The crony Chamber of Commerce won’t have any of it…..

War refugees at the railway station

Attila JANDI | Shutterstock

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. (F, 53%) has made it clear that if voters reelect his party, he will promote jailbreak legislation, the biggest priority of George Soros. Imagine if his party would instead run on protecting the security and sovereignty of the people by returning to the states the power over refugee resettlement?

Now, Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa. (C, 76%) has a bill to do just that. Sadly, his bill — a reflection of amazing policy and a winning political strategy — is not as much of a priority as George Soros and creating a permanent Democratic majority.

No legal body in this country — from Congress to state legislatures — would approve the resettlement of tens of thousands of Somali refugees if they had to affirmatively approve it today.

Perry’s bill, similar to a plan I outlined in Stolen Sovereignty, would require that states affirmatively sign off on refugee resettlement proposals before the federal government and private [taxpayer-funded] refugee resettlement contractors can seed their communities with refugees. Under this legislation, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would have to first submit a plan to the relevant state legislature that includes all of the information concerning costs, criminal history, and health records of prospective refugees. They would also have to provide information regarding said refugee’s affiliation with any Muslim Brotherhood group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. Most importantly, any plan for resettlement must be ratified by the state legislature and signed by the governor, otherwise no refugees can be settled in that state.

While immigration in general is a national policy and was designed to be dealt with at a federal level, as I explain in chapter eight of Stolen Sovereignty, refugee resettlement is different:

– See more at:


Loser elites and low information voters.

WSJ circle jerks and the RNC / RINOS/Fox News in general are reason why there’s a divide. Blovatious populist exploits where a principled conservative takes measured steps to explain classical liberalism. Attention span these days are so low….Saul Alinskyite tactics prove more effective, sad, but true.

Reihan Salam: GOP Divided Between “People Who Read The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page,” And Those Watching Dr. Oz Show

National Review editor Reihan Salam explains his view of the divide within the Republican Party sparked by Donald Trump’s campaign on Sunday’s ‘Face The Nation’ on CBS.

REIHAN SALAM, NATIONAL REVIEW: My sense is that Donald Trump’s style, the braggadociousness, is priced in for voters.

If you look at the surveys, it looks as though Hillary Clinton’s support with the Obama coalition is softening.

If you look at younger voters, it’s softening pretty drastically. Even among younger black men, it seems there is some weakness here.

Whereas if you look at Donald Trump, there is certainly what folks in many media outlets talk about, the birther controversy, among other things, which I’m sure we’ll talk more about now. But he’s proposed a new social program for working mothers. He went on the Dr. Oz show, which by the way, is a show that’s watched by many of the voters he’s seeking to reach, and he praised Medicaid.

And he suggested that we ought to expand the Medicaid program further.

So when you think about trying to get through in one channel, the people who read the “Wall Street Journal” editorial page, and then trying the reach another channel, think about the married white women in a state like Pennsylvania, the people that he hasn’t been able to reach, the people who have been reluctant to join his campaign.

More here.


WashPost Columnist Calling for a Shutdown of Conservative Talk Radio?

When former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote a column for The Washington Post headlined “Cancel this reality show,” it sounded like just another anti-Trump column. Or is Gerson calling for a shutdown of conservative talk radio?

It’s understandable that establishment Republicans would despise the dynamic of conservative radio talkers trying to yank party leaders to the right. But shutting them down? Does that sound like reasonable moderation? Here’s how Gerson wraps up:

In this election, we have seen something remarkable. A candidate who reflects the views and values of conservative media was able — with a plurality and a fractured field — to seize the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. But the political universe of conservative talk radio does not constitute anything close to a majority of voters in the general election. In fact, this cartoon version of conservatism tends to alienate key groups of voters, including minorities, Republican women and the college-educated.

Much (not all, but much) of the new conservative establishment feeds outrage as its source of revenue and relevance. It is a model that has been good for Limbaugh and Fox News but bad for the GOP. Republicans are now caught in a complicated electoral dynamic. What their base, incited by conservative media, is demanding, the country is rejecting. A choice and a conflict are becoming unavoidable. Trump’s angry nativism — newly restated in Arizona with a few twists — is a talk-radio shtick, correctly viewed by most of the electorate as impractical and cruel. It is less a proposal than an offensive, unhealthy form of ideological entertainment. And this show needs to close.

More here.

My take:

Establishment republicans own the last 60-70 years of the dumbing down of society, from feckless efforts to no resistance at all to the onslaught of the Left’s continuous assault against the civil society. During the Reagan years, conservatives had to fight their own party, and losing to some extent because of them, the momentum in turning the tide against full throated statism.

With the Bush years, both Sr. and Jr., the government grew and GOPe hard heads solidified their rule of the party, rejecting Reaganism, while the civil society, from school boards on up to city councils and regional state apparatuses caved to the Leftists’ agenda.

You need a coherent sustained movement that whittles away at the arguments of the anti-American Left, the GOP elite were never equipped to do that, in fact, they made it their creed to object to doing just that, by throwing in with every tin hat loon leftist initiative, perhaps managing to some extent their excesses, but allowing the tide to continue in one way till the Left has solidified their rule.

We are now facing a systemic collapse from their (the Left’s and go-along GOPe) efforts.

I’m not a full throated Trump fan (I backed Cruz) but I’ll vote for him now, as well as forgive his far fetched blatherings and hurtful smears of Cruz, his wife and father (I don’t blame Ted if he doesn’t), for Trump and his surrogates have done far less to hurt this nation than the jackasses of the GOPe.

How dare they sit and lecture us….ever again.


Going for the full Whig implosion…..

Further erosion of American society, and of course Trump would be fine with that, because what the hell, he’s a NYC Dem in drag to begin with.

GOP now looking at inserting left-wing ‘equality’ language about same-sex marriage


I am very disgusted/revolted with the choices that we have this year, especially when we had a chance to nominate, then elect, a real constitutional (Reaganite) conservative, Ted Cruz. 

Trump is a disaster.

U.S. building and gambling kingpin Donald Trump speaks to the media on his arrival at Aberdeen airport, Scotland Friday April 28, 2006. Trump will visit the site of his planned 300 million pound (US$542 million; 432 million euro) golf development, where he wants to create the "best golf course in the world" on the 800-acre site at the nearby Menie Estate. (AP Photo/Andrew Milligan, PA)   ** UNITED KINGDOM OUT NO SALES NO ARCHIVE ** LON808 05182006xquick 06052006xGUIDELIVE

The very fact that we are left with such desperate options is not only a rebuke to the professional politicians, but also a painful revelation about the voting public.

Immediately after electing a president with virtually no track record, on the basis of rhetoric and symbolism, and seeing disaster after disaster during his administration, many are now prepared to do the same thing all over again.

More than two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” If so, can people who cannot be bothered to look up from their electronic devices expect to remain a free people?

Grim Choices

by THOMAS SOWELL May 17, 2016 12:00 AM

We must frankly face the fact that the front runners in both political parties represent a new low, at a time of domestic polarization and unprecedented nuclear dangers internationally. This year’s general election will offer a choice between a thoroughly corrupt liar and an utterly irresponsible egomaniac.

The Republican establishment, whose serial betrayals of their supporters created the setting for a Donald Trump to arise, must now decide how best to deal with the apparent inevitability of his candidacy.

Read more at: 


 More ”flippy floppy” from Trump campaign after hidden mic revealed game plane (using voters as useful stooges)

Chris Wallace (of whom I am no fan of) actually takes it to the pin stripped huckster….


More here at Red State:

Trump’s Political Hitman Flip-Flops; Suggests Donald The ‘Candidate’ Will Not ‘Evolve’ But ‘Campaign’ Will


Rather than explaining his campaign’s inconsistencies, Manafort opted to attack GOP rival Ted Cruz instead. “There’s the liar, not Trump. I mean, he’s got to change the narrative,” Manafort barked. “He’s losing”


Anything for dear leader……

Drump Report

Then there’s Trumpbart:

trumpbart colrado vote

Then there is what really happened…….you decide.From Right Scoop

NOTE: I might piss off some of my readers who are Trump supporters, but I do have integrity towards my readers and to the truth, no matter where the chips may fall. They are really going to have to ask themselves, do they really want this kind of man representing them that does this kind of nonsense?

Then there’s more:

Donald Trump speaking at event.
  • From 1912 to 1988, and since 2004, Colorado used the current system for delegate selection, with no preference vote binding.
  • Even in 1992, 1996, and 2004 delegates were bound by vote, but were free to vote conscience on second ballot.
  • In 2012, Santorum won the non-binding straw poll but Romney received more delegates at conventions.
  • A 2012 rules change at the RNC required any state that held a straw poll to bind their delegates, Colorado chose not to hold the straw poll, to enhance grass-roots participation.

If you’ve been on the internet this morning, you’ve seen the scathing headlines: “Republicans cancel presidential election in CO…” and “Fury as Colorado has no Primary or Caucus,” among others. The problem is that this is not exactly true. Colorado only briefly flirted with a binding primary, but even then the delegates were selected by a caucus-convention system. From 1912 – 1988, and 2004 to the present the delegates were not bound by a preferential vote. This year was no different.

In Colorado, a caucus is held to elect delegates to county assemblies and the county assemblies elect delegates to state and district assemblies where the delegates to the RNC are chosen. That is how it has worked over the past four presidential cycles, and it is nothing new for this year.

First, a little recent history. Conservative Review spoke to Florence Sebern, a member of the 2012 RNC Convention Rules Committee from Colorado. Sebern outlined how the Colorado Republican Party started holding non-binding straw polls to coincide with their caucuses in 2008. Sebern explained the process: “Prior to 2012 RNC rules changes, Colorado’s presidential preference poll (instituted in 2008), did not bind delegates. Delegates could choose to pledge, via the National Delegate Notice of Intent form. A pledge bound delegates through the 1st round of voting.”

The New York Times description of the caucus system in Colorado in 2008 and 2012 confirms this account. In both instances they describe how the delegates are unbound from the results of the straw poll.

So why the change this year? According to Sebern, RNC rules instituted in 2012 said that any state that holds a preference poll in conjunction with their caucuses must bind delegates according to the results. The new rule was 16(a)(1):

Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention in either a proportional or winner-take-all manner, except for delegates and alternate delegates who appear on a ballot in a statewide election and are elected directly by primary voters.

The caucus system was not fundamentally changed. What was changed was that a meaningless straw poll was not conducted — one that wouldn’t bind the delegates anyway.

– See more at: 


True conservative? eh ….no, vote Ted Instead!

Marco Rubio’s 7 Top Achievements in U.S. Senate

Following Rick Santorum’s inability to name a single achievement of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 79% , the media sought to answer the question for themselves. Yet many reporters appear to have come up empty handed.

As The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza writes, a “major part of the problem is that Rubio doesn’t have all that many accomplishments in the Senate.”

“When Rubio is asked to name his single greatest achievement in the Senate, do you hear crickets?” tweeted the National Journal’s Ron Fournier.

Though Rick Santorum was unable to name the accomplishments of the man he just endorsed, there are indeed several accomplishments that are quite noteworthy. Below are a few of Sen. Rubio’s achievements that Rick Santorum could have identified on MSNBC this morning:

(1) The Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight Bill

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York has described the 2013 Rubio-Schumer bill as Rubio’s “signature accomplishment.” Although Santorum seemed reluctant to mention it, Rubio’s immigration bill is probably the first accomplishment that comes to mind when anyone thinks of Rubio’s very brief career in the U.S. Senate.

Rubio’s immigration bill would have tripled the issuances of green cards, doubled the dispensation of foreign worker visas, and granted citizenship — and, thereby, welfare access and voting privileges — to illegal immigrants.

Reports ranging from the The National Review, to the Tampa Bay Times, to the Washington Post, to the New Yorker have all suggested that the Gang of Eight bill would have likely not passed the Senate if not for Sen. Rubio’s tireless efforts. Indeed, Rubio was the key salesman of the Obama-backed immigration agenda. As Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker reported at the time, Rubio served as “the Gang’s official ambassador to the right,” and was able to convince prominent conservatives to promote the open borders legislation.

Lizza wrote: “[Democratic Senator Bob] Menendez told me that Rubio’s role was to ‘work over the conservative universe, particularly the conservative opinion-maker universe,’ in order to ‘neutralize them’ and, in some cases, ‘proselytize them.’ Schumer said, ‘He’s the real deal.’”

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin told Lizza, “[Rubio] has been invaluable… He’s willing to go on the most conservative talk shows, television and radio, Rush Limbaugh and the rest.”

Moreover, Rubio was also able to successfully strike down all conservative amendments to the Gang of Eight’s proposal. As Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) 94% pointed out, ““Marco and Schumer basically had a secret deal to block all amendments.” Indeed, Rubio joined Chuck Schumer in voting down an amendment offered by Sen. Thune, which would have required the completion of a double-layer border fence. He also successfully defeated an amendment offered by Sen. Vitter, which would require the implementation of an exit-entry tracking system in order to prevent foreign nationals from illegally overstaying their visas.

(2) Obamatrade

Sen. Rubio cast the 60th and deciding vote to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. By giving President Obama fast-track powers, Rubio essentially helped to ensure the passage of not only the TPP, but all subsequent trade pacts, which are now liberated from Senate filibuster, amendment process, and constitutional treaty vote.

This represents a significant legislative victory for the young Senator, who previously endorsed TPP and described Obama’s trade deal as the “second pillar” of a President Rubio’s three-pillar foreign policy strategy.

Moreover, Rubio was also successful in promoting foreign currency manipulation by helping to vote down a provision to crack down on the illicit practice that had been proposed by Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) 50%.

(3) Blocking Curbs to Muslim Immigration

More here.


With the long haul ahead though…..

Cruz Draws First Blood

On Monday, Senator

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 97% performed the singular feat of simultaneously proving that a Republican can win Iowa without backing the ethanol boondoggle, and toppled The God Who Does Not Bleed, Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-) 79% finished stronger than expected, beating poll estimates by six percentage points; Trump finished more than four percent below expectations, while Cruz finished nearly four percent above expectations.

Naturally, the media rushed to declare Rubio tonight’s big winner.

That’s nonsense. Cruz, the most consistent conservative in the race, was the big winner. Bronze isn’t gold. And as Trump has tweeted:

Cruz had to win Iowa in order to remain competitive in future states. He dealt Trump a blow that will test Trump’s mettle, and withstood The Donald’s biggest campaign haymakers in order to do it. He beat back a media assault on him that ranged from his birthplace to his Goldman Sachs connections. “Iowa has sent notice that the Republican nominee…will not be chosen by the media, by the establishment, or by the lobbyists,” Cruz said.

We can only hope that’s true going forward.

What’s more, Cruz utilized a serious ground game and data plan to pound out a victory over a candidate with significantly more media exposure. Some may say that makes Trump look strong – he didn’t utilize the same resources. But that actually just demonstrates that boots on the ground always defeat an air-only campaign. As Cruz put it in his victory speech, “Tonight is a victory for the grassroots.” And Cruz worked those grassroots.

Cruz isn’t done yet, either. Unlike Mike Huckabee in 2008 or Rick Santorum in 2012, he has the resources to run a long, grueling campaign before he even begins. His campaign has $19 million on hand, more than any other candidate. He’s running second in South Carolina already to Trump, who will take a polling hit there. He’s currently tied for second in New Hampshire, and unhampered by the four-way crab pot that is the establishment lane. Should Trump hit the skids, Cruz will be right there to pick up the pieces – as he should be, given that he’s the man who put Trump on the mat.

More here.


mitt the milk toast moderate

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win

November 12 at 10:07 PM  

Less than three months before the kickoff Iowa caucuses, there is growing anxiety bordering on panic among Republican elites about the dominance and durability of Donald Trump and Ben Carson and widespread bewilderment over how to defeat them.

Party leaders and donors fear that nominating either man would have negative ramifications for the GOP ticket up and down the ballot, virtually ensuring a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency and increasing the odds that the Senate falls into Democratic hands.

The party establishment is paralyzed. Big money is still on the sidelines. No consensus alternative to the outsiders has emerged from the pack of governors and senators running, and there is disagreement about how to prosecute the case against them. Recent focus groups of Trump supporters in Iowa and New Hampshire commissioned by rival campaigns revealed no silver bullet.

In normal times, the way forward would be obvious. The wannabes would launch concerted campaigns, including television attack ads, against the ­front-runners. But even if the other candidates had a sense of what might work this year, it is unclear whether it would ultimately accrue to their benefit. Trump’s counterpunches have been withering, while Carson’s appeal to the base is spiritual, not merely political. If someone was able to do significant damage to them, there’s no telling to whom their supporters would turn, if anyone.

More here.

Time for a replay? NO!

etchn sketch romeny


He should be fired for his name alone.

Just to remind everyone exactly why he should be removed:


Top 3 Reasons Reince Priebus Should Be Fired

Conservative talk show host and former Reagan administration staffer Mark Levin has called for the firing of the chair of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. Levin’s main reason: With the way Priebus has handled the Republican debates so far, he appears to be committed to making sure that Hillary Clinton gets coronated in 2016. As he so often is, Levin is right. It’s time for Priebus to go.

Here’s the top three reasons Republicans should remove the current chair before he does any more damage to the candidates and the brand.

1. In the end, the debate debacles are on him. 

Despite his attempts to distance himself from the debate debacles, in the end he is responsible for Wednesday and the previous two events.

After the CNBC travesty Wednesday, the spotlight has fallen more than ever on Priebus’ role in scheduling the increasingly hostile and unprofessional debates. Though before the debate was even over Priebus was already crafting his statement rebuking the network for how it handled the instantly infamous debate, the reality is that Priebus hand-picked the committee tasked with negotiating the debate schedule and rules. Priebus made the selection himself with no real input from the 168-member committee.

More here.


Who knows, perhaps one day the “Independents” will become the “Independence Party” (from big government statism).

I believe that if matters do not change soon, it will eventually have to come to that. The GOP has been totally subverted, the RNC a roost for anti-conservative strategizing. I don’t want it to happen, and have been hoping, cajoling others to get active in the party in order to change it, but we see time and time again the cards are stacked against us as the Paul Ryan ascension shows us.

If the GOP breaks up, as its current trajectory indicates, it will usher in a few decades of full blown tyranny, but perhaps a light at the end of the tunnel will eventually emerge. I also believe that huge numbers of traditional republicans and Reagan Democrats would follow such a bold lead, so the wait for the complete end of the GOP might be sooner than expected.


In a panel discussion at the University of Colorado after the recent Republican debate, I was asked by a student why she should be a Republican. The question forced me to ask myself the same thing.

I gave the young woman the standard talking points–that Republicans believe in smaller government, individual rights, fiscal responsibility, and free enterprise. But as I drove home, her question–and my inability to respond with any level of real conviction–got me thinking: Does the Republican Party leadership fight for these values and principles today?

After much thought, I reluctantly concluded that the answer is “no.” The proudly socialist Democrats are full of passionate intensity, while the Republican leadership is full of pathetic excuses. After this week’s House GOP “budget deal,” which betrays nearly every promise made to grassroots conservatives since 2010, I have decided it is time to end my affiliation with the Republican Party.

This decision has been incubating over the past 17 years, years of watching the downward spiral of the Party of Lincoln and Reagan into the Party of Democrat Lite.

  • As a Member of Congress for ten years (1998-2008), I was subjected to threats and pressures from the Congressional Leadership and President George W. Bush to support the creation of an expensive Medicare prescription drug program–even though creating a new government spending program financed by massive debt flies in the face of the Republican Party’s core principles.
  • Our most powerful and influential “leaders” were shoving this down our throats in a crass political effort to use taxpayer money to buy the votes of senior citizens–particularly in the state of Florida in the next presidential election.
  • I was incredulous about the fact that the most intense lobbying I had ever seen undertaken by our “leadership” was not an effort to limit government or the dollars it spends; it was to do just the opposite.
  • That incident came just months after I was told by President Bush’s top political operative, Karl Rove, “never to darken the door of the White House again” because of my criticism of the administration’s dangerously lax immigration policies in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

When I first arrived in the U.S. House of Representatives, I naively believed that it was primarily the Democrats who were committed to open borders. But I quickly learned the entire Republican establishment also supported a policy of immigration non-enforcement.

I was repeatedly pulled into the office of the then-Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, and threatened with dire consequences if I continued to speak out publicly for common-sense immigration policies and true border security – particularly if I was doing so in the districts of other Republican Members of Congress.

For most of those years after 2000, we had a Republican President and a Republican-controlled Congress, but the conservative agenda was largely ridiculed and abandoned.

More here. H/T: Levi Vladimirovich


In that case, send in Mark Levin.

Enough with this treacherous loon, time for some conservative to really step up to the plate and be made speaker.

Congressman: Boehner Likely to Remain House Speaker — Until 2017!

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Attends Republican Election Watch Party

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) acknowledged on Breitbart News Sunday that since no candidate has a clear pathway to becoming the next Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner could remain Speaker through January 2017.


Making the woman out to be a loon to be laughed at was an easy way to skirt the issue.

Wait Till The Donald Finds Out About This

Written by: Diana West
Saturday, October 17, 2015 6:15 PM

Speaking of 9/11 and who was responsible, when Jeb Bush was asked at a New Hampshire townhall in August about whether he would try to help release the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 report, he said he didn’t know what they are.

From the website 28pages.org.

There are two potential explanations for Bush’s answer, and neither is flattering to the former Florida governor. Bush is either so poorly informed on national security matters that he is truly unaware of a well-documented and intriguing 13-year old controversy surrounding his brother’s decision to classify a full chapter in the report of a 2002 joint congressional inquiry into September 11, or he was feigning ignorance to dodge discussion of yet another sensitive Bush family topic.

There are many reasons why Bush’s claim of ignorance on this topic invites skepticism. First, of course, is the fact that his brother sits at the center of the controversy.

Then there’s the fact that, for more than a dozen years, the most prominent voice calling for the declassification of the 28 pages has been Bush’s fellow Floridian Bob Graham. While Bush was governor, Graham represented Florida in the Senate and co-chaired the unprecedented joint inquiry that produced the 28 pages. When the 28 pages were released, Graham publicly decried the redaction and was among 46 senators who signed a letter to Jeb’s brother urging their release.

Also during their governor-senator overlap, Graham published Intelligence Matters, a book that was very critical of the Bush administration’s actions before and after the September 11 attacks, including the decision to redact the 28 pages.

More here.


He was a loser, the GOP RINO’s loser.

weeping boehner

Just make sure that they do not make the same mistake again. This time elect a real conservative and stick it to Obama!

John Boehner, House Speaker, Will Resign From Congress


Speaker John A. Boehner announced on Friday that he will resign his position and give up his House seat in October.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date September 25, 2015.

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner, an Ohio barkeeper’s son who rode a conservative wave to one of the highest positions in government, said Friday he would relinquish his gavel and resign from Congress, undone by the very Republicans who swept him into power.

Mr. Boehner, 65, made the announcement in an emotional meeting with his fellow Republicans on Friday morning as lawmakers struggled to avert a government shutdown next week, a possibility made less likely by his decision.

Mr. Boehner told almost no one of his decision before making it Friday morning. “So before I went to sleep last night, I told my wife, I said, ‘You know, I might just make an announcement tomorrow,’ ” Mr. Boehner said at a news conference in the Capitol. “This morning I woke up, said my prayers, as I always do, and thought, ‘This is the day I am going to do this.’

More here.



The prone to weeping, orange, speaker of the house will be out for blood.


WASHINGTON, D.C. — A full-scale revolt against House Speaker

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) 35%  —including a looming resolution that could come up for a vote at any time that would remove him from the speakership—has thrown into disarray the House GOP leadership’s previously carefully laid plans to push President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran through Congress without a fight.

Amid a rebellion in the House GOP conference meeting on Wednesday morning, leadership canceled a previously scheduled rule vote that would have set up the House putting through a resolution of disapproval of the president’s Iran deal under the terms of legislation previously signed into law from Sens.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) 51% and Ben Cardin (D-MD). This all happened as a result of an argument furthered by Reps. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) 78% and Pete Roskam (R-IL) that Congress shouldn’t even vote on the Corker-Cardin resolution, either approving or disapproving of the Iran deal, since the president has not yet complied with the law regarding the release of text of the deal including “side deals” cut with Tehran.

Politico’s Jake Sherman reported midday on Wednesday about a new plan cooked up by House leadership that he later reported via Twitter that Pompeo and Roskam say they support.

“They are moving toward voting on a measure asserting Obama did not submit all elements of the agreement with Iran, a concept first raised by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) 56% (R-Ill.), a former member of GOP leadership,” Sherman, a close confidante of Boehner’s office, wrote of the new Boehner plan. “Second, Republicans are working on a bill to try to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran. Third, the House would vote on a resolution to approve of the Iran pact. The original plan was to vote on a disapproval resolution.”

This came after a wide scale full rebellion by House Republicans conference-wide—with five thousand Tea Partiers rallying on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol—against Boehner’s push on this matter alongside 2016 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, fellow candidate

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 96% , former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and several other top conservatives on the hill.


What of the Republicans? The Republicans, the Republicans control that building behind us right now. You see that scaffolding up there? They should take some of that and use it on their damn spines.



Wednesday in front of  the U.S. Capitol at the rally against President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement titled “Stop the Iran Deal Rally,” conservative radio host Mark Levin attacked Republicans in Congress for not having gumption to reject the deal.

Levin said, “We are here to tell the world that we, the American people, are more resolute than ever. We are more resolute than ever to destroy those who threaten to wage war against us, our society and our ally, Israel. This enemy makes a grave error in confusing the appeasement of a president and a Democrat party and the capitulation of a Republican Congress with the strength and fortitude of the American people. Never before has a president of the United States, never before has a political party consented to funding or arming the enemy. Never before has a president entered into agreements with a terrorist regime that holds Americans hostage.

That has killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers and that seeks nuclear weapons and ICBMs to attack his own country. Barack Obama makes Neville Chamberlain look like George S. Patton. This phony deal allows the Iranian terrorist regime to inspect its own nuclear sites, to continue uranium enrichment, to build advanced centrifuges, to perfect their ICBMs, to spend $150 billion on terrorism and in the end, to secure nuclear warheads. And as one Democrat after another, one conga line of Democrat after another supports this surrender, it’s clear that the Democrats no longer represent the party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. It’s now the Democrat party of Bill Ayres and Barack Obama. And the Democrat party will have the blood on its hand as a result of this deal for the rest of time.”

More here.