Watch: John Boehner Might Want To Switch Parties After What This Repub Just Said About Him

Louie Gohmert

After the $1.1 trillion CROmnibus bill passed the House Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) slammed Republican leadership for not negotiating with the conservative members of his base.

Appearing alongside Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) on Fox News Channel’s Hannity Thursday, Gohmert told the host,

“Some of us had gone to our leadership and said, ‘Look, we can do this very easily. Let’s do it together with conservatives. That’s the bulk of our conference. Don’t make them take a wrong vote. Let’s fund everything for two months.’

“‘Let us have a vote on defunding Obama’s amnesty and we’ll even agree that the Senate can take it out if they take the hard vote to do that and let it go from there to the President. We were willing to work with them, to compromise.’”

Both Salmon and Gohmert voted no on the measure.

The Texas Congressman continued,

“And not one word, as you know. The calls went to the White House. When in a time that the Speaker needed votes, he turned to somebody that he really identifies with – the President and liberal Democrats — and got them to help him pass this vote.”

When Hannity asked whether or not this would affect Boehner’s chances of retaining the Speaker’s gavel in January, Gohmert said, “I think he ought to be able to pick up some Democratic votes for Speaker this time.”

“He can have Denis McDonough or the President come over and get Democrats to get the votes to carry him across the finish line to Speaker. I think they would help him.”

The Senate is expected to take up the bill late Friday.

 

h/t The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Are Democrats Trying To Rig Elections? Maryland Voting Machines Showing Corruption

Voter box

Being referred to as a “calibration error,” voting machines in Maryland and other states across the nation are switching votes for Republican candidates to Democratic ones.

With the midterm elections just a week away, this news is frightening.

According to WBALTV, nine counties are experiencing the “calibration error.” The odd thing is, the error only seems to be happening when Republicans are being voted for. It isn’t being reported that Democrat votes are being switched to Republican.

While the glitches may just be accidental–true “calibration errors” in nine counties–it certainly raises eyebrows when they are all favoring the Democratic party, especially when they are coming in states of heated races.

 

What do you think? Are the polls rigged? Or do they all just happen to be ‘errors’?

h/t IJReview

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Why Republicans Won’t Lose The House

houseofreps

You probably haven’t read much commentary about this year’s elections to the House of Representatives. There’s a good reason for that: The majority in the Senate is up for grabs, but it’s clear to everyone who follows these things that Republicans will continue to control the House. But there are lessons to be learned from this year’s House races, some of them relevant beyond this election cycle.

The House math is fairly simple. Republicans won 234 House seats in 2012 and Democrats 201. There are three vacant seats now, but neither party has gained a seat in a special election or by a party switch.

Put that together with the fact that we’ve become a straight-ticket voting nation now, no matter how many voters swear they’re Independents. In 2012, 409 of the 435 congressional districts voted for the presidential candidate and House candidate of the same party. Only 26 voted split tickets. That’s the lowest number since the election of 1920.

Also in 2012, 226 House districts voted for Mitt Romney and only 209 for President Obama. That’s when Obama’s national job approval was 50 percent. Now it’s 41 percent. House Democrats have a competent campaign committee and chairman, but they have been facing an uphill slog.

As I’ve noted before, Republicans have an edge in House districts, partly due to partisan redistricting, but mostly because of demographic clustering. Heavily Democratic groups — blacks, Hispanics, gentry liberals — are heavily clustered in relatively few heavily Democratic districts. Republican voters are more evenly spread around the rest of the country.

The result is that Republicans are likely to gain House seats. A net gain of eight puts them at 242, the number they won in 2010 and their highest number since the election of 1946. A net gain of nine or more would give them their largest House majority in two-thirds of a century.

That wouldn’t mean that support for the Republican Party is at a 70-year high. By other measures, it’s weaker. Republicans won five of six presidential elections between 1968 and 1988, with an average popular vote margin of 10 percent. They’ve lost four of the six between 1992 and 2012, by an average vote margin of 4 percent.

But Americans split their tickets a lot in the past. In the 1968-88 period, white Southerners usually voted Republican for president and Democratic for Congress.

And starting with a few Republican suburban House members in the 1950s, and continuing with many more Democrats in the next three decades, members used the advantages of incumbency — free mail to constituents, constituent services, lobbying for local businesses and nonprofits — to make enough friends to survive elections when their party was getting whomped at the top of the ticket.

So between 1958 and 1992 in every election, Democrats won at least 243 House seats — more than Republicans have since 1946 — and as many as 295. Their low points came in 1972 and 1984, when Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan carried 49 states and more than 300 congressional districts.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Thinks Republicans Are “Killing The Black Vote”

Chris Matthews

The liberal Chris Matthews, on his show “Hardball”, came right out and accused the Republican Party of “killing the black vote” by having voter ID laws in place, or, as he says it, making “sure that the sons and daughters of slaves have the hardest possible time getting into the voting booth.”

Voter ID laws are not restrictive to race. If anyone does not have identification, they cannot vote. This includes Whites, Asians, Latinos, Blacks, reds, oranges, purples, and greens.

But the left doesn’t see it that way.

“This is rotten stuff, isn’t it?” Matthews says. “The Republican effort to kill the black vote in state after state… We can all see what they’re doing. Believing they can’t convert the African-American vote, they’ve decided to slaughter it.”

“Early voting–shrink it down to nothing, or kill it altogether. Sunday voting–that souls to the polls thing–slam the door on it. Same-day registration–you got to be kidding. That’s like putting down welcome mats for African-American voters.”

How is having identification racist? Which brings up why identification is important. With the millions of illegals in the country (and more coming), how big of an impact would they have on an election if they were (or already are) voting without ID?

“Look, this is murder in broad daylight. One Republican after another is telling us just exactly what they’re up to,” Matthews continued. “It’s not about reform or making elections more honest. The one thing they’re actually honest about, if you catch them at it, is motive. This whole thing is aimed at killing the African-American vote.”

Having identification goes beyond just voting. Without ID, or being able to prove you are who you say you are, you can’t board a plane, get a job, or even buy certain things.

The DMV says that getting an ID requires just a few things that anyone should be able to get. Namely, proof of citizenship, social security card, proof of residency in a state, and money for the ID. All things any race can easily get if they are a legal citizen of this country.

Restricting people appointing representatives of the American people is not a racist issue; it’s legal issue.

Besides, the Obama Administration doesn’t like having to prove they are what they say they are. How many times have they failed to do what they said they would?

 

H/T Daily Caller

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Mike Huckabee Has A Strong Message For Republicans

Mike Huckabee

In his opening monologue this weekend, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told fellow Republicans to “grow a spine” when it comes to judicial activism.  Huckabee was referencing the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear petitions from five states where bans on same-sex marriage was overturned in the lower courts, including Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

On Sunday, a federal judge overturned a same-sex marriage ban in Alaska, a law that had been in place since 1998.  It had been the first law of its kind, according to CNN.

Huckabee stressed that his position on same-sex marriage is the same position President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden had until two years ago–“that it was inconsistent with nature and nature’s law.”

“I wonder sometimes, do we still teach civics in school? Are Americans, even elected officials, lawyers, and judges utterly ignorant about the structure of our government and how it functions?

“Well can I assume everyone knows that we’ve got three branches of government, and each are equal to the other? The founders took extraordinary measures to prevent too much power being grabbed by one person or group. The system they created, sometimes cumbersome; but it’s based on the longest used Constitution in human history.

“The Congress controls the purse or the money, the Executive branch controls the sword, and the Judicial branch watches over and offers opinions as to the Constitutional compliance of the other two.

“My friend Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel and Dean at the Liberty University School of Law points out in his outstanding book called Judicial Tyranny, and he says this and I quote: ‘The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the liberties of the minority against the majority. However, our constitutional makeup does not give the minority veto rights over the majority.  The major…political and social questions of our day has by constitutional design been given to the majority through the legislative process. Continually taking away the right of the majority to shape their culture will ultimately result in rebellion. To take away the right of the people to debate the question leads to an oligarchy, or government of the few, and it results in tyranny.’

“Well this week, the Supreme Court declined to take up cases from the court of appeals regarding same-sex marriage in a number of states where the people had already voted to affirm natural law marriage of a man and a woman. In these states, typically, a single robed judge decided that his opinion mattered more than the collective votes of the people themselves.

“The Supreme Court refused to hear these cases, despite the confusion that exists due to its own Windsor decision last year which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. Several governors and other elected officials reacted by saying, ‘Well, that’s it. That’s the final word.’ Horse apples. The Supreme Court is not the supreme being. Yes, it’s the highest court within one of the three branches of government, but it isn’t superior to the other two.

Pages: 1 2

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom