The case for replacing Boehner...
At All Costs
April 28, 2011
After the TEA Party handed control of the House back to Republicans, in November, John Boehner once again turned his back on those who put him back in power. He was a RINO prior to the 2010 elections and it's now clear that he never had any intention of keeping the promises that he made to the GOP electorate, in return for their votes.
Republicans promised to cut $100 BILLION from the budget in 2011, alone. But that was before it was discovered that $105 BILLION had already been appropriated for Obamacare. So to be truthful, the Republicans should have cut $100 BILLION from the budget, for this year, plus repealed the $105 BILLION for Obamacare, for a total of $205 BILLION in total cuts for this year. So what did Boehner give us?
Well he began by proposing only $60 BILLION in cuts - far less than the promised $100 BILLION. But B. Hussein Obama told Boehner that the cuts were too deep for him and that he wanted more money to
spend waste or he would shut down the government and blame the Republicans, so Boehner instructed Ryan to do some more cutting - but not cuts to the budget - cuts to the cuts. After all was said and done, Boehner "claimed" that he and his RINO buddies had cut $38.5 BILLION from the budget. But that was only his "claim" and far from "fact".
But that's putting it far too mildly. When Boehner and the RINO elite, told us that they had cut $38.5 BILLION from the budget, they "LIED." I seldom use that word about anyone. But in this case, there is no other word that accurately conveys what they did. Boehner and the GOP leadership elite, told us a bald-faced LIE!
And here's the proof. The non-partisan CBO analyzed the budget and reported that the actual amount of cuts was much less than even Boehner's false claim of $38.5 BILLION in cuts. Boehner had gone from a promised $100 BILLION in cuts, to a stated $60 BILLION, then to a stated $38.5 BILLION, but even that wasn't enough. So how bad was Boehner's betrayal?
ONLY $352 MILLION! (not BILLION)
That's just thirty-five hundredths of one percent (0.35%) of the promised $100 BILLION (with a B) in promised cuts and less than seventeen-hundredths of one percent (0.17%) of the $205 BILLION in cuts that should have included the extra $105 BILLION that was illegally appropriated for Obamacare. That's not even close to one percent of what they promised.
Having Boehner in the position of Speaker, undermines everything that the TEA Party achieved last November. This isn't just any representative. This is the most powerful and influential position in the House of Representatives. Imagine how World War II would have turned out, if Gen. Eisenhower had been a German fifth columnist. This is one of the most important positions in the party. We can NOT afford to have a RINO fifth columnist in the GOP leadership.
This betrayal of the voters, who gave the GOP back the majority and gave Boehner his power, is so blatant that it must not be allowed to stand. Boehner must be ousted in 2012 - AT ALL COSTS!
AT ALL COSTS!
What does that mean - "AT ALL COSTS"? By that, I mean that if we can't defeat Boehner in the primary, then we must be willing to sacrifice that seat to the Democrats, for two years.
At first thought, that sounds abhorrent to conservatives. But it really isn't as bad as it sounds, if you stop and think about it. In November of 2010, the TEA Party handed the GOP a solid House majority and in 2012, the size of that majority will increase - very likely, by a substantial margin. The GOP can therefore easily afford the loss of that one seat, without even the slightest risk of losing their majority.
Furthermore, there is virtually no chance that we will get a TEA Party congressman in the Speaker's seat, in 2012. It's just not going to happen. But if we give Boehner the boot, in 2012, whichever congressman does assume that position (establishment RINOs or TEA Party conservatives), will know that if he doesn't drastically cut spending and taxes, he will be serving his last term in office.
Also, Boehner is in what is considered to be a "GOP-Safe" district. That means that if it should come down to having to elect a Democrat, to get rid of a RINO in the Speaker's seat, then that Democrat would be easily replaced in two years.
Finally and most importantly, consider the analogy that I made earlier. How would World War II have turned out if Eisenhower had been a Nazi fifth columnist? If your country or your party is in a battle for it's life, you don't keep a traitor at the helm, where he can do the most damage, just because he wears the same uniform as you or has the right letter after his name on the ballot. We have a RINO traitor in the House leadership, undermining conservatives at every step. So ask yourself which is better, having a powerful RINO that we can't trust in that seat and serving as Speaker for years to come or having a weak Democrat in that seat, serving on some inconsequential committee for only two years. Think about it...
Actually, in some ways, losing that seat to a Democrat would have an even stronger effect on the remaining RINOs throughout Congress, since it would demonstrate that Republicans will even go to such a length as voting Democrat, to oust traitors in the GOP leadership.
Granted, we should do our level best to defeat Boehner in the primary. That would certainly be the best of all worlds. But the plain fact is that he is "entrenched" and the GOP will throw their full weight into insuring Boehner his nomination. That means that he will be extremely difficult to defeat, in the primary.
Sure, we need to do our best to defeat him in the primary. That's a given. But the reason why I'm writing this article is to get people to thinking about the more likely scenario. What do we do if Boehner wins his primary? Do we allow him to stay in his position of power or replace him with a weak, first-term Democrat, who can be easily replaced in two years?
Remember that having a RINO in the House leadership, would be the political equivalent of having a Nazi in the Allies leadership, during WWII. If Boehner survives his primary, then we need to hold our noses and support his Democrat opponent.
Better a weak enemy in a position that cannot subvert our troops, than a powerful enemy in our midst, who is doing exactly that.
Copyright 2013 John Gaver
All rights reserved
See related articles and supporting documents:
1986-2008 IRS Collections Data by Income Category
Obama agenda drives record expatriation
Tick - Tick - Tick / The Economy Bomb
Tax Freedom Day Builds Case for FairTax
US Tax Freedom Day Clock Web Widget
UK Tax Freedom Day Clock Web Widget
US Tax Freedom Day Clock
US Tax Freedom Day Clock Widget (for Mac)
UK Tax Freedom Day Clock Widget (for Mac)
The Privacy Factor
More Attacks on the Wealthy
US Taxpatriates List
2000 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration & Naturalization Service (6.2mb PDF)
2003 World Wealth Report (Press Release)
American Citizens Residing Abroad (US Bureau of Consular Affairs)
Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (26 USC 877(a)(1))
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 USC 1182(a)(10)(E))
Heroes Earnings Assistance & Relief Tax Act (Public Law 110-245) (8 USC 1182(a)(10)(E))
The Economic Impact of Replacing Federal Income Taxes
with a Sales Tax (CATO)
Fair Tax Act of 2011 (H.R. 25)
Americans for Fair Taxation
National Retail Sales Tax Alliance
See Expatriate sites: