RUSH, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WOULD STOP A THIRD TERM BY OBAMA? Rush Limbaugh: If Obama Sought Third Term, Would Anyone Stop Him?

Screen Shot 2015-03-10 at 11.31.53 AM

By Jack Coleman

Prompted by a listener’s call, Rush Limbaugh made what initially sounds exceedingly unlikely come across instead as still unlikely but not beyond the realm of possibility.

The listener’s question — even though the 22nd Amendment prevents President Obama from seeking a third term, what if he decided to remain in office after January 2017?

Limbaugh outlined an intriguing hypothetical on his radio show Friday (audio) —

Let’s put this in a scenario, because some of you might be thinking, all right, Rush, now this is, we’re going too far now. I mean, now all you guys thinking Obama’s doing this and that and he’s violating the Constitution, but he would never — well, let’s construct a scenario and see if it has even the slightest bit of believability. And let’s establish some things that we know to be true that Obama also knows and chief among those is that the Republican Party has said that impeachment is off the table, and more than once they’ve said this. The Republican Party has made it clear that they will not use that constitutional measure as a means of reining Obama in and maybe even getting him out of office.

They have also made it very clear in just the most recent vote on the funding for Department of Homeland Security that they will not use the power of the purse to stop Obama. OK, so those two realities equal Obama fully aware the Republican Party will take no steps to stop him in his ongoing violations, and running up to the edges, of the Constitution.

Now let’s fast-forward to, say, May, June of 2016. Let’s say that Mrs. Clinton has withstood all of this email stuff, Elizabeth Warren has not gotten in the race, that Al Gore took the temperature and decided not to go, that it’s just Mrs. Clinton and Joe Biden. On the other side, the Republican field has a great list of possible candidates and they will have by that time engaged in a vigorous debate which may have served to educate the country on the foibles and the problems of the past eight years and the country may be looking forward to a dramatic change to Republican in the election of 2016. Obama fully aware of this would go on television and say that the Democrat field is so weak that he’s not confident that Mrs. Clinton can win. He might even take steps to get her to, you know, to make sure she can’t win, you know, sabotage her campaign, and then call a national speech to the nation in which his main point is that it’s beginning to look like the Republicans will win the White House and this is something that he can’t risk — not after eight courageous years of transforming America, we just can’t put it all to risk of being unraveled and undone by these racist, sexist, misogynist, whatever else Republicans.

And so as a service to the nation and to his accomplishments he is going to forget the 22nd Amendment and either not leave office or run for re-election himself as the Democrat nominee. Just imagine that scenario — I don’t care how unreal it sounds, how unbelievable is sounds — imagine it. What would anybody do? What would Mitch McConnell do? What would John Boehner do? Mark Levin would have a heart attack, I would probably have an aneurysm, we’d be done (laughs). What would anybody do?! The Supreme Court would say, nobody has standing here, there’s no case yet, Obama hasn’t done anything yet. We can’t do anything about this until he actually serves a third term and then you’ve got to bring a case to us.

What would anybody do if he says this? The media would be cheering it. Put all this in the mix. This guy’s out there thinking about this. It’s hard to believe, it’s so unlikely, but don’t think — Obama’s planning on staying in Washington part of the time, he’s got a plan to continue to live in Washington after he has left office for that exact reason. Whoever the next president, Republican or Democrat, if that next president starts to unravel any of this, Obama’s on television every night, he knows he’s going to have the media in his back pocket, and whoever the next president is is not going to get away with anything without a huge fight from Obama.

What would the Republicans do? I think the odds are the Republicans might call an emergency constitutional convention and amend the 22nd Amendment, permitting Obama to do this, because their fear of being critical of Obama would destroy their chances of winning with the independents.

Limbaugh’s being deliberately provocative, to be sure, and the scenario he describes remains difficult to envision.

First of all, GOP leadership declaring impeachment off the table is based on the assumption that Obama leaves office at the end of his second term. No other situation would so immediately galvanize and unite Republicans as that of Obama announcing plans to remain in the White House indefinitely. Articles of impeachment would be drafted the same hour as Obama’s announcement, the previous assurances of McConnell and Boehner against impeachment having been rendered null and void.

As for who would stop Obama if he decided to run for a third term (as opposed to refusing to leave office), a specific group of elected officials comes to mind — state secretaries of state, especially Republicans, who would cite the clear wording of the 22nd Amendment and refuse to put Obama’s name on the ballot, depriving him of the legitimacy that would come from winning an election.

Obama remaining in Washington after he leaves office would break a century of precedent — the last president who did this was Woodrow Wilson while on his deathbed. The Obamas have said they will stay in the capital at least until their younger daughter finishes high school — but would they also shun their many handmaidens in the media? That’s even more unlikely than the scenario painted by Limbaugh.

– See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2015/03/09/rush-limbaugh-if-obama-sought-third-term-would-anyone-stop-him?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=marketing&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=rush-third-term#sthash.Ep1wNTtK.dpuf

Surprise! Look Who’s Stepping Up To Help Protect John Boehner From A Conservative Revolt

Screen Shot 2015-03-07 at 12.07.16 PM

BY NORVELL ROSE

From the “politics makes strange bedfellows” file…

After House Speaker John Boehner’s decision this week to put forward and pass the “clean” funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — including money to move ahead with President Obama’s executive amnesty — conservatives in the chamber once again expressed great frustration with their leader.

The discontent of those to Boehner’s right in the House was shown not just in what they said, but also in what they did. A big bloc stood against their leadership — 167 Republicans voted against the DHS funding package that dropped provisions undoing Obama’s orders to relax deportation rules and offer work permits and Social Security numbers to millions of illegal immigrants.

As The Hill notes in a post about the unhappiness of many conservatives in Congress over Boehner’s actions: “In the midst of that debate, a number of Tea Party Republicans warned that they’d consider an attempt to topple Boehner if he caved to Obama’s demand for a clean DHS bill.”

Interestingly, this latest dust-up over Boehner’s leadership of the House GOP has a number of Democrats saying they would side with the speaker should the party’s right-wing mount another attempt to oust him and put the gavel into the hands of someone they feel would fight with more determination against President Obama’s policies and programs.

“Democrats from across an ideological spectrum say they’d rather see Boehner remain atop the House than replace him with a more conservative Speaker who would almost certainly be less willing to reach across the aisle in search of compromise,” The Hill reports.

Democrats such as Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey say they prefer Boehner for the simple fact that he’s willing to do what conservatives frequently criticize him for — compromise.

“’In terms of the institution, I would rather have John Boehner as the Speaker than some of these characters who came here thinking that they’re going to change the world,’ Pascrell added.”

Though he has characterized himself as a “conservative,” John Boehner has struggled with dissent from staunch conservatives in the House since he became speaker in 2011. And since the election of November 2014 delivered to the House the largest GOP majority since the Hoover administration, opposition to Boehner’s leadership has grown even more pronounced.

The Ohio Republican was elected to his third term as Speaker in January, easily surviving opposition votes from some two dozen of his GOP colleagues who cast their ballots for other candidates.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/surprise-look-whos-stepping-help-protect-john-boehner-conservative-revolt/#u43qZROg4URXE7D0.99

Dems vow to protect Boehner from conservative coup

Screen Shot 2014-01-30 at 5.24.51 PM

http://media.thehill.com/services/player/bcpid2764968420001?bctid=4097386181001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEA-5AE~,7pYsU79IKz2CXW_BSQItHbG6JoyZCfQ5

By Mike Lillis03/06/15 06:00 AM EST

Tea Party Republicans contemplating a bid to oust Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) shouldn’t count on Democrats to help them unseat the Speaker.

And without their support, there is no chance to topple Boehner in this Congress.

A number of right-wing Republicans, long wary of Boehner’s commitment to GOP efforts attacking President Obama’s policy priorities, have openly considered a coup in an attempt to transfer the gavel into more conservative hands.

But Democrats from across an ideological spectrum say they’d rather see Boehner remain atop the House than replace him with a more conservative Speaker who would almost certainly be less willing to reach across the aisle in search of compromise. Replacing him with a Tea Party Speaker, they say, would only bring the legislative process — already limping along — to a screeching halt.

“I’d probably vote for Boehner [because] who the hell is going to replace him? [Ted] Yoho?” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said Wednesday, referencing the Florida Tea Party Republican who’s fought Boehner on a host of bipartisan compromise bills. 

“In terms of the institution, I would rather have John Boehner as the Speaker than some of these characters who came here thinking that they’re going to change the world,” Pascrell added.

Liberal Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) agreed that, for Democrats, replacing Boehner could lead to a worse situation.  

“Then we would get Scalise or somebody? Geez, come on,” said Grijalva, who referenced House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). “We can be suicidal but not stupid.”

Boehner, who has grappled with dissent from the Tea Party wing since he took the Speaker’s gavel in 2011, has seen opposition to his reign grow this year, even as he commands the largest GOP majority since the Hoover administration. 

That’s led to talk of a new coup, something that is more difficult to pull off after the election of a Speaker on each Congress’s first day of business.

Any lawmaker can file a motion to “vacate” a sitting Speaker, a move that would force a vote of the full House. The effort would almost certainly fail, as the conservatives would need the overwhelming support of Democrats to win a majority. But it would be an embarrassing setback to Boehner and his leadership team, who entered the year hoping their commanding new majority would alleviate some of the whipping problems that had plagued them in the past.

The new push back against Boehner began in the earliest stages of the new Congress when 25 conservatives voted in January to strip him of the Speaker’s gavel.

Boehner’s troubles have only mounted since then, as conservatives have thwarted a number of his early legislative priorities, including a border security bill, an anti-abortion measure and a proposal to limit the federal government’s role in public education — all considered by GOP leaders to be easy-pass bills that would highlight their new power in Obama’s final two years in the White House.

More recently, Boehner’s decision this week to pass a “clean” bill funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has exacerbated conservatives’ concerns about his leadership.

As proof of the discontent, 167 Republicans bucked their leadership by opposing the DHS package. Their votes protested Boehner’s move to strip out provisions undoing Obama’s executive actions shielding millions of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. from deportation. 

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) called Boehner’s capitulation “a sad day for America.”

“If we aren’t going to fight now, when are we going to fight?” he said Tuesday just before the vote.

Every Democrat joined 75 Republicans in passing the bill.

In the midst of that debate, a number of Tea Party Republicans warned that they’d consider an attempt to topple Boehner if he caved to Obama’s demand for a clean DHS bill.

“If it happened, conservatives would be outraged,” said one such conservative who voted against Boehner in January. The lawmaker predicted that the coup attempt might not come immediately but warned the Speaker, “It’s a long year.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus and a critic of Boehner’s legislative moves, said recently that no coup is in the works.

“That’s not the point,” Jordan said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “The point is to do what we told the voters we were going to do and do it in a way that’s consistent with the United States Constitution.”

Citing Jordan’s comments, top Democrats have punted on the question of whether they would support a coup. Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), the Democratic whip, acknowledged that there are “some disgruntled people who are talking about it,” but predicted that no such effort will materialize.

“If Jordan’s not talking about — he’s the head of the Freedom Caucus — it’s not going to happen,” Hoyer said this week.

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, suggested the Democratic minority simply has no place deciding the Speakership for the majority.

“If they’ve got the votes to make it happen, then they should act accordingly. But I would not want Democrats to be a part of that,” Butterfield said. “I would give deference to the choice of the Republicans.”

Still, some Democrats noted the political advantages for their party if the Republican divisions reach the point where Boehner is ousted. The Democrats have almost no shot of winning back the House in 2016 but highlighting the GOP turmoil could help them bite away at the Republicans’ majority. 

“I think it would pose a real existential dilemma for us,” said Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). “I mean, on the one hand, if you have a chance to take out a Republican Speaker, why wouldn’t you do that? On the other hand, if the obvious alternative is a Tea Party Speaker, now you’ve got to worry not only about your own political situation but frankly about the institution. 

“I think that would give very serious pause to the Democrats.”

Other Democrats suggested they would side with Boehner for one simple reason: They’re hoping to move bipartisan legislation this Congress and see Boehner as a more moderate leader with a penchant for compromise. 

“Personally, I don’t want to waste two years,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said Wednesday. “And I think that the crazy Tea Party type would probably not be willing to work with us on anything. 

“My hope is that, what comes out of this is that Boehner realizes that there are some people in his caucus who are unreasonable, and you can never get them to say ‘yes’ to anything,” McGovern added. “Rather than spending so much time agonizing over how to please them, maybe he just ought to focus on how you build more bipartisan coalitions and actually get some things done.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has declined to weigh in on the conservatives’ discontent. Hinting at her own radioactive image in the eyes of Republicans, she vowed not to get involved in the debate.  

“I don’t have any intention of getting involved in the politics of that Caucus,” she said recently. “They have enough trouble getting along with each other.  I don’t think I should inject myself into that.”

If Not Now … When? Will the GOP Majority Ever Stand for Anything?

Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 6.02.13 PM

BY Jim DeMint

It is never the right time to do the right thing in Washington, D.C.

The phrase I heard most often from Republican leadership while serving in the House and Senate was, “This is not the right time to have this fight.”

Whether the issue was balancing the budget, school choice, patient-driven healthcare, eliminating earmarks, raising the debt limit, ending big, crony handouts like the Export-Import Bank or any stand against the continued growth, favoritism and intrusion of big government, conservatives were always told to wait. Wait until conservatives have the majority. Wait until we have the White House. Wait until we are reelected.

We’re seeing that “wait” attitude in practice today as the House votes on a “clean” Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Despite the fact that Republicans have majorities in both the House and the Senate that were elected on a pledge to fight against President Obama’s executive amnesty, and despite forcing through a big spending bill at the end of 2014 with the promise they would fight later on Homeland Security appropriations, they are now punting the issue entirely.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times?

Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

The phrase I heard most often from Republican leadership while serving in the House and Senate was, “This is not the right time to have this fight.”

On the other side of the aisle, I noticed a much different attitude, especially on big, liberal goals like government-run healthcare. Despite being faced with strong public opposition and the potential end to their political careers, the Democrats used false promises and every imaginable procedural trick to pass the government takeover of a sixth of America’s economy, along with one of the largest tax increases in our history.

Every Democrat in the House and Senate voted for Obamacare. And none of them even knew what was in it. Many have since lost their bids for reelection, but for liberals, the ends justify the means, and they are willing to accept huge political losses to advance their ideology.

Yet on the other side of the aisle—with the party that supposedly stands for individual freedom, limited government, free markets, American values and a strong defense—tomorrow never comes. Consider two major, pivotal issues in the future course of American history: Obamacare and executive amnesty.

The Republican leadership in Congress, K Street, Wall Street and all of their buddies in the media continue to rail that the conservative stand to defund Obamacare in 2013 hurt the party. But Republicans had one of their best elections in history in 2014, and one of the deciding issues in the election was repealing Obamacare.

The only evidence Republicans in Congress even had a pulse between the public lashing they received in 2012 and their overwhelming victory in 2014 was the fight they waged for a few days to defund Obamacare. And the leadership only pretended because of the pressure from conservatives who were demanding they follow through on their campaign promises.

However, there were times when I saw the Washington establishment will fight tooth and nail. They fight in bipartisan harmony against conservatives who push to eliminate earmarks.

I have seen the Washington establishment of Republicans and Democrats fight together for expensive bailouts, trillions in new debt, unfair and unaffordable amnesty, risky United Nations treaties, a misguided arms reduction treaty with Russia, a costly Internet sales tax, a new government travel promotion agency and more Washington control of education with No Child Left Behind.

I now hear some Republicans accepting and trying to “improve” Obamacare. And I see Republicans demanding that Congress fund the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty and “move on to other things.”

What “other things” could possibly be more important than blocking the president of the United States from shredding our Constitution?

Some are saying we should leave it to the courts to decide, but Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and members all take oaths to defend the Constitution. If members believe these actions are unconstitutional, how can they in good conscience fund them?

Once the president succeeds in giving work permits, legal status, American jobs and public benefits to 5 million illegal residents, the next obvious steps will be to legalize and give voting rights to the more than 10 million illegal residents.

The only evidence Republicans in Congress even had a pulse between the public lashing they received in 2012 and their overwhelming victory in 2014 was the fight they waged for a few days to defund Obamacare.

Twenty-six states have taken a stand against the president’s action, and one federal judge has temporarily stopped the processing of work permits. But Obama’s Justice Department has demanded an expedited appeals hearing.

Do Republicans not know that funding the president’s unlawful actions now will allow the president to argue that Congress has confirmed his actions? Federal courts don’t often rule against the concerted action of the two other branches of government.

The absurdity of this situation is that fighting the president’s executive amnesty through Department of Homeland Security appropriations was the strategy created by Republican leaders.  Now that the time to fight has arrived, the generals are running from the battlefield and blaming the infantry they told to lead the charge.

If the Republican majority in both houses of Congress is not willing to take a stand and fight against the government takeover of America’s healthcare system or the president’s arrogant usurpation of the constitutional powers of Congress, then what will they fight for? Who will stand with freedom-minded Americans who sent this majority to Washington to fight for them? I hope my former colleagues will ask themselves: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

THANK YOU REPUBLICANS: GOP Leaders Allow Obama’s Amnesty

boehner

NEIL MUNRO

White House Correspondent

One-third of the GOP’s House members joined with all House Democrats to allow President Barack Obama to implement his unpopular amnesty.

Obama’s amnesty provides work-permits, drivers’ licenses, taxpayers’ money and Social Security benefits to at least 5 million illegal immigrants, even though many Americans are unemployed or underemployed.

The vote capped a three-month, half-hearted effort by the GOP leadership to display opposition to Obama’s November amnesty, which polls show is unpopular among swing-voters and among Americans worried about jobs, and almost completely opposed by the GOP’s base.

The remarkable Democratic victory came only four months after voters gave the GOP leadership a sweeping victory in the November elections, partly because of broad GOP opposition to Obama’s immigration policy.

The GOP’s defeat prompted scorn and anger among conservatives. “Congratulations Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi on your House Majority,” said a tweet from Erick Erickson, the influential editor of RedState.com.

“GOP leaders are not only caving to Obama, they are abandoning the people who just gave them majorities in both Houses,” said David Bozell, president of ForAmerica.

Former Republican Rep. Joe Walsh called for a new political party. “Republicans just joined the Democrats on the amnesty bus. Time for a 3rd Party to represent the rest of us who aren’t on that bus,” he tweeted.

“The President and Senate Democrats always knew the House would capitulate… [and] the federal court system is our last hope to overturn the President’s lawlessness on immigration,” said a statement from Oklahoma Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine.

The vote “deliberately sabotages our laws, allowing individuals who Congress has expressly mandated be expelled from our nation to stay, to live as citizens, and to hold jobs,” said a statement from Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon.

The GOP’s leadership in the House and Senate staged the March 3 vote after Democrats — aided by their allies in the establishment media — stonewalled funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

Democrats blocked the funding, and then used the media to blame the GOP for the expect budget problems. Amid the media pressure, the GOP leadership arranged the March 3 vote that allowed passage of the toothless budget bill

The toothless bill, dubbed a “clean” bill by Democrats and the media, doesn’t block funding for the amnesty, even though a Texas court has blocked the amnesty for violating federal law.

One hundred and sixty-seven GOP representatives voted against the amnesty bill, but 75 GOP members voted for the toothless bill.

The 75 GOP members allied with 182 Democrats to approve the budget bill, which effectively includes a blank check for Obama’s amnesty which he is funding with fees paid by illegal immigrants.

That final vote was 257 yes, 167 no.

The GOP’s 75 yes voters included many of Boehner’s senior allies, such as Rep. Hal Rogers, the chairman of the appropriations committee, Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Chairman, Rep. Charlie Dent, chairman of the ethics committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the homeland security committee and Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the tax-writing ways and means committee.

Boehner tried to blame his planned defeat on the Senate’s Democratic and Republican senators.