This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Neville Boehner? RINOs channelling Chamberlain’s appeasement

Written on Friday, July 15, 2011 by

Chamberlain and Hitler in Munich

Back in the 1930s, while Hitler was building up his armed forces to a dangerous level, the democracies were so infested by pacifism that they were left unprepared.  Instead they tried to appease the despot.  In 1938, this appeasement policy culminated with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, as well as French and Italian leaders, signing an agreement with German Chancellor Adolf Hitler at Munich.  This basically threw Czechoslovakia under the bus, allowing Hitlerite Germany to take over the Sudetenland region, which had a large ethnic German population.  Famous newsreels show Chamberlain returning in triumph, waving this document and declaring “peace for our time.”

The disaster of appeasement

One of the few who saw the folly was the half-American Winston Churchill, who would later lead Britain to hold out against Hitler single-handedly until America joined the war.   At the time, he predicted the terrible future that would unfold:

“We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat…you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude … we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road … we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

By taking over the Sudetenland, Hitler acquired the massive Škoda Works that made him even stronger, since they could be turned into making more tanks and other weapons.  And of course, only a year after Munich, Chamberlain had the war he was trying to avoid, a war Hitler was close to winning, and Hitler was far more destructive now that  he was so strong.

Yet back in 1936, Hitler could have been stopped while barely firing a shot.  When he re-militarized the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, the French army was then stronger.  In fact, if the French had intervened, the German troops had orders to retreat.  But instead, the French gave in and retreated instead.  Hitler admitted:

“The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance.”

Churchill wrote of the contrast:

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Obamacare appeasement

Our nation is facing a crisis, although not of quite the same magnitude, but still massive spending that will bankrupt us.   For example, Obama and his fellow socialist Dems rammed through ruinously expensive socialized medicine against the wishes of the people.  Mark Steyn explained why back in March 2010:

“Look at it from the Dems’ point of view. You pass Obamacare. You lose the 2010 election, which gives the GOP co-ownership of an awkward couple of years. And you come back in 2012 to find your health-care apparatus is still in place, a fetid behemoth of toxic pustules oozing all over the basement, and, simply through the natural processes of government, already bigger and more expensive and more bureaucratic than it was when you passed it two years earlier. That’s a huge prize, and well worth a mid-term timeout.”

As our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, pointed out:

“Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this Earth.”

Steyn’s own country, Canada, is a good example.  In 2005, Conservative politician Stephen Harper promised that if he was elected Prime Minister of Canada, one of the first things on his agenda would be to privatize the Canadian socialized medical system.  But later on, as Prime Minister, he recently won re-election with an absolute majority, but felt the need to reassure Canadians:

“I think we’ve made it very clear that we support Canada’s system of universal public health insurance.”

He knows full well that there are now too many vested interests involved in keeping “free” health, so he doesn’t dare.

How much more evidence do we need that a rotten program must be eliminated early on, just as Hitler could have been stopped bloodlessly in the early 1930s while he was still weak?   Similarly, support for Obamacare is low right now, so now is the time to strike a decisive blow. But the current leadership is so afraid of a government shutdown that they have agreed to the paltriest of budget cuts (see Patriot columns A Budget Deal: Republican Suicide and Boehner Strategy on Budget Will Rescue Obama).

Save wrath for Obama?

So some conservatives have argued.  They are not wrong in one sense.  No one in Great Britain thought Chamberlain was anywhere near as bad as Hitler.  Churchill himself was most generous in paying tribute to Chamberlain after he died in November 1940.  But his policies had none the less enabled Hitler.  And he was getting in the way of effectively combating the Nazi peril.

So during the famous Norway debate on May that year, one of his fellow Conservative MPs, Leo Amery, declared, in language that would be most appropriate towards today’s “go along to get along” RINOs:

“Somehow or other we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory. Some 300 years ago, when this House found that its troops were being beaten again and again by the dash and daring of the Cavaliers, by Prince Rupert’s Cavalry, Oliver Cromwell spoke to John Hampden. In one of his speeches he recounted what he said. It was this: I said to him, ‘Your troops are most of them old, decayed serving men and tapsters and such kind of fellows. …You must get men of a spirit that are likely to go as far as they will go, or you will be beaten still.’ It may not be easy to find these men. They can be found only by trial and by ruthlessly discarding all who fail and have their failings discovered. We are fighting to-day for our life, for our liberty, for our all; we cannot go on being led as we are. I have quoted certain words of Oliver Cromwell. I will quote certain other words. I do it with great reluctance, because I am speaking of those who are old friends and associates of mine, but they are words which, I think, are applicable to the present situation. This is what Cromwell said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: ‘You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!’”

Similarly, despite leftist claims that the Tea Party is over (refuted in a previous Patriot column), they have a vital role as successors to the Amery spirit in getting rid of the neo-Chamberlainite RINOs.  They also need to continue assuring real Republicans that they have the support to kill socialized medicine in its crib.  So, if Boehner won’t lead in cutting spending and especially defunding Obamacare, he needs to get out of the way.  Or else, be forced out next Republican Primary.  The stakes are too high for more dithering while still more big government becomes entrenched.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

  • SaneRepublican

    YEAH!!!! Another intellectually dishonest essay based on a false premise.

    Sadly even Saint Ronny wouldn’t pass your purity test. Your mythological view of Reagan is the perfect Republican….however the real Reagan (the one that raised taxes 4 times, the one worked closely with the Democratic Speaker of the House, the one who engaged in massive and fiscally irresponsible deficit spending, the one who violated the Constitution by illegally selling weapons to Iran and funneling that money to Nicaragua) would be a RINO by today’s pseudo-standards for so-called conservative/Republican purity.

    History is a bitch that will slap you in the face every single time.

    I can hardly wait for Nathaniel and the rest of you people to come back with the banal “you’re neither Sane nor Republican” comeback or “SaneRepublican is just a liberal Democrat” (or some similar variation on the lame theme).

    • just sayin

      Sounds like another intellectual distracting the entire conversation from the real issue. Your logic amazes me. When you can’t win an argument or even debate on the same playing field, you, like a magician use sleight of hand to distract the audience to your own purposes. It bores me! Game player and propagandist play-a-long.

    • SaneRepublican

      Please, rather than throw up meaningless criticism, share with the rest of us where there is any “sleight of hand”? Either your knowledge of history is deficient or you don’t have anything real say and thus must resort to name calling.

    • CUFFIE

      Did you live through WW2? I did, with a brother in the Phillipines. Had another brother in Korea, again due to politics rather than common sense. Do you have any idea what it is like to have someone you love in a very dangerous, far away place and you only know he was alive when he wrote his last letter….possibly killed an hour later, more or less? Chamberlain took the coward’s path and many English men and women, plus many American men and women paid the price. We lost many of our bravest and best. I wonder which of them might have found a way to peace if he/she had lived. As I said, I doubt you were there.

    • Am2sweet

      Cuffie,I can only say a Big Thank You for defending our country. It’s a shame that there are so many Nazis living here now and trying to move or country toward a socialist society. For all the good work you and others have done I hate seeing anyone trying to undo it. I’m afriad that you may be called yet again to fight here since our coutnry is going to be under attack at some point. But you will have countless citizens helping you on this round.

    • Seabee Combat Vet

      And don’t forget that right after signing the treaty, Hitler stated to his henchmen that “This piece of paper is worthless”.

    • Aristophanes

      just sayin – insane republican does not use intelligence to argue. You uses emotions and hyperbole – there is no intelligence involved. But, he does make me laugh TRYING to sound intelligent. Keep trying, libtard.
      Maybe you will eventually learn how to anger a conservative who does not realize you are a libtard plant. I doubt it, though. You just think you are too intelligent (in your eyes) to see how dumb you really sound.

    • Brenda Choate

      Maybe so, but at least we do not blindly follow an autocratic leader who thinks he knows what is best for us.

    • SaneRepublican

      You mean except for those 8 years you people blindly followed Bush?

      LOL!!!!

    • Brenda Choate

      Maybe you should re-read the article and consider the time frame it was written in before you form an opinion.

    • Gary Cave

      So far all I see is a history lesson about Neville Chamberlin. ANY connection to Boener is trumped up and premature at this time! Where is your evidence? Don’t expect instant results. It took us 50 years to get into this mess and it will take some time (I hope not 50 yrs.) to get out!

    • Retired USAF MSgt

      We don’t have to when you do it so very well.

    • Lynn

      Right MSGT, here he comes again. I wonder why this “insane republican” is still alive? He contributes absolutely zero to humanity -empty shirt. Even his words aren’t his own – like a defected disc on repeat. Send him to Washington like the other air head rants. Better yet keep him talking about Reagan and he might just self distruct.

    • Are you Serious

      The worthless POS is a liberal plant. Ignore the SOB and he will go away.

    • SaneRepublican

      LOL!!!! I really need to get you a dictionary so that you can learn the meaning of the word “ignore.” ;-)

    • 2WarAbnVet

      With every post it is increasingly clear that “SaneRepublican” is neither sane nor a Republican.

    • horned Dolphin

      Right on. The goofballs on this site don’t know jack about governance. And if they look behind them, that [parade that was following them in November is no longer there.

      Their ideological purity reminds me of Ralph Nadar, and they will be equally successful.

    • http://patriotupdate SICK&TIRED OF THE B.S.

      how about just a shit head!!!!

    • Eric N., CA

      Amazing what one will say/write when his mind goes completely blank to the truth. It is really dark and dingy where this guy put his head. When he eventually comes to, it will be interesting to see if his IQ went up from his experience, went down from being in there for so dang long, or just stayed the same because of familiarity and his complacence there.

    • Viva

      I and family and neighbors and friends lived through WWII. That WAS a lesson in history. We know of what we speak. Do more research of past administrations and I think you will feel differently. Good luck.

    • Johnnygard

      Reagan raised taxes 4 times? All I can say is taxes on EVERYONE were lower when he left than under Carter. Inflation was way down after being in double digits. Interest rates were way down after being over 20% – 20% means if you only paid the interest, you paid the entire amount of the loan every 5 years! Reagan got accused of shutting down the government trying to spend less. The government took in more money after his tax cuts, but the liberal congress spent $1.78 for every new dollar that came in.

    • SaneRepublican

      You see, it’s nonsense like “liberal Congress” when the Republicans controlled the Senate for most of Reagan’s Presidency that damage your credibility outside of this website.

      And the government didn’t take more due to his tax cuts. The government got more revenue because of Reagan’s spending packages feeding all the defense contractors to “defeat” the Soviet Union. The companies paid their workers, right? And those workers paid taxes right? So the increase government revenue was just another one of Ronny’s shell game…..you just admitted that Ronny spent $1.78 for every dollar he took in. Oh, wait, Ronny was helpless….it was one half of one third of the government that caused that to happen.

    • Johnnygard

      Reagan didn’t have to spend a lot of money to defeat the Commies, he had to build the military back up after Carter ran it into the ground (Constitution: Provide for the common defense). He didn’t have to spend much on “Star Wars” although I wish we had it. If you bring in more taxes to the government by the government spending more money, why hasn’t it worked for Obama? With that logic, the government could give us all high paying jobs doing anything or nothing, and our taxes would just flow in so they could spend even more. Now that is liberal logic!

    • SaneRepublican

      LOL!!!!

      Reagan didn’t have to spend a lot of money????

      I just gave you real numbers about Reagan’s spending proclivity and the best you can do is “Reagan didn’t have to spend a lot of money”? Typical so-called “conservative” pseudo-logic: when the numbers don’t fit your narrative, be vague. Tell me, how many billions of dollars is “[not spending] a lot of money”?

      Besides, I’m not here to defend Obama. I believe spending should be cut. And I believe there should be some shared sacrifice from the citizenry. Both of which have been sorely lacking this past decade.

      Btw, in case you haven’t hear, people are starting to spend more now. Even California recently got a windfall of tax revenue this past week. So the spending is working, just not very quickly (about as quickly as it worked for Ronny). The emotion-based logical-farse you attempted was poor at best. Care to try again?

      What I am here to do is point out when you people are utterly ridiculous with your intellectually dishonest arguments that aren’t supported by facts or data or history.

      Really? “Reagan didn’t have to spend a lot of money”???? That has to be one of the wildest justifications of his fiscal irresponsibility I’ve ever heard.

    • Gary Cave

      RE “sane republican”. The Reagan administration LOWERED TAXES creating MORE investment in the private sector of the economy!!! This caused an INCREASE in the revenue. For you liberals, that means that the U.S. Treasury got MORE MONEY!!! That is how Reagan was able to finance (pay for) the building up of Carter’s depleted military weapons systems, and modernize the military to keep up with the Soviets. Unlike you kids, I REMEMBER those years. I didn’t read about it in a BOOK!!! There are so many LIES going around about the Reagan years and Liberals always trying to rewrite history! (In)sane republican should, if he had any courage of conviction, join either the Democrat or Communist party. At least people would know where he stood. But cowards don’t think that way!!

    • Gary Cave

      RE “sane republican”. The Reagan administration LOWERED TAXES creating MORE investment in the private sector of the economy!!! This caused an INCREASE in the revenue. For you liberals, that means that the U.S. Treasury got MORE MONEY!!! That is how Reagan was able to finance (pay for) the building up of Carter’s depleted military weapons systems, and modernize the military to keep up with the Soviets. Unlike you kids, I REMEMBER those years. I didn’t read about it in a BOOK!!! There are so many LIES going around about the Reagan years and Liberals are always trying to rewrite history! (In)sane republican should, if he had any courage of conviction, join either the Democrat or Communist party. At least people would know where he stood. But cowards don’t think that way!!

    • SaneRepublican

      Poor poor Gary. So sad that you memory is so pathetically selective. I live though Reagan as well. I too have a first hand memory of his Presidency. That’s why I can remember people like you sounding like a broken record perpetuating the same emotion-based propaganda now as you did then.

      But I do love how you people deride reference books. The great thing about references is that you don’t have to rely on your incomplete memory. With references, you can now research and learn about all the things you don’t know about (but why should someone like you let a little thing like facts get in the way of your mythology). The following is Reagan’s real record on taxes.

      Here are the four times Reagan cut taxes:
      Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
      Interest and Dividends Tax Compliance Act of 1983
      Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986
      Tax Reform Act of 1986

      Now here are the 11 times Reagan raised taxes:
      Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982
      Highway Revenue Act of 1982
      Social Security Amendments of 1983
      Railroad Retirement Revenue Act of 1983
      Deficit Reduction Act of 1984
      Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
      Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
      Continuing Resolution for 1987
      Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987
      Continuing Resolution for 1988

      Source: Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1990

      But of course you are welcome to live in your fantasy world. The rest of us chose to live in the real world.

    • SaneRepublican

      Apparently I was wrong. According to other Republicans, Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his 8-year Presidency (I must only be remembering the 4 times he raised taxes in only 2 years).

      I’m sorry, what was that you were saying in defense of your Saint?

    • Johnnygard

      I said that when he left office everyone’s taxes we lower than when he took office. And the last two years of his presidency he had a Democrat House and Senate, which is why he had to try to make a deal with the libs. You didn’t comment on what I said about Carter or about Dems always wanting to spend more and conservatives. And what do you think about Obama? Doing better than Reagan did getting us out of Carter’s hole?

    • SaneRepublican

      So Reagan was a victim in the last two years of his Presidency? Nice way to take responsibility you people love to preach to others.

      Given the egregious and irresponsible spending of Reagan (and Bush), there is way to properly comment on your intellectually dishonest premise that “Carter or Dems always wanting to spend more and conservatives.” But here goes:

      The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, more than doubled to $22.7 billion from 1981 to 1988, Social Security spending rose from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn’t count the his $4 billion “drought-relief” measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987. (Note: Democrats didn’t get control of Congress until 3 January 1987.)

      Foreign aid also rose, from $10 billion to $22 billion during Ronny’s Presidency. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend (ooops, so much for Democrats *always* wanting to outspend Ronny). He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. “contribution” to the International Monetary Fund.

      Reagan’s budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As the Saint put it, “We’re not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have.”

      The result was an unprecedented government debt. Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years from 1957-1988 to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight. And you people hypocritically criticize Obama for what again?

      And Clinton spent less, balanced the budget, and started to bring down the debt….oh, but let me guess, Clinton deserves no credit because Republicans controlled Congress. Republican Reagan gets a pass because he had to deal with a Democratic House and partially a Democratic Senate (and was a victim to them). Well, except for when it comes to the Congressionally approved money that was spent to defeat the Soviet Union. In that case, Republican Reagan gets all the credit and Democratic House gets none. Gawd I love your cognitive dissonance!

      Now funny thing about the hole Reagan dug us out of after Carter. Carter’s recession ended the same month of Reagan’s “Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981″ (August 1981). Ironically, Reagan’s “Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981″ created a double dip recession and cause the hole to get even deeper. Recall that unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut (said “Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981″), and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. As a result of Reagan’s folly, the Republican’s lost 27 seats in the 1982 midterm elections. “The American people spoke and they voted against the President’s fiscally irresponsible policies.” I believe that’s the obligatory message from a midterm election.

      So if we’re comparing Obama to Reagan at similar points in their respective Presidency, Obama is doing a little better on the economic front (more jobs created than Reagan, no double dip recession) and a little worse on the political front (lost 63 House seats). As far as approval ratings go, at the time of the midterm, Obama was about at the same point Reagan was.

      I am not thrilled with Obama. I would love to see real cuts in spending. I’m just even less thrilled with so-called “conservatives” who can’t admit when their own chite stinks.

  • Nathaniel Davidson

    Well, if it looks like a LibDem, sounds like a LibDem, acts like a LibDem, resorts to fact-free rants like a LibDem, and does nothing but attack conservative Republicans, then it probably *is* a LibDem!

    • SaneRepublican

      I presented you facts. But instead of reading them, you just posted a boilerplate comeback that lack any substance (much like your essays). Since you missed them the first time, I’ll present them to you again. Here are some facts about the Reagan Presidency:
      1) he raised taxes 4 times
      2) worked closely with the Democratic Speaker of the House (or as you put it, “appeased”)
      3) he engaged in massive and fiscally irresponsible deficit spending
      4) he violated the Constitution by illegally selling weapons to Iran and funneling that money to Nicaragua.

      But I guess I should really reply in terms that you are more likely to understand. You are neither “conservative” nor “Republican.” You’re just another intellectually dishonest wannabe who apparently isn’t charismatic enough to get his own talk show on FoxNews(?)….or worse, you can’t even get invited to be a part of Hannity’s Great American Panel. How sad and pathetic are you that you’ve peaked on this website?

    • just sayin

      and Obamacare is bankrupting the nation. Once again you prove you cannot stay on the subject. Why not, instead of playing with us, don’t you go home and play with yourself?

    • Matt

      Your “fact” argument is nothing more than red herrings and ad hominem attacks.

      The article talks about appeasement in regards to Hitler and how he acquired more power to be difficult to stop.

      The only reference to Reagon was that he pointed out the true statement that government programs are virtually impossible to stop once fully implemented.

      Your “fact argument” does not address these arguments nor are your “facts” attacking any premise of the article. Rather they are red herrings: things that strike a nerve and distract people from the focus of the argument. And they ad hominem attacks: attack the person (in this case the author and Reagon) instead of attacking the argument.

      Come back when you can directly attack the argument.

    • SaneRepublican

      And my point is that this is a intellectually dishonest argument based on a false premise about so-called RINOs who understand that in order to govern a complex nation, both sides must work together. One sign of an argument that lacks merit is how loudly they proclaim Obama is like Hitler….and in a sad & pathetic attempt to continue this ridiculous metaphor, Boehner is like Chamberlain? LOL!!!!!

      I use Reagan as an example of someone who by the ridiculous standards you people put forth would be a called RINO today because he did pretty much the same things Obama is doing (except for the tax increases….Obama hasn’t done that). Reagan worked closely with the “other side” (like Boehner). Reagan was fiscally irresponsible (like Obama). Reagan actually violated the real Constitution (unlike Obama who has one violated your 7th grade understanding of the Constitution). But apparently Reagan is a patriot and Obama is a traitor and Boehner is an appeaser.

      I’ll say this much for you people….at least you’re funny when you make fools of yourselves. LOL!!!!

    • http://yahoo WERIII

      Speaking of working together; I’m rather fond of the way the DEMOCRAPS worked “together” with Republicrats” while they controled both houses and the Presidency. Personally, I think it’s time for the TEA PARTY to become the third party.

    • SaneRepublican

      AMEN!!!!!

      I’ve been saying that since the beginning of this Tea Party [bowel] movement.

      Please please please form your own party quit hijacking what used to be a once proud and Grand Ole Party.

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      WERIII, I sympathize with your disgust of the major parties, but please see my earlier column http://patriotupdate.com/exclusives/read/229/Why-conservatives-should-hold-their-nose-and-vote-Republican

    • http://Yahoo.com Thomas Martin

      sanerepublican, so you’re a ball sucking deomocrat ass kisser who was raised on welfare.

      Do us a favor STFU and ESAD…

    • SaneRepublican

      Why would I ever do someone like you any favors?

      And it’s reassuring to know that when you people don’t have anything of substance to say, you resort to acronyms. Your laziness knows no bounds.

      Do you people even realize how stupid you sound when you talk this way?

      But I do appreciate the comic relief you provide. ;-)

    • http://Yahoo.com Thomas Martin

      sanerepublican, it’s plain to see your parents weren’t parents at all and should have been charged with child abuse.

      Letting you eat lead paint chips and play with mercury caused you to have a pea size brain.

      I will pray for your stupidity to be healed, go toward the light.

    • SaneRepublican

      To quote the great Retired USAF MSgt:

      “ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ”

    • Retired USAF MSgt

      Aww, you just don’t like Reagan because he toppled one of your castles the Soviet Union.

      That’s a fact you can look up.

    • SaneRepublican

      Actually, the facts on the fall of the Soviet Union are well known. And the fact anyone with any awareness of geo-politics knows that every President since Truman contributed to their ultimate demise (even Jimmy Carter). All Reagan did was outspend the Soviets (remember, he refused to meet with them during his first term)…..Reagan’s “victory” was not on ideological grounds, but rather a race of which government could outspend the other without going bankrupt first (and they lost initially, but we also lost in the end as we’re still paying for his fiscal irresponsibility).

      But my favorite fact on this matter is that the USSR finally fell after Reagan left office. So based on you people’s “logic,” doesn’t Bush (the smarter one) deserve all the credit for single-handedly defeating the Soviets? At least that’s what he campaigned on while he was losing to Clinton.

      LOL!!!! Gawd I love your minds will rationalize anything, no matter what the facts are. LOL!!!!

    • Retired USAF MSgt

      The toppling of the Soviet Union was irresponsibility?

      Once again, you expose yourself.

    • SaneRepublican

      Spending money that you don’t have is irresponsible. Isn’t that what you people have been whining about with Obama?

      Well, that’s exactly what Reagan did. He exploded the deficit with massive government spending. I thought you people were against that sort of thing.

      Gawd I love you people’s hypocrisy!!!! Just make it a little more challenging next time to expose it. LOL!!!!

    • Aristophanes

      insane – I am not going to bother with your twisted history. I am just going to say that true conservatives are not going to stoop to arguing with you and trying to fix your history. Suffice it to say that I agree with the article and people like you are going to wake up (if you wake up at all) when it is too late (like Chamberlain). And you are a libtard with your ad hominem attacks and your arrogance. Got to huff-n-puff – those people over there will be awed by your “intellect”, unlike intelligent people. You are really good for a laugh.

    • SaneRepublican

      You people would know this better than I, but isn’t one of Alinsky Rules that when you aren’t able to debate on the facts, resort to empty rhetoric. Looks like you people do an excellent job of that when someone challenges your mythology.

      But at least we are able to laugh at each other….so nice to have that in common. ;-)

      ====

      Oh, btw, you need to ask Santa to bring you a dictionary for X’mas this year. You clearly don’t know what “ad hominem” means (but you do get bonus points for using your “word-a-day calendar” that Santa brought you last year). There is nothing emotion-based in my so-called “attack.” I’ve just laid that the well-documented historical record of Reagan’s deficit spending and foreign policy. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

    • Johnnygard

      By not meeting with the Ruskies, they learned he wasn’t bluffing and that he meant what he said. You don’t like the fact that we beat them in the cold war by spending more than the USSR could afford? Would you rather he used a Nuke? Reagan, the Pope, and M. Thatcher combined to bring them down.

    • SaneRepublican

      Not bluffing? It was all one ginormous bluff. Reagan never had any intentions on using nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. Reagan’s only objective was to gamble America’s future that they would go bankrupt before we did. So this wasn’t an ideological victory. Our government was just able to spend more money at a fast rate than their government could keep up. And we didn’t really get much for Reagan’s “investment” in the end….well, we did get the recession of the early 1990s thanks to Reagan’s economic policy of the 1980s.

      The fact I don’t like is that Ronny didn’t have the integrity to actually match his actions with his words. He preached fiscal responsibility and campaigned on balancing the budget, but instead he exploded the deficit with his massive government spending. And when confronted with his hypocrisy, his glibly said that “the deficit is big enough to take care of itself” (the 1980s version of Cheney’s “deficits don’t matter”). Amazing how deficits don’t matter when there’s a Republican in the White House.

      Also, only those with a narrow view of history are unable to acknowledge that it took more than what happened in the 1980s to bring down the Soviet Union. It took more than Ronny, Maggie, and JP2.

      Even former Chairman of the RINO National Committee, Michael Steele, acknowledges that you people have a blind spot with it comes to your mythological view of Reagan.

    • SaneRepublican

      Actually, I used to like Reagan….I used to like him a lot and campaigned for him. But he betrayed America’s values in the end.

      Reagan sold weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War. As if that wasn’t classless enough, he took the money from his illegal arms sales to Iran and compounded his crime against the Constitution by funneling that money to Nicaragua. Remember Iran-Contra?

      But as if that wasn’t bad enough, the real legacy of Ronald Reagan is how his foreign policy sowed the seeds that ultimately led to 9/11. Reagan secretly helped the Taliban (yes, that Taliban) defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. And when it came time to build on that foundation of partnership and goodwill, he abandoned them and left them to suffer. They don’t hate us for our freedom, they hate us for our lack of integrity.

      Thank you, Ronald Reagan. I don’t think the country can live though another President who loved America as much as you did.

    • Johnnygard

      I should have responded to the above post but I saw it late, and you don’t seem to be around. But I’ll check back in about an hour

    • SaneRepublican

      I look forward to the continued rationalization of Reagan’s lack of class and integrity.

      I can’t wait to hear how it was right for Reagan to sell weapons to *both sides* of a war, especially when one of the sides was our enemy (and the other side wasn’t exactly our friend either, despite the pictures of Reagan’s personal.

      And I wonder what you will say to justify to Ronny’s actual violation of the Constitution. Given how loud you people whine about Obama’s pseudo-violation of the Constitution, you people must be livid over the real violations Reagan perpetrated against the Constitution.

    • Johnnygard

      Please see my answer to you post earlier. It amazes me how people like you can pay attention to politics and still believe in the Democrat party. How can you complain about spending when in the last 50 years (that I know of)Republicans have NEVER tried to spend more money than what the Democrats wanted to spend (except on defense, which is the one thing the constitution specifically allows).

    • Johnnygard

      You sure throw a lot of crap and then hope something sticks. Your post at 12:43 makes it sound like spending more than the USSR could afford was somehow unfair. The wall probably would have come down eventually, it just came down many years earlier because of Reagan. Congress spends the money and the President can sign or shut the government down. Reagan shut it down once and then got an agreement to go along with Tip and Congress, but the Dems never live up to cutting spending. How can you support Democrats if you are going to rail against Republicans for their spending?

    • SaneRepublican

      I never said anything about the “fairness” about outspending the Soviets. My point is the lack of integrity Republicans have when it comes to government spending.

      Republicans like Reagan & Bush & Gingrich & Boehner do little more than blame the Democrats and refuse to take any responsibility. And here I thought the Republicans were all about being personally responsible for their actions.

      It’s not that I support the Democrats in the spending. I don’t. What I rail against is the Republican hypocrisy when it comes to the spending issue.

      Btw, Reagan has a Republican controlled Senate until 1986. But it’s funny how the Democratic controlled House gets blames for the spending, but the Republican controlled White House and Senate get credit for the alleged tax cuts. (you remember those 1981 tax cuts, don’t you? they led to the 1982 recession.)

      I believe in a complete view of history. All I read here is a one-sided view of history. So I fill in the gaping holes you people leave. But that of course leads you to falsely believe that I’m a supporter of the Democrats. Heaven forbid a Republican doesn’t sycophantically support your incomplete point of view.

    • Johnnygard

      You talk about the integrity and hypocrisy of Republicans. When Repubs. screw up, we don’t reelect them. Kennedy, Barnie Frank (homo prostitution out of his house)Marion Berry (Barry?)and many others. You know many of us conservatives loudly complained about Bush 1 tax hike and Bush 2 spending too much, but they weren’t real conservatives. The 81 tax cuts took about 18 months to bring the unemployment rate back down along with interest rates and inflation. Obama is going the opposite direction and Reagan is dead, so why don’t you defend or condemn the actions of the current Pres.? Talk to you tomorrow, got to get up and work like most other Republicans, even though I’m partially retired.

    • SaneRepublican

      Seriously??!?!?!??? “When Repubs. screw up, we don’t reelect them”???? I guess David Vitter (R-LA, solicited prostitute) & Dan Burton (R-IN, child from adulterous relationship) don’t count. You make this too easy….you need to watch the intellectual dishonesty. Again, not defending the others, but it’s kinda rude to be as one-sided as you are. Give me a break….

      I’m going to let you in on a little secret. Politicians in both parties with scandals get re-elected because the people of their respective district or respective state don’t care what the rest of us thing, so long as their politician is looking out for them.

      And I guess most Democrats don’t work….oh, that’s right, only Democrats are on welfare driving Cadillacs while it’s only Republicans who are upstanding citizens with jobs. Again, watch the one-sidedness….it makes you look cheap and petty. Well, not to the people on this website, but to the people in the outside world.

    • Gary Cave

      Insane republican doesn’t want to realize that Congress controls the “purse strings”, er, spending, and guess who controlled it during BOTH of Reagan’s terms! Also he said that he wasn’t too happy with obama. Could it be that Barry isn’t Marxist enough for him? HMMM!

    • SaneRepublican

      Poor poor Gary. So sad, so pathetic, so inconsistent.

      So if Congress is the one who controls the “purse strings,” then I guess Congress should get all the credit all those alleged tax cuts that allegedly generated more revenue that funding the military and defeat the Soviet Union. I guess your Saint had absolutely nothing to do with it. Ronny was just a victim along for the ride, helpless to Congress’ whims.

      Btw, the Republicans controlled the Senate for 75% “of BOTH of Reagan’s terms” (100% of the first term and 50% of the second term). The Democrats only controlled the House. The Democrats controlled one half of one third of the government for most of Ronny’s Presidency.

      And I thought you lived though this time in American history. Sounds more like you slept through it. Either that or you’re a liar. Then again, why let a little thing like the truth get in the way of your delusional diatribe.

  • The Jay-Walker

    YOUR VOTE is the MOST POWERFUL THING
    YOU have.

    Please USE IT in 2012 and

    HELP SAVE AMERICA !!!

    • ARMYOF69

      You have much more confidence in the voting system than I do after 5 decades.
      The system is totally corrupt from top to bottom, when even illegal; aliens have been voting and getting away with, dead people vote, and double voting . And yet, nothing is ever done about it.
      ONLY A REVOLUTION will achieve success at this stage.

    • http://WebTV Fenderman52

      Right you are. We need to go back to the paper ballot. I’m pretty sure it was the rigged voting machines that Klinton used to defeat Ross Perot. I ran an unofficial poll after that election with the help of a few friends in three states and we got almost 100% for Perot. It was only a few years ago that some students and a professor at one of the Texas universities got their hands on one of those machines and opened it up to find that a high-schooler could hack it with ease. It’ll take hard work and lots of it but we must stop the voter fraud that ACORN and the democraps are pulling on us.

    • Bill

      They have millions of your tax dollars to spend on buying and creating votes.

    • TooToo

      LET’S ROLL!!!!

  • Earl Chaffee

    Didn’t anyone vett the speaker?

  • PENELOPE8

    THE RINOS WHO HAVE BEEN SELLING US DOWN THE RIVER ARE SUSAN COLLINS, OLYMPIA SNOWE, SCOTT BROWN, LINDSAY GRAHAM, JOHN MCCAIN (AND YES I VOTED FOR HIM) AND OTHERS. LET’S NOT GET SO FOCUSED ON BOEHNER THAT WE FORGET THE LONGTIME RINOS. I KNOW I WILL CATCH HELL FOR THIS, BUT LET’S GIVE BOEHNER TIME – HE IS FIGHTING A BLOODY BATTLE AND SURROUNDED BY NEW HOUSE MEMBERS CAN WIN. IT IS SOMETIMES WISE TO COMPROMISE A LITTLE AS LONG AS YOU DON’T COMPROMISE THE VALUES OF THE PEOPLE. I AM AGAINST RAISING THE DEBT CEILING, RAISING TAXES, OBAMACARE – ACTUALLY, I’M AGAINST EVERYTHING OBAMABINLADIN HAS DONE AND CONTINUES TO DO, BUT THESE THINGS CANNOT BE FIXED OVERNIGHT. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT COULD BE DONE IS TO PROVE THAT THE MUSLIM IN CHIEF IS INELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE. THAT’S WHERE OUR SENATORS AND REPS ARE WIMPY. WHY???? DEATH THREATS OR WORSE??? THE DEMS WOULDN’T THINK TWICE ABOUT DOING THAT – PARTICULARLY HOLDER – THE MODERN DAY HITLER.

    • http://aol mimi

      PENELOPE8, YES WE DO KNOW WHO THE RINOS ARE, I HOPE EVERY GOOD AMERICAN WILL VOTE THEM OUT. I NEVER CARED FOR RINO MCCAIN, I DIDN’T VOTE FOR HIM I WAS HOPING FOR SARAH PALIN TO GET IN, A REAL AMERICAN WOMAN WHO CARES ABOUT AMERICA AND WE THE PEOPLE, I WAS HOPING MAYBE IF MCCAIN GOT IN HE WOULD GET SICK AND HAVE TO GO, THEN SARAH COULD HAVE TAKING OVER ,WE WOULD BE WORKING ON AMERICAN RESOURCES, BY NOW!!!!!!!!!! JOOOOOBS FOR AMERICANS ,LOWER GAS PRICES ,LOWER ENERGY PRICES!!!!! NOW THE DEMOCRAPS WANT TO PUSH CAP AND TRADE ON US ,IF THAT HAPPENS ,OUR GAS AND ENERGY BILLS WILL SKY ROCKET, EVEN THE MORON THAT FOOLED SO MANY PEOPLE SAID IT WOULD ,BUT HE WANTS THIS TO HAPPEN ,WE MUST STOP THIS RAPING OF AMERICA AND WE THE PEOPLE, TIME TO WAKE UP AMERICANS WHO CARE ABOUT THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF OURS. VOTE THIS HATER OUT IN 2012,OR IT’S OVER FOR AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!

    • Retired USAF MSgt

      I’ve read Sara Palin’s books. She gets it.

      I’m just not yet convinced she can win. I want to see a lot more from her. Bachman also.

      I also wish Allen West would run.

    • CUFFIE

      You might tell both of them to soften the rhetoric. Even Nancy Pelosi learned she came across better with a softer voice and a more feminine hairdo. Maybe it isn’t fair, but neither men nor women like strident females and certainly not as President of the United States, our main ambassador of American good will. For the record, I am female and a strident attitude never won me anything but male stubborness in the face of competition.

    • Retired USAF MSgt

      Cuffie,

      I know your heart’s in the right place.

      But I don’t think it’s best to tone it down when we are fighting the communists for our very survival as a nation.

      What we need to do is widen the canyon that devides the democrat and republican parties.
      We need to make a bold case to the American people that if we do not take our country back we are doomed.

      I don’t mean personal attacks, they don’t go over very well with the electorate. I do mean contrasting our vision of freedom, liberty, and security with theirs of class warfare, welfare, and non-security.

      But what we need to hit them with the most is the economy. People will vote for a party/candidate who can convince them that they can fix the rot in Washington and make this land a better place to live for themselves and their children. Not for handouts but an equal opportunity for anyone who has the intestinal fortitude to work hard.

    • Lynn

      Wrong Cuffie, that logic only works in the romance department besides you can never compare Sarah Palin with Palosie on any level and Sarah is not a “strident female”. You’re talking about that toxic word “appeasement”. No go! Again I say that only only works in male – female relationship not as leadership in the greatest nation on earth. Sarah has all it takes and if you haven’t heard her lately you need to. This is one Woman who is going to be fully prepared and the Tea Party has her back. Any woman who has killed a bear or a moose is well able to take on these donkeys on the hill. We are with you Sarah! Lock and load, lets roll! 2012

    • Bill

      As Gov Palin has said many times, ” the country is not ready for a woman president”.

    • Nathaniel Davidson

      Please don’t use all capitals. Most experienced Internet users consider this “shouting”.

  • The Enemy

    These wimpy RINOs have to be shipped out! They are almost as big a threat as the Dems. Look at what the RINO Bush II did by signing so many Dem initiatives into law! John McCain is a RINO and “reaches across the aisle” way too much. Reaching across the aisle is like putting your arm through the bars in a zoo where the lions are caged! We need some men with REAL manhood and women with tenacity in Congress and the White House if we are ever to get out of this mess.

    • sbeejustsaying

      RINO’s are wolves in sheeps clothing. They are libereral and i think of them as plants. Republican In Name Only what is that all about. That’s how progressives win. Play both sides.

  • CJB

    I haven’t heard, where in the Ryan plan they revove all funding for Soetoro-care or aliminate any of the worthless and hated beaurocracies that need to go….

    • Retired USAF MSgt

      Mr. Ryan has a plan. The problem is they are not educating US about it’s details enough. I want to know much more than what they’ve told us.

      I no longer trust anybody in Washington.

      Where’s the beef!

    • Bill

      He left the 500 billion dollar cut in Social Security in his “plan” and that’s what Newt was so angry about. He was right to be angry, but he showed himself not to the man we need.

  • standupforAmerica

    any suggestion that boehner might compromise, and raise our debt ceiling, is surrender. if i cant pay my bills, i cut down on whatever non-essential expense i have. i think most busuness’ run this way. not our fed govt. come on boehner, stad up draw a line in the sand, NO debt ceiling increase ever, cut spending and then reduce our debt limit!

    • http://PatriotUpdate Maggie

      NO,NO,NO!!!
      If our elected officials don’t have the tenacity to stand firmly when saying “NO”, they need lessons/to be replaced with some common-sense Moms that can say NO, & stick to it. They should have learned by now that the promises of the LEFT are empty words full of deceit & lies.
      Hold firm & then defund the spending that is killing this country—Obamacare/EPA/Dept of Education/USDA,e.g—then start from scatch & get some SOUND input & common sense. SMALLER GOVERMENT based on the Constitution.
      GOD BLESS AMERICA & HAVE MERCY!!!

  • Pixielou

    Here’s an idea. Just don’t respond to “sanerepublican” – he posts to every article and gets everyone in a tizzy. Ignore him and don’t hit reply to his posts. They are all minimized anyway (because they are of minimal value!) so he takes up little space (or should I say he has a minimal carbon footprint on this list!)

    • Are you Serious

      Exactly right!!!!!!!!

    • SaneRepublican

      LOL!!!!! Gawd love you people and your cognitive dissonance!!!!

      I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. It’s more effective to actually ignore me than pretend to ignore me by acknowledging me.

      But I must admit, you people are quite inspiring. I only wish you didn’t make it so easy for me to call you out on your chite.

      LOL!!!!

    • http://aoj.myefoods.com/freemeals/ scarfacesquirrel

      Vicky!!! Is that Ewe???

  • ONTIME

    Is John going to put his(our) money where his mouth is? I wouldn’t count on it, everyday I see him getting more squeamish and making those wrinkly faces that indicates the RINO blood is flowing hard. You can bet when these weasels of the tax dodge get done lying they and especially John will gladly step out the door with full pockets and a great life and tell you the tax payer to go pound salt. There will be no tears on that side.

  • Retired USAF MSgt

    When the politicians get a lifetime pension for giving us 4 years of sitting on their A__es, how can we expect them to WORK for us.

    Most of these people never worked a day in thier lives. As a matter of fact most never served their country in any meaningful way.

    It may be only a dream, but I would like to see a prerequisite for elected office to be a minimum 4 years in the Military.

    • http://yahoo WERIII

      AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Retired MSgt,USAF.

    • SaneRepublican

      There is nothing in the Constitution requiring the President having served in the military. And here I thought you people loved the Constitution.

      Why do you hate the Constitution? Why do you hate America?

    • Retired USAF MSgt

      ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    • Johnnygard

      Wish I could get on the Internet early enough to spar with you. Being I’m on the left coast, you are probably in bed when I start. Did you not understand that he was expressing a wish. It had nothing to do with the Constitution, other than it would make a good amendment.

    • SaneRepublican

      It has everything to do with the Constitution.

      You people talk about the Constitution as if it were perfect and sacrosanct. But the fact of the matter is that it’s not, and that’s why we have Amendments. But heaven forbid a Republican call it a “living document” that “evolves” for a changing nation. Like how the 14th Amendment kinda trumps the 10th Amendment and forces the States to abide by the Federal Constitution. James Madison wanted the States to follow the Bill of Rights, but was defeated. However, by the time of the 14th Amendment, the country saw the wisdom of Madison and adopted his point of view.

      Anyway, it’s the righteousness of “Retired USAF MSgt” that I’m protesting against here….especially when he concludes it with a call for the President to have served in the military as requirement to hold office. Ever consider why the Founders didn’t specify that in the first place?

      I wonder if “Retired USAF MSgt” complained about Bush (the lesser) and Cheney’s lack of military service. (Sorry, not showing up for duty with the Air National Guard does not count.)

    • PENELOPE8

      ABSOLUTELY!!!!!FINE IDEA.

  • Klaus

    Our elected ‘leaders’ have no stomach to do what has to be done. Boehner is no different. The only elected representatives that actually have the stomach for fighting against the present communist regime is people that got elected through tea party activism. Michelle Bachman, Rand Paul, etc come to mind.

    • Lynn

      “No stomach for fighting” the establishment? That would be those two Super Ladies – Sarah and Michelle, forget Rand Paul. We need someone who has no record of sell out or compromise. These women haven’t got an “appeasement” bone in their bodies. Time to lock and load Sarah! 2012’s a comin’

  • Randy131

    As Obama and the Democrats try to appease the public by saying they are like Reagan, openly stated by themselves and their liberal biased mainstream media worshippers, to try to convince the public that they can achieve what Reagan did if only the public would put up with their failed policies long enough for them to work, or as Chamberlain’s policies did, help destroy us. Oh how the liberal progressive Democrats lie and really hate Reagan, as SaneRepublican does, for because of the shambles Carter and the Democrats left our military in when Reagan took over, Reagan had to use their own methods to rebuild what they tried to destroy, and rebuilt it into the greatest the world had seen, which because of it the USSR crumbled at the feet of Ronald Reagan and the fear of having to keep up to and face that military that Reagan rebuilt, using the Democrats own methods. Now again, Obama and the Democrats plan to destroy that military and our nation, by using their typical methods to engineer societal change through bribery of entitlement promises that will destroy this nation through financial bankruptcy, and is proven by the more than 1.5 trillion dollar deficits Obama and the Democrats have forced upon us every year of his administration, as his 4th year is also projected to do by the CBO. Thus destroying the US Dollar on the global market and resulting in the collapse of the US Economy, bringing joy and revelry to SaneRepublican and his kind. But what SaneRepublican fears most is that there may be more Winston Churchills out there, reading these blogs, that may step up and stop the planned destruction of the USA, and defeat his messiah Obama and the Democrats he worships and sides with. And SaneRepublican’s greatest fear is that Christian conservatives may recognize Obama’s enlightenment that Islam is the ‘One World Religion’, described in Biblical Prophecy, and Obama the Anti-Christ it propels to leadership of the coming ‘One World Government’, also described in Biblical Prophecy, which explains Obama’s support of and pandering to, that religion of his, which he keeps hidden, until his time comes to assume leadership on the international stage.

    • SaneRepublican

      LMAO!!!!

      What I fear the most is getting a hernia from laughing so hard at what you people write.

      It’s one thing to believe the mythology that Saint Ronny took down that Russian Bear with his bare hands. It’s another thing to believe that Obama is not Christian and is the anti-Christ. But to actually believe that the next “Winston Churchill” actually reads this chite that you people right???? That has to be the funniest eff’ing thing I’ve ever read on this website!!!!!

      Please, stop! I’m busting a gut!!!!

      Gawd, I love watching your heads spin. I just can’t get enough of it!!!!

      ROTFLMAO!!!!!

    • TooToo

      Hey Mr. “More Perfect Than Thou” – learn to spell. It’s “write,” not “right.” When you are truly perfect, then you can criticize everyone else.

    • SaneRepublican

      That’s Mr.”SaneRepublican” to you – learn to read.

      I never professed to be perfect. But at least I can tell the difference between what’s right (i.e., me) and what’s wrong (i.e., you). So when you can come back at me with something more than a typing mistake, then perhaps we can engage in a substantive debate.

      Until then, I’ll just keep on calling you out on you’re [sic] shit.

      I must have been thinking about you people’s righteousness the second time I meant to use the word “write.” Congrats on finding a typo! Would you like a gold star?

    • http://WebTV Fenderman52

      Nope. As much as I loathe that fetid pile of rat droppings, Obummer, he’s not the anti-Christ, just one of Satan’s minions paving the way for the one John called: “The beast from the Abyss,” in Revelations. The REAL AC will be known by his performance of “miracles.” I know it’s hard to imagine anyone more vile than this Muslim usurper in our White House but it’s coming.

  • http://aol.com sean murrey

    the republicans we voted in office last november better not appease obummer if they do it will be time for house cleaning.

  • EL ZORRO

    Reagan did not had a super mayority in congress neither had the senate, and He lower taxes and create 20 millions jobs, Boehner has a super mayority in congress;you don’t defeat the Democrats by picking your battles; you fight them at every turn.
    EL ZORRO

    • SaneRepublican

      10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan

      1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

      2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

      3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

      4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

      5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

      6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

      7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.

      8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.

      9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”

      10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

    • Johnnygard

      S. Rep., You are a real expert on telling partial truths and making it sound like the whole story. The fact that they collapse your comments makes it easier for me to find them. So when Reagan spent so much, did you praise him for being just like a Democrat? Reagan was forced into the higher California taxes as governor by public opinion. Don’t expect Cal. libs to have a brain about taxes. Politicians in Sacramento push for state withholding tax, and the idiot public fell for it and like Reagan warned, State income taxes have gone up ever since. You make like all Republicans should have a problem with any tax he may have raised, but do you then like him for it?

    • SaneRepublican

      Oh, and 16 million jobs were created, not 20 million. But you were only 20% off. That’s better than average for a sycophant of Saint Ronny.

  • The Enemy

    “Those who won’t learn from history are destined to repeat it”

  • ricbee

    Boner is certainly an appeaser,but I do believe he may be “seeing the light”. No raising the debt ceiling,John-boy.

  • Peter

    Hitler had no formal military training and his generals would just appease and follow his orders. They knew opening a front with the Russians meant defeat, yet they did nothing but APPEASE hitler. Obama has not so much run a Lemonaide Stand, he has NO experience running ANYTHING. Yet our representatives appease him time after time and give into his ridiculous policies and ideas. He is handed the Presidency, he is handed the Noble Peace Prize, he is handed all the credit for bin laden, etc. Its like complete MADNESS has taken over our society! Oh and by the way Stalin worked for Lenin,, as a Community Organizer!!

    • AmericansRon2U

      Peter…Obama DOES have experience running something…HIS MOUTH!

  • Demoncrat Exorcist

    The predicament we find ourselves in was created by career politicians both D and R. If you look at Gingrich’s (the Grinch’s) record, you’ll see some posturing followed by appeasement.
    There’s a little RINO in all career politicians. We have to get rid of them and get some common sense people in their place. The Tea Party is a great place to start as long as career politicians don’t infiltrate it too.
    Get rid of career politicians and their big government retirement program and free Cadillac healthcare plans, and put them on Social Security and Medicare like everybody else.

  • http://Yahoo Abby

    I disagree that once government creaates another program or department that it never goes away. The reason for that is no one has tried, really tried to eliminate them. It’s like you pay a toll for use of a “road”; the money doesn’t go for the road upkeep but to keep a toll collector.
    Boehner has to remain firm, not allow any monies for Obamacare and insist on drastic reductions in government size/services.
    Hopefully we can defeat this POUS and get someone in who will work on these issues.
    Anything the President signs can be overrriden by 2/3 Congress. that’s why it is so important to not elect RINOs; They only help the other party.
    Actually, both parties should get away from what the party wants but work toward resolving our problems.
    Years ago, Grahm (sp) and two other reps set up a bill to reduce government, it was passed and government was reduced (mostly through attrition). We need that again and a clause that limits any future hirings.
    Give the powers back to the States and remove federal government from running our lives. Also, any laws passed must be applied to both the House and Congress, no exceptions. On ObamaCare, no exceptions or it is out. Actually, the helath cre issuye is a state issue, not a federal government issue.
    This government has taken us down a path of destruction and we have to take notice and work together to get back our Republic.
    God help us all!!!!

  • Bill

    The only way out is to VOTE against Obama and all his socialist buddies in 2012.

  • charles pembroke

    John,John,John.When will you ever learn.Do you even know you are a rino.Wishy washy,wobbly.You make me sick.Just say NO.