Conservative Powerhouse: If Obama Raises Taxes, GOP Will Impeach Him
The move to impeach Barack Obama is moving forward — either in this term or, Heaven forfend, in the next. This week, one of the most influential conservative heavyweights raised the prospect of ignobly kicking the president out of office between elections. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform is the author of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a promise signed by hundreds of office-seekers that under no circumstances will they raise taxes. On Thursday, Norquist told the National Journal:
NJ: At the end of 2012, a number of major tax provisions, including the Bush-era cuts, are set to expire. Do you have any predictions?
NORQUIST: We’re focused on the fact that there is this Damocles sword hanging over people’s head. What you don’t know is who will be in charge when all of this will happen. I think when we get through this election cycle, we’ll have a Republican majority, [though] not necessarily a strong majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House. The majority in the House will continue to be a Reagan majority, a conservative majority. Boehner never has to talk his delegation going further to the right.
If the Republicans have the House, Senate, and the presidency, I’m told that they could do an early budget vote—a reconciliation vote where you extend the Bush tax cuts out for a decade or five years. You take all of those issues off the table, and then say, “What do you want to do for tax reform?”
Then, the question is: “OK, what do we do about repatriation and all of the interesting stuff?” And, if you have a Republican president to go with a Republican House and Senate, then they pass the [Paul] Ryan plan [on Medicare].
NJ: What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?
NORQUIST: Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress. (Emphasis added.)
Grover is no fly-by-night gadfly. He is one of the most powerful figures on the right-flank of the Republican Party. As his profile on Wikipedia states:
Norquist was listed as one of the five primary leaders of the post-Goldwater conservative movement by Nina Easton in her 2000 book, “Gang of Five”. Working with eventual Speaker Newt Gingrich, Norquist was one of the co-authors of the 1994 Contract with America, and helped to rally grassroots efforts, which Norquist later chronicled in his book Rock the House. Norquist also served as a campaign staff member on the 1988, 1992 and 1996 Republican Platform Committees.
Simply put, when Grover speaks, D.C. Republicans listen.
Norquist is a single-issue conservative. Although he has been associated with other intellectual undercurrents and movements — for instance, his support for anti-Communists in the 1980s and his more recent service in the National Rifle Association — he eats, sleeps, and breathes tax policy. In this week’s comments, he has laid down a potent marker for the president: If Obama goes forward with his plan for “job-killing tax increases” in 2013, Norquist will see that he is consigned to an early retirement.
It’s enough to make me wish momentarily that Obama had already raised taxes.
Click here to learn more about the Impeach Obama Campaign. Click here to sign the Impeach Obama petition.
– Ben Johnson, The White House Watch.
Video: Biden, I Told Obama to Hold Off on Killing Bin Laden
Vice President Joe Biden has been missing in action for some time. Now we know why. Biden has run for president twice, in 1988 and 2008, and has not ruled out running a third time in 2016. But the Democrats’ Harold Stassen just made a peculiar campaign move: He told a public audience that, when asked, he told Barack Obama not to launch the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Describing the situation room, he said:
The president, he went around the table with all the senior people including the Chiefs of Staff. He said, “I have to make this decision. What is your opinion?” He started with the National Security adviser, the Secretary of State, and he ended with me. Every single person in that room hedged their bet, except Leon Panetta. Leon said, “GO!” Everyone else said “49/51,” this…
It got to me. Joe what do you think? I said, “You know, I didn’t know we have so many economists around the table. We owe the man a direct answer. Mr. President, my suggestion is don’t go. We have to do two more things to see if he’s there.”
He walked out and said, “I’ll give you my decision.” The next morning, he came down to the diplomatic entrance getting in the helicopter, I believe to get to Michigan, and he turned to Tom Donnel and said…”Go.”
Knowing that, as loyal as everyone is around that table, when pressed and when books are written later that would’ve said, “I didn’t tell him to do that.”
Why would a politically ambitious climber like Joe Biden say something so self-defeating? Because he realizes his only hope for being elected president is to serve two terms as vice president. The gaffe-prone veep of a failed president seldom gets elected: ask Walter Mondale. But the vice president of a two-term president enters the race with substantial advantages. (George H.W. Bush, Al Gore.) But Obama’s presidency has been a low-tide for the nation he “leads.” Incomes and employment rates are down; government dependence is up; and American morale is barreling toward hopelessness.
The only successes he has had, which he wants to campaign on, are in foreign policy, especially Osama bin Laden’s death. Since ordering the team to go forward is the most obvious call a president could make, he has to bolster his “gutsy” call by inventing voices of dissent that begged him not to take this bold, unprecedented step.
Enter the veep.
Biden told the crowd that Obama understood “literally the presidency” was at stake, so “he pulled the trigger.”
“This guy doesn’t lead from behind,” he said. “He just leads.”
In fact, Obama dithered for 16 hours while the military waited for him to make a decision. As they pushed him for an answer, Obama replied, “I’m not going to tell you what my decision is now – I’m going to go back and think about it some more. I’m going to make a decision soon.” Ever since SEAL Team 6 did its duty, he has presented himself as a combination of Rambo, Chuck Norris, and the Lone Ranger rolled into one.
Biden and Valerie Jarrett both urged him against the mission. One is a knave, the other is a fool, and their boss is mistaken if he believes the American people believe he is either a decisive leader or worthy of the office he holds.
The Republican Establishment’s Last Desperate Push: Mitch Daniels Again
The Republican Establishment sees the 2012 presidential nomination process breaking wide open and it’s panicked. In one last, desperate attempt to reassert control of the party from the Tea Party, the Establishment is floating another presidential candidate: Mitch Daniels.
The party leadership tapped Daniels to give the GOP response to the State of the Union Address — and his performance shows why he would be such a perfect choice for the Establishment and a disastrous choice for the party.
Daniels’ speech referred to himself and his followers as the “loyal opposition,” twice. “The status of ‘loyal opposition’ imposes on those out of power some serious responsibilities,” he intoned. Not the least of these is “to show respect for the presidency and its occupant, to express agreement where it exists. Republicans tonight salute our president, for instance, for his aggressive pursuit of the murderers of 9/11.” [1]
Eschewing any ideological differences and downplaying the gulf separating the two parties, Daniels said, “The challenges aren’t matters of ideology, or party preference; the problems are simply mathematical, and the answers are purely practical.” This calls to mind another former governor turned presidential candidate: Michael Dukakis. In his 1988 convention speech, Dukakis said, “This election isn’t about ideology. It’s about competence.” A bland, technocratic governor was a loser then (thank God), and would be a loser again today.
Like Dukakis, Daniels looked stiff, dull, gray, ashen, and virtually lifeless. Worse, his address dredged up the worst compromising, middle-of-the-road tradition of the Republican Establishment’s ghosts of lost campaigns past.
What does Governor Daniels want to do? He said, “we must unite to save the safety net. Medicare and Social Security have served us well, and that must continue. But after half and three quarters of a century respectively, it’s not surprising that they need some repairs.”
That has been the GOP Establishment’s crie de coeur since Alf Landon promised to make the New Deal run better in 1936. (He lost the biggest Electoral College landslide in history.) His call was picked up by Wendell Willkie, Thomas Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain – a team that, between them, won one presidential election.
Daniels went on to blame his own party. He siad, “to make such action happen, we also must work, in ways we Republicans have not always practiced, to bring Americans together.” He added, “We will speak the language of unity.”
“Let us rebuild our finances, and the safety net, and reopen the door to the stairway upward; any other disagreements we may have can wait,” he insisted.
Daniels is the same man who called for a social issues truce — which always means a conservative unilateral surrender, as the forces of social revolution stream forward.
His feckless address quickly made an unforced error. He condemned Obama’s “extremism,” because “unless they stop us, we might pick the wrong light bulb.” Of course, the incandescent light bulb ban was the act of a Republican, Michigan’s Rep. Fred Upton, who later changed his mind on the idea. It was signed by George W. Bush, Daniels’ former boss, whose allies are now promoting him for president and publicly goading him to enter the race. (Daniels was budget director under George W. Bush, when spending continued to surge.)
Despite these massive flaws — or rather because of them — Charles Krauthammer called Daniels’ address “one of the best speeches I’ve heard as a response to the State of the Union.” (Despite his stance as resident Solomon on Fox News, Krauthammer is a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual advocate who formerly wrote speeches for Walter Mondale.)
The unearned plaudits continued. On Wednesday, on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto, pollster Frank Luntz tried to prove Daniels’ viability by showing how popular his comments on the “loyal opposition” were – with Democrats. (I’m certain they were.) He added that it was a presentation “without the aggressiveness” [sic.] often seen when other Republicans speak. (That it was.)
Daniels is The Great RINO Hope. Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour were the GOP Establishment’s bush-league team, after Jeb Bush could not run and Tim Pawlenty floundered.
Barbour’s recent pardon scandal shows how RINOs govern: badly. Daniels’ speech shows how RINOs campaign: weakly. The natural will to survive within any conservative should tell him how the RINO Establishment deserves to be treated: brutally.
ENDNOTES:
1. Daniels also honored Obama’s “strong family commitment” – which I give him. In one year, he adopted a new dog, moved in with his mother-in-law, and stopped smoking. Even someone as opposed to his policies as I am can appreciate that. And Obama has certainly shown solicitous care for his big, illegal family members, like Aunt Zeituni and Uncle Omar.
– Ben Johnson, The White House Watch.
Video: Gov. Brewer Sounds Off About Confrontation with Obama
Opposing Obama is Not Racist
The Democrats are settling on one major election strategy: Portray opposition to President Obama as a form of racism. In a nutshell, the liberal argument is that conservative dissent from Mr. Obama’s social democratic agenda – Obamacare, the nearly $1 trillion stimulus and Dodd-Frank – is driven not by the color of the president’s politics, but the color of his skin.
This line of attack first began several years ago. It was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who compared critics of Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul to the defenders of “slavery” and “Jim Crow.” In other words, dislike for socialized medicine is akin to nostalgia for white supremacy. According to liberal Democrats, it can’t possibly be for legitimate reasons. The fact that government-run health care causes rationing, inevitably leads to higher taxes and lower quality care, imposes a multitrillion-dollar entitlement the nation cannot afford, and dangerously expands the power of the state to make life-and-death decisions regarding the health of citizens and their families – all of this, for the left, is merely an intellectual cover for racial hostility against a black president. That the same arguments were rightly leveled against President Bill Clinton – who is white – during the 1993 debate over Hillarycare is irrelevant; nothing can stand in the way of the Democrats’ conservatives-are-racist narrative.
The latest assaults, however, go one step further: Any criticism of the president’s big-government policies is a sign of subtle bigotry. During Monday’s GOP presidential TV debate in South Carolina, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scolded by liberal moderator Juan Williams for referring to Mr. Obama as the “food stamp president.” To his credit, Mr. Gingrich did not back down. He rightly pointed out that record numbers of Americans are now on food stamps due to the president’s welfare liberalism. Moreover, Mr. Gingrich also argued that the culture of government dependency – and the endemic poverty it breeds – has disproportionately affected minorities. Instead of charging that such claims “belittle the African-American community,” as Mr. Williams said, Mr. Gingrich retorted that free-market capitalism – the stress on self-reliance, hard work and entrepreneurship – offers the only true path to prosperity for all Americans, especially impoverished blacks. The problem is not a racist America – it’s a statist America. The Republican crowd roared, giving Mr. Gingrich a standing ovation. For the left, it was an angry expression of the lingering desire to restore the old Confederacy and politically lynch a black man.
“Well, we know what is going on. And the people that don’t hear it don’t want to hear it,” said MSNBC host Chris Matthews. “You cannot argue a person into it. You cannot tell a person that is code, because the people that don’t want to hear that it’s code will say it’s not and the people that clearly hear that it’s code will. It’s not something that you can argue with a person.”
And what was this supposed code? Mr. Matthews said that the Republican primary represents a “receding white culture of the past trying to reclaim something.” Former President Jimmy Carter agreed. He condemned Mr. Gingrich for using phrases like “food stamp president” and his calls for a stronger work ethic among the poor, saying such statements are deliberately “appealing to the wrong element in South Carolina.”
Hurling the racism charge has been used by liberals for years as an ideological stick to bludgeon conservative critics. In our time, it is the equivalent of previously being called a witch or heretic: a libelous smear that, if it sticks, results in social ostracism. Yet, the fact that liberals are now repeatedly – and blindly – resorting to it is a sign of….
Read more from Jeffrey T. Kuhner, The Washington Times.
Justice Dept. Backs Down Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio
In its developing battle with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio over alleged violations of the civil rights of Hispanics, the Justice Department appears to have blinked, backing away from an earlier threat to take the Arizona lawman to federal court immediately.
Now, the DOJ suddenly wants to talk.
Still, the Civil Rights Division under the direction of Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez has made it clear that the DOJ has no intent of proving its charges, as Arpaio has demanded.
In an email sent to WND on Jan. 5, the DOJ stated, “If MCSO wants to debate the facts instead of fixing the problems stated in our findings, we will do so by way of litigation.”
Yet, in a six-page letter delivered to Arpaio’s office Wednesday, Perez appeared to have softened his position by offering to talk, rather than going to court immediately.
“We stand ready to meet, answer questions and discuss a resolution with you and your client immediately.” Perez wrote to the sheriff’s office’s outside counsel, Joseph J. Popolizio.
In the proposed meetings, nevertheless, Perez made it clear the DOJ has no intent of showing or debating any of its alleged evidence.
“The nature and extent of the document request suggests that your real goal is not ‘transparency’ and ‘cooperation,’ but rather further delay,” Perez wrote.
Arpaio was not amused.
“I’ll be happy to meet with DOJ anytime,” Arpaio told WND. “But I believe we have a right to see the evidence DOJ says they have against us and to defend ourselves against the charges.”
Arpaio bristled that Perez presumed the charges were valid, simply because the DOJ investigated his office.
“What about our right to see the evidence and confront our accusers?” Arpaio asked.
As WND reported, some Arpaio supporters point to evidence that the Obama DOJ has launched a political campaign against the sheriff in retaliation for his decision to constitute a Cold Case Posse to investigate Obama eligibility for the Arizona ballot this fall.
Before assuming his current position with the DOJ, Perez was a board director for Casa de Maryland, a Hispanic advocacy group affiliated with the radical national organization La Raza.
In 2007, as Maryland’s labor secretary, Perez joined students to urge the Maryland legislature to approve a bill granting in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens, according to the Washington Post.
La Raza even today holds the extreme view that the United States should, as a minimum, concede back to Hispanic rule major portions of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
WND has also reported that the DOJ appears to be coordinating its actions with Randy Parraz, a California-born activist/attorney who has relocated in Arizona with the announced goal of masterminding a Saul Alinsky series of 1960-styled political protests designed to force the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to ask for Arpaio’s resignation.
“I have no intention of resigning,” Arpaio affirmed to WND.
Arpaio has announced his attention to seek a sixth term as Maricopa County sheriff in the upcoming November elections…..
Read more from Dr. Jerome Corsi, WND.com.
Video: Woman Says “Avowed Muslim” Obama Not Prez; Santorum Doesn’t Correct Her
At a town hall meeting in Lady Lake, Florida, a woman said Barack Obama is a Muslim, ineligible to be president, violates the Constitution, and should be kicked out of office — and Rick Santorum did not correct her. The woman began:
I never refer to Obama as President Obama because legally he is not. He constantly says that our Constitution is passé, and he ignores it as you know and does what he darn well pleases. He is an avowed Muslim and my question is, why isn’t something being done to get him out of government? He has no legal right to be calling himself president
Santorum responded that Obama’s “recess” appointments would cause him to “draw the line.” He said he may name that woman his first czar.
That’s much different than John McCain, who called Obama “a family man” on the campaign trail in 2008. For some reason, the compliment did not get McCain elected president.
– Ben Johnson, The White House Watch.
Expert: Obama’s “Job Training” Boondoggle Won’t Put People Back to Work
In his State of the Union Address, Obama proposed job training programs to end unemployment. There’s just one problem It’s been tried and failed miserably. Here’s what one of the scholars at the Heritage Foundation had to say about the matter:
More Job Training Programs on Top of All the Other Redundant and Ineffective Programs – David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D.
Tonight, President Obama called for the federal government to engage in new job training and employment initiatives, especially for the hard to employ.
Before Congress signs off on any new initiatives, we must recognize that President Obama wants to add several new programs on top of the 47 job-training programs already operated by the federal government. Further complicating the matter, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has concluded that there is little evidence that these programs are effective.
Obama Disrespects Court, State, America, Constitution by Skipping Eligibility Hearing
One of the attorneys who fought a court case over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court says he fears that even if the U.S. Supreme Court declared Obama unqualified, he’d simply ignore the ruling and continue issuing orders.
The comments came today from Leo Donofrio, who led the pack in filing lawsuits over Obama’s 2008 election and his subsequent occupancy of the White House.
He was commenting on today’s hearing before a Georgia administrative law judge on complaints raised by several state residents that Obama is not eligible to run for the office in 2012. That hearing went on after Obama and his lawyer decided to snub the court system and refuse to participate.
A decision from the judge, Michael Malihi, is expected soon.
The Georgia residents delivered sworn testimony to a court that, among other things, Obama is forever disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state because his father never was a U.S. citizen. Because the Constitution’s requirement presidents be a “natural born citizen,” which is the offspring of two citizen parents, he is prevented from qualifying, they say.
The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated, while his supporters say he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.
In Georgia, the law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.
Donofrio’s case – like all the others that have reached the Supreme Court – simply was refused recognition….
Read more from Dave Tombers, WND.com.
