Texas Rep. Gohmert To Challenge Boehner For House Speaker Post

[Ryan Ruck]

Texas Rep. Gohmert To Challenge Boehner For House Speaker Post

January 4, 2015

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert said Sunday that he will challenge House Speaker John Boehner for his post when Congress returns this week to Washington.

Gohmert, among the House Republican caucus’ most conservative members, made the announcement on “Fox & Friends,” saying he decided to run after Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., said Saturday that he would challenge Boehner for the chamber’s top post.

“We have heard from a lot of Republicans that said, ‘I would vote for somebody besides speaker Boehner.’ But nobody will put their name out there,” Gohmert said. “That changed yesterday with Ted Yoho.”

Gohmert also hinted that another House member will announce a challenge to Boehner on Sunday.

Boehner once again returns to Capitol Hill amid challenges to keep his post, largely from the conservative members who most recently say he caved in by agreeing last month to a $1.1 trillion temporary federal spending bill, which averted another partial government shutdown.

Group members complained in part because they think Boehner did not try to punish President Obama enough for sidestepping Congress on immigration reform.

“After the November elections gave Republicans control of the Senate, voters made clear they wanted change,” Gohmert said. “We were hopeful our leaders got the voters’ message. However, after our speaker forced through the (spending bill) by passing it with Democratic votes and without time to read it, it seemed clear that we needed new leadership."

A Boehner spokesman said Sunday that the speaker was selected in November as the House Republican Conference's choice and that "he expects to be elected by the whole House this week.”

Gohmert, during an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” on Friday, said his party must use its power in the House to defund Obama’s immigration plan as well as ObamaCare. He also said the GOP must stop excessive government regulation, citing the Keystone pipeline.[/indent]





60% of GOP Voters Want Boehner Out as Speaker

[American Patriot]

[Ryan Ruck]

While driving today the shows have been covering the Speaker vote, I've heard some very interesting names mentioned as supporting Boehner. People who claimed to represent Tea Party Conservatism.

I can't recall all of the ones that really surprised me but there are two that stuck out. One was Mia Love from Utah and the other was my rep, Brad Wenstrup. He came into office riding the wave of Tea Party support and waving the veteran flag. Yet here we are...

60% of Republican voters want a different speaker and Capitol phone lines have been litterally jammed with people calling in their opposition to Boehner and urging their reps to vote against him.

Yet here we are.

[American Patriot]

I tried to call. Couldn't get through.

Hahaha

[Toad]

Just on CNN - Boehner kept his position. Status quo all the way, baby.

[American Patriot]

Hey, we have been trying to GET AWAY from Hope and Change right?

[Avvakum]

Well, one can hope and wish for the best, maybe at least someday even somebody like Obama can do what is right, and Boehner too. Ronald Reagan couldn't pass muster with some of these guys under the criteria they seem to have in place in some 'conservative' circles. I am a Capitalist for example, but by no means an economic libertarian of the Austrian school-Bastiat-von Mises-Hayek variety.

I'm more of a 'Roosevelt/New Deal Democrat' these days, who like Ronald Reagan put it could say; 'I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me'. Social programs are great, as long as you don't spend more than you could possibly ever take in, for example. FDR and Johnson would be horrified at the Welfare entitlement philosophy, and so forth.

[American Patriot]

'Roosevelt/New Deal Democrat'

That explains a LOT.

He and his New Deal was Commie Fascist.

End of conversation with you.

[Avvakum]

'Roosevelt/New Deal Democrat'

That explains a LOT.

He and his New Deal was Commie Fascist.

End of conversation with you.

You know, for someone who is pretty Libertarian in your political philosophy, you sure are 'Statist' when it comes to getting other people to agree with you-or else, lol.

Not all Conservatives are quite as Libertarian or Minarchist as you, and to call a 'New Deal' Democrat a Nazi or Communist when Presidents and Congressmen who WERE 'New Deal Democrats' and held the bloody line against both totalitarian menaces, seems a bit immoderate, to say the least. I don't expect you to admit to exaggerating too much for effect (what else could it be?), but I don't hold it against you.

I actually like you, AP, so I compare this situation to a couple older guy friends or brothers 'shooting the shit' over a few beers and arguing in a friendly way.

It's not like I mistrust the State any less than you, but feel it's responsibilities and duties to it's citizens are greater than you do, is all. And our responsibilities and duties as Citizens are greater as well, in my opinion. You paid your dues, so I highly respect that, so this isn't about that.

[American Patriot]

Funny you should say those things.

FDR promises a "New Deal", security from cradle to grave.

That's about as SOCIALIST as you can get. When 1939 came along and war broke out between Germany on the one hand, and Britain and France on the other, President Franklin D. Roosevelt dutifully invoked the Neutrality Acts.

What he did RIGHT was to understand the concerns of Americans and that Germany was the aggressor thus he was assisting the allies, even though it was kept secret for a time.

But he was no Conservative. He was NOT a Libertarian. And he certainly was NOT a Republican.

Now, let me be very clear on something. I'm an American, and American Patriot is NOT just some dumb asses Internet Alias I go by. EVERYONE knows who I am. I am NOT a statist, which is something you need to be clear on, in fact look at yourself in the mirror with your support for Putin, Russia and those who side with those people. CLEARLY they are the statists. Hillary Clinton and Obozo is among that group, along with Valerie Jarret.

In fact, the very FACT that those same people called Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove and others that very NAME tells me the truth behind them. EVERY TIME A LIBERAL wants to kick you in the nuts, he CALLS YOU BY THE VERY NAME HE, HIMSELF is living as a life.

The left was rabid about the people I just mentioned. NONE of them are statists. They were American conservatives, granted more in the middle that 98% of other conservatives, but conservatives nonetheless.

I am no statist. In fact, if the US government falls today, I'll be there to help pick up the pieces and put things back together.

[Avvakum]

'American Patriot', you said;

Funny you should say those things.

FDR promises a "New Deal", security from cradle to grave.

You are totally mistaken about FDR, he would be horrified at that notion; and you totally misunderstood what Reagan meant when he said the 'he did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him'. Reagan was saying that he was in total agreement with FDR, but that after FDR, the party went too far into welfarism. This is what FDR had to say about Capitalism and individual initiative, only took me a few seconds to find out the exact quote and i'm sure you could've too;

"Different from a great part of the world, we in America persist in our belief in individual enterprise and in the profit motive; but we realize we must continually seek improved practices to insure the continuance of reasonable profits, together with scientific progress, individual initiative, opportunities for the little fellow, fair prices, decent wages and continuing employment."

That's about as SOCIALIST as you can get.

Not so, and no Socialist would claim FDR, period.

When 1939 came along and war broke out between Germany on the one hand, and Britain and France on the other, President Franklin D. Roosevelt dutifully invoked the Neutrality Acts.

Right, because people had enough of war from WWI, and didn't want to get involved again. It took Pearl Harbor to change the majority's mind on getting involved in WWII.

What he did RIGHT was to understand the concerns of Americans and that Germany was the aggressor thus he was assisting the allies, even though it was kept secret for a time.

True.

But he was no Conservative.

From what Reagan said, and by the ideological standards of the Democratic party today, he was.

He was NOT a Libertarian.

Few people really are, because it is totally utopian and unrealistic as a political philosophy, as much as the Marxists that the Libertarians despise.

And he certainly was NOT a Republican.

Yep, Republicans weren't what many of them are today either.

Now, let me be very clear on something. I'm an American,

We know, as am I and many of the people on this forum.

and American Patriot is NOT just some dumb asses Internet Alias I go by

I might have chosen that internet alias myself if you hadn't already taken it first.

. EVERYONE knows who I am.

Ok.

I am NOT a statist, which is something you need to be clear on,

People with an Totalitarian mentality try to bulldog everybody else to agree with them, and like to use the power of the State if they happen to be the ones in charge. I'm glad you aren't like that at all. I'm glad you have no problem having civilized conversations with Americans just as patriotic as you are perhaps who may however disagree with you in some areas of politics. I do not use the term 'Statist' except as a kind of joke, because it is a Libertarian-coined phrase and is stupid, because most human beings agree that we should have some government to help regulate society and make society even possible, and some people probably need governance more than others.... Are Iraqis for example ready for Jeffersonian Democracy?

in fact look at yourself in the mirror with your support for Putin,

I don't agree with him totally, and actually would prefer a Czar for Russia, but not being Russian, I let them tend to their own business, which is pretty much the extent of what I think countries should do for each other-mind their own affairs.

Russia and those who side with those people.

I don't hate Russia or wish to see Russia brought low and dismembered, no longer a great power my Americanism doesn't require fear or hatred of other nations and peoples, doesn't require American global hegemony, and i'm sure you would agree with that, freedom loving guy that you are. You certainly couldn't have Libertarianism at home and Authoritarianism abroad as the policy of the American government, now could you?

CLEARLY they are the statists. Hillary Clinton and Obozo is among that group, along with Valerie Jarret.

Oh, I think they're actual would-be Totalitarians, unlike Putin, who is pushing for more private gun ownership in Russia, and the easing of restrictions on private gun ownership in Russia, something a would-be Totalitarian like Obama or Hitlery Clinton would be against here in America. You know this about them and about Putin too, but to think Russia is becoming more free for it's citizens and America is becoming less free for it's citizens is too much cognitive dissonance for old 'Cold Warriors' like us. We won and Russia is free, but we're losing against home-grown Bolsheviks in America, something Putin has even warned us Americans about....

In fact, the very FACT that those same people called Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove and others that very NAME tells me the truth behind them. EVERY TIME A LIBERAL wants to kick you in the nuts, he CALLS YOU BY THE VERY NAME HE, HIMSELF is living as a life.

Obama was frothing at the mouth about rendition and drone strikes and the 'patriot act', until he became the alleged president. Good point you make, but power is a tool, it's who uses it, and how, that is important, don't you think? You yourself are far more qualified in my opinionto be President of the United States, American Patriot, than Barack Obama is, and you know that if you had the heavy responsibility of being President of Russia, there isn't much different you wouldn't do than Vladimir Putin has, especially knowing who and what Barack Obama is in the White House. You know that too.

The left was rabid about the people I just mentioned.

Yes, and just as rabid if not more so against Vladimir Putin, Bush's friend and fishing buddy. They hate any serious patriot of any nation, Bush or Putin, Cheney or Medvedyev that resists their One-World Government schemes. Remember what Hillary Clinton has recently said against Putin and Russia?

NONE of them are statists. They were American conservatives, granted more in the middle that 98% of other conservatives, but conservatives nonetheless.

Yes, in that middle that FDR and Reagan would occupy today if they were alive.

I am no statist. In fact, if the US government falls today, I'll be there to help pick up the pieces and put things back together.

Good, I have no problem with that.

[American Patriot]

You are severely misinformed about FDR.

Brainwashed in fact.


No matter how you cut it, how you spin it, or how you "redistribute history", redistribution of the wealth of those who worked hard to earn it, to those who did NOT is SOCIALISM of the Marxist variety.

Prominently with President Theodore Roosevelt and through the 20th century`s first years, the Progressive Movement came into view with its belief in “the perfectability of man, and in an open society where mankind was neither chained to the past nor condemned to a deterministic future; one which people were capable of changing their condition for better or worse.”

In 1924 Roosevelt joined forces with Basil O'Connor to establish their own law firm. They also founded the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation in order to raise funds to support poliomyelitis patients. Although confined to a wheelchair, Roosevelt returned to politics in 1928 to help his friend, Alfred Smith, in his unsuccessful attempt to beat Herbert Hoover in the presidential election.
The following year Roosevelt was elected as governor of New York. While in ths post he met people such as Rose Schneiderman, Harold Ickes, Frances Perkins and Harry Hopkins, who held radical views on how America could solve its economic problems. Their influence turned Roosevelt into one of America's most progressive politicians.

FDR's background

A distant cousin of Theodore Roosevelt and the only son of a wealthy railroad executive, FDR attended the best private schools and graduated from Harvard. Trained as a lawyer, Roosevelt served in the state legislature, became assistant secretary of the Navy, and had a boundless future. Then, in 1921, he was struck by polio and crippled.
But Roosevelt had an indomitable spirit. He was elected New York’s governor in 1928, earning a reputation as a reformer. The Democrats nominated him for the presidency in 1932 after some behind-the-scenes maneuvering by newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst and business tycoon Joseph Kennedy. FDR campaigned on a “New Deal” platform and easily defeated Hoover.
Despite his aristocratic background, Roosevelt was wildly popular with the average guy, many of whom did not know he could walk only with leg braces and crutches. (News photographers and newsreel cameramen took care not to take shots of him in “awkward” poses.) But many conservatives and business leaders, who considered him a traitor to his class, hated him.

1933 FDR became the 32nd President of the United States. He had sent William Bullitt to the USSR even during the campaign to arrange its recognition while Stalin was killing 10 million Ukrainians. FDR imposed central planning through New Deal, a.k.a. Raw Deal, regulations and programs. His close advisor Douglas said "The present pseudo-planned economy leads relentlessly into the complete autocracy and tyranny of the Collectivist State." FDR broke every campaign promise he had made and the New Deal was exactly the opposite of what he had promised. FDR had promised "I propose to you that the government, big and little, be made solvent and that the example be set by the President of the United States and his cabinet...Stop the deficits! Stop the deficits!" FDR made a flat promise to "reduce the cost of government operations 25 percent" and called for a sound gold currency (!). Instead, Franklin Deficit Roosevelt engaged in an orgy of spending and implemented the first twelve planks of the Socialist Party platform, which in substance was the New Deal. In his first year he proposed spending 10 billion on 3 billion of revenues; from 1933 to 1936 government expenditures went up more than 83 percent. He closed all banks with no intention or thought of ever re-opening them (banks are not needed in Marxist economics). After two years the New Deal was such a failure through waste, mismanagement and outright graft that FDR had to introduce a "New New Deal." The ND has been called 'a study in economic confusion.' FDR undermined the Constitution with blank-check appropriations which allowed him to control spending and blank-check legislation which allowed him to set up agencies to pass laws and regulations.

"There is in Chicago and in a very large part of the country, more suffering than there was in 1933 when the President came into office. It is a common sight to see children salvaging food from garbage cans." Grace Abbott to the DNC. Labor leader John L. Lewis told the NAACP in 1940 that "Mr. Roosevelt made depression and unemployment a chronic fact in American life."

Every choice made in the New Deal, whether it was one that moved recovery or not, was a choice unerringly true to the essential design of totalitarian government -

1. To extend the power of executive government, to rule by decrees and rules and regulations of its own making; between 1933 and 1943 FDR issued 3,556 Executive orders
2. To strengthen its hold on the economic life of the nation;
3. To extend power over the individual - the domestication of individuality;
4. To degrade the parliamentary principle;
5. To impair the independent Constitutional judicial power;
6. To weaken all other powers - private enterprise and finance, state and local government.
7. It is almost amusing that FDR built a cult of personality just as Hitler and Stalin did - it is necessary in a tyranny because in rule by men, loyalty is not to law or country but to a person. Power then depends on such a cult.

1935 Supreme Court unanimously ruled FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA -a.k.a. Nuts Running America), the centerpiece of the New Deal, unconstitutional (Schechter v US). The NRA was a total assault on free enterprise. Industry was to be straight jacketed into government-mandated cartels given the authority to set prices, determine production levels, and regulate the workplace. This was something akin to Mussolini's fascist corporativism; and expanded executive power at the expense of the Congress and the courts. Democrat Senator Carter Glass denounced the NRA as "the utterly dangerous effort of the federal government at Washington to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this nation."


1936 Supreme Court ruled FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) unconstitutional (US v Butler). This was the program that plowed crops under and senselessly slaughtered millions of animals at a cost of $700,000,000 over two years. By cutting corn production the US had to import 30 million bushels from abroad. The Supreme Court ruled the AAA was "a central government exercising uncontrolled police power in every state of the union."