaker Pelosi's signature climate-change measure over recess.

And GOP Conference Chairman Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.) said "we have only just begun to fight” as he left the Capitol Friday night.

Pence encouraged GOP rank-and-file lawmakers to hold energy summits in their districts over the Independence Day recess. In the recess packets sent home with members, he even included directions on how to organize energy summits.

The goal of holding an energy forum is to “educate your constituents about the Democrats’ national energy tax legislation and let them know what 'all of the above' solution you support.”

"All of the above” solution is a reference to the Republicans' plan that would increase the use of and exploration for domestic energy supplies.

Further, officials with the House GOP's campaign arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, confirm that they will run with paid media over recess in districts of conservative Dems who voted for the bill. The official would not reveal details on the ad buys at this time.

One Democrat was upset that his leaders would needlessly force vulnerable Dems to vote for a bill that will come back to haunt them. Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate.

"A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law," Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down.

Republicans should ban together and never give up ! Stay strong GOP !

An Excellent Read !
February 24, 2009
No Surrender
By J.R. Dunn
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/no_surrender.html

I'm curious -- does anyone know of any situation, current, historical, hypothetical, or otherwise, in which some American conservatives don't immediately start hollering that it's time to give in?
That's a serious question. It seems that whenever things get rough, the cry goes up: it's over. The left has won. It's not our country anymore. There's no hope, never has been, never will be again. And almost always, it comes from people who claim that they're the true nail-hard conservatives, the core element, of whom everyone else is merely a pale reflection.
With Obama, this chorus has become deafening. It's the counterpoint to the Obama-as-Messiah drone from points left. Obama is the watershed, the spearpoint of a seventy-year-long conspiracy against the Republic. With his advent, the game has ended. There is no possibility of resistance. All he needs to do is raise a hand and his disciples will fill the streets, waving the little green book of the One's Sayings and sweeping all before them. There's nothing to be done now but to pack a single small bag and await the summons to appear for "reformation through labor".
That or take to the woods with a cheap Kalashnikov knockoff and a knapsack full of canned baked beans.
It could happen just that way, I guess. But I have my doubts.
The argument (up until now unvoiced) appears to be that the country has been hollowed out by decades of liberal activity to a point where all that's all required is a single kick for it to fall apart. Every institution has been undermined, every principle eroded. The intelligentsia are traitors, the business world has sold out, the populace as a whole is dumb as a dishrag. There's nothing left worth saving even if it was possible to save it.
To say this is a one-sided vision is to insult one-sided visions. The first question we need to ask is: does this in fact resemble anything at all going on in the real world?
Thirty days into the Obamiate, we have seen that the man cannot put together a working cabinet. Four major figures have fallen by the wayside due to corruption of one form or another. A fifth -- O's major attempt at "bipartisanship"-- scrambled back ashore just before this Titanic set sail. O's successful nominees have been not quite what the situation demands either. Tim Geithner, the man who would pull a whole new economy out of his hat, is still looking for the hat. Eric Holder attempted to fulfill his duties as the nation's chief law enforcement official by inflaming long-buried hostile feelings between the races. (I wonder if Obama grasps that, on some level, this is a blow aimed against him personally, in his persona of the man who embodies racial reconciliation?)
His great "victory", the stimulus bill, succeeded in uniting the GOP in opposition, annoying members of his own party, dismaying the public, and sending the markets into a 300-point tailspin. Obama, and his followers, desperately need to contemplate the story of King Pyrrhus. A few days later, his banking proposal led to a repetition of the market collapse. But he succeeded in topping even that with his mortgage plan, which triggered, another market slide, nationwide defiance, and converted a little-known market commentator, Rick Santelli, into a focus of opposition. Nice work for a single week.
On the international front, he has triggered the disdain and contempt of Iran, Russia, and Venezuela among others. Mighty Kyrgyzstan has unceremoniously ejected U.S. forces. He has even succeeded in annoying the amiable Canadians prior to his visit to Ottawa. And to round that out, on Friday, February 20th, he for all practical purposes surrendered to the Taliban, a group sharing responsibility for the only successful attack on the mainland U.S. in modern times.
And this is the American Lenin, you say? The man who is going to overthrow the republic, trample the Constitution, and put the chains of socialism on a helpless, despairing populace?
What's bothering many conservatives today is a kind of institutional memory of the FDR epoch. Roosevelt truly did carry out a revolution in political affairs. His first "hundred days" did in fact turn the country upside down. Such efforts as ending the gold standard, closing the banks, and establishing the New Deal with its complete control over the economy, were unprecedented, in no way comparable to anything that had come before.
Of course, you don't fix a wounded economy by turning it upside down, a fact that became apparent in relatively short order. But even aside from the failure of the New Deal, FDR had a dramatic and lasting effect on the political landscape. Nowhere was this effect more apparent than with America's conservatives.
Most of the Republicans of the era were country-club Babbits -- go-along to get-along types who joined the GOP because Dad did. It comes as no surprise that these people had no solution to the country's economic problems, or could put up any worthwhile resistance to FDR's "reforms". They were swept aside, and little serious opposition ever confronted Roosevelt. The era's conservatives simply retreated to isolated pea patches while communicating only with each other. It took a generation for William F. Buckley to revive conservatism as a vital political and cultural force.
Even today, FDR remains a nightmare figure in the conservative mind. He's denounced in contemporary books (such as the asinine Day of Deceit of which I was given three copies by people convinced it was a worthwhile read, despite its being one of the most ill-researched and badly written historical works I've ever encountered) with the energy and venom you'd expect to be directed at a man who left office last week, and he's spoken of with a sense of fear and apprehension, as if he's right around the corner and will come rolling back any minute, to scatter all before him like the Steelers' offensive line.
But there is no third-millennial Roosevelt, only poor O, overwhelmed and getting in deeper every day. The Democrats are a gaggle of every-pol-for-himself hustlers of the Dodd, Rangel, Schumer, and Frank school, far from the unified, all-powerful party they were during the 30s. The progressive impulse is played out, a hollow ideology with no intellectual force behind it. The left-wing media is collapsing almost as quickly as the Madoff financial empire, from the venerable El Tiempos de Nuevo York to your local Democrat & Whatever. All that's keeping the mad whirl going is the adoration of the simpler members of the public, than which no more fickle force exists.
Compare this to today's conservatism. A GOP cleansed of its most egregious malefactors and unified as in a way unseen since the mid-90s. Consider only the leading names -- Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Bobby Jindal. A greater distinction from the nonentities of the 1930s GOP can scarcely be imagined. The unity of the House Republicans against the stimulus bill came as a surprise even to me, and was of a nature to bring cheer to a stone. The Senate was not quite as impressive, but that merely marks yet another of the RINO's offenses against intelligence, good sense, and common decency. (Has anyone ever considered the fact that "moderates" such as Spector, Snowe, and Collins are the among the least trustworthy of current politicians?)
In addition, there's something that was scarcely imaginable in the 30s, or even in the 60s -- a thriving and intellectually diverse conservative movement. A movement that has been through the fire, that has matured in both message and execution, and that remains underestimated by both its opposition and their media enablers. The modern conservative movement is even now moving into a new phase. It's impossible at this point to say exactly where it's going, but anyone wishing to write it off needs a little serious study.
Given the choice between this and a party headed by an intellectual juvenile who thinks he can disburse a trillion dollars one week and talk about "halving the deficit" the next, a party staffed with superannuated hustlers and grifters, with a rank and file comprised of mesmerized, glassy-eyed true believers, I know which one I'd pick.
The time may come when that choice will matter quite a lot. Obama has promised everybody everything. He will fail to bring any of it off, as Johnson and Carter failed before him. When he does fail, he will need to attempt something to shore up his base. He will move against the enemies of the people. He has several avenues open -- gun control, the "fairness doctrine", even euthanasia. Each will mark a fundamental attack on human rights and the American character that must be opposed and defeated. All hands will be required in this effort. There will be no excuse then for self-centered whining or skulking in the woods.
We will at that point have an opportunity to give the collectivist heresy a beating from which it will never completely recover. And if that isn't worth a battle, what is?
So lighten up. The story ain't over yet, and the fat lady hasn't even buckled on her armor. And when the song comes at last, it may well be a tune we like.
And besides -- I'll bet you left your can opener home.J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.

REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL BE BACK SOONER THAN LATER

What do the election results mean to conservatives?

The results of the 2008 election mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. What do those results mean to conservatives? The results do not mean conservative candidates lose elections. Obama got a big slice of the conservative vote, largely because he portrayed himself as a post-ideological as well as a post-partisan candidate -- and McCain tried to do just the same thing. Ronald Reagan in 1984 was the last man to run as an unabashed conservative, and he won by the last true landslide in an American presidential election.

President Bush, admired for his personal honor and deep faith, was respected by many conservatives, but he was hardly a conservative himself. No man who nominated Harriett Meiers to the Supreme Court could be considered a true conservative. Anyone who could embrace the vision of Ted Kennedy for our national education policy was not a true conservative. Anyone who could create a new entitlement for prescription drugs was not a true conservative.

Bush was simply a decent man who was not a Leftist Democrat. As McCain found out, being a decent man who is not a Leftist Democrat means nothing at all to the Left. Both men, like Bob Dole and like George H. Bush, are good Americans, admirable people, and men blissfully unaware that the Left is not just waging battles on issues like more socialism but are rather waging war on our entire way of life. Bush, Dole, McCain, and Bush Sr. were not wicked failures because they were not conservatives. They were more like Chamberlain at Munich: They did not grasp the true depth and nature of their adversary and, they thought, their adversary might be reasonable.

How far have "conservatives" come from Ronald Reagan's famous maxim "If you can't make them see the light, then let them feel the heat." In other words, conservatives must lead. Or, as Reagan also said "All they can do is hang us from a higher tree." This homey, typical truth trumped all the mush of moderation that brought Republicans in such disrepute over the last ten years or so. Courage is contagious and so is cowardice.

When Republican "leaders" like Trent Lott sabotaged the impeachment trial of a sitting president because they feared political fallout, conservatives cringed. We conservatives, after all, do not involve ourselves in the public arena because of the goodies we might get. That is what Leftists do. We intend to protect the sacred values of the Declaration of Independence, which are utterly nonpartisan (the founding fathers, of course, dreaded political parties) and we do this recalling that the signers of that document risked all in taking their stand for transcendent liberty. Ronald Reagan, a Hollywood star with a starlet wife and lots of money, did not enter politics to get but rather to give. He entered to lead and not to herd. This is what conservatives used to do.

And this is the way conservatives used to talk: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater defiantly rejected the idea that Leftists could place him on some invented "Far Right." He stood for specific things, which he recorded in books, and which represented an actual platform for conservative ideals. John McCain, the other Republican nominee from Arizona, would never have embraced extremism, even in the defense of liberty. The soft, warm, middle was his true home. The safe, predictable consensus was his real party.

He was in the good company of pleasant and worthwhile citizens like Tom Dewey, Wendel Wilkie, Herbert Hoover, and Gerald Ford. In a world at peace on a planet unscarred by a relentless ideological jihad on our values and our faith, these nice sorts would have made excellent managers of the republic. But war was declared on us long ago, long before September 11.

War was declared on us by militant atheists who sought to deconstruct all our values and to mask their crimes as science. War was declared on us by active, pernicious agents of the Soviet Union who sowed the seeds of racial hatred, gender warfare, and every other discord they could inflame and poison -- they were not in the business of calming and healing. War was declared on us by jealous and irreligious Europeans, who view our faith in anything as hopeless naïveté which it is their pleasure to debunk. War was declared on us by radical Moslems, who saw the version of God which serious Christians and Jews embrace as too loving and too peaceful.

War was declared on us, and the Left here joined the fight against us. War was declared on us, and notional "conservatives" tried to lead us. But, of course, they could not. While Ronald Reagan embarrassed the establishment by calling the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire," our putative conservative nominee would not even raise the malignancy of Jeremiah Wright. While Barry Goldwater nobly challenged federal grasping in 1964, his Arizonan successor called for Washington "solutions" to a Washingtonian financial disease forty-four years later.

What does this mean to conservatives? It means we must choose leaders who believe, even if their cause seems hopeless. It means that we must recall that liberty was not born in our nation in easy ways but at Valley Forge when Washington saw his men's bloody, frostbitten feet as he contemplated the loss of everything he possessed in life if he were to lose. It means remembering that Goldwater was routed in 1964, but came back to the Senate in 1968 with everyone - liberals included -- respected his courage and dignity. It means going back four years to the Reagan Funeral and seeing the long lines of thankful Americans who waited for hours just to say goodbye to the last true leader they had known.

We have hope now. Obama cannot end democracy in America and he probably cannot impose a melancholy quasi-official censorship. Obama can only assume total responsibility for what happens to us over the next two years. Please, conservatives, resist compromise! Make stands upon principle, like Reagan and Goldwater. Take the heart of Washington, the true leader of all conservatives, in fighting for what we believe even if the outcome is uncertain and the struggle is long. Contemplate Churchill in 1940, when he promised to resist rather than parlay with evil.

If we believe in God, then hope is ever certain. If we hold sure and proven laws of human experience, then we know that failed ideas in practice also fail. If we believe in the spirit of the American people and their nation, then we sense that though change comes in elections, the liberty to which we have become accustomed longer than any people in human history cannot be simply crushed.

We fight -- even today -- for our lives and the lives of our children. If we have not had leaders, we must find them. Victory may seem far off. But we can see it still. As another American wrote almost two hundred years ago: "Oh, say does that Star Spangled Banner still wave? Ore the land of the free, and the home of the brave." Francis Scott Key, like George Washington, were models of what conservative leaders must be. We had these men once, and we shall have them again.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/what_do_the_election_results_m.html