House Republicans Renege on Every Promise with Infuriating Budget Deal

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | October 28, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

RUSH: This budget deal -- and every time this subject comes up I have to point out that, well, even 25 years ago when this program started, to discuss something like the federal budget was one of the biggest mistakes you could make in terms of programming content. I mean, it was so esoteric and so boring, and it contained its own language that did not relate to people. It was instant death. You just didn't talk about the budget.

My, how things have changed. This budget deal -- and we first alerted it to you on Monday, saw a little flash news blurb from Bloomberg detailing what the House Republicans were doing, getting ready to do. And they've done it. They have crafted a budget that essentially gives nobody any reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

It is astounding what they have done, particularly when you balance it against what they've promised us they would do. They have reneged on every promise, written and oral, that they have made, beginning back in 2010 when it comes to what they would do vis-a-vis the budget, government spending overall, and how they would behave in battle with the Democrats. They've tossed it all aside.

Everything Obama wants and then some is in this budget. Raising the debt limit over $1 trillion which takes it off the table as an issue all the way through next year. The budget is also a two-year budget which takes it out of the presidential campaign which makes whoever the next president is, and the next Congress, they're saddled with this budget. I mean, every budget is technically a one-year budget. I know this, and they can make 10-year projections, five-year, what they've actually done here is try to craft a two-year budget.

And when I went through it last night and looked at it, and I went back and with the assistance of a column written by my buddy Andy McCarthy at PJMedia.com, I started boiling. I was literally infuriated. I have to tell you, folks, I am beyond able to understand the political thinking now of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, particularly as it relates to the presidential race. I can't figure it out. What they are doing makes literally and absolutely no sense. It makes no sense in dollars and cents. It makes no sense budgetarily. It makes no sense politically. They're not even an opposition party. They're not even pretending anymore to be an opposition party.

When you look at what they've done with this budget -- we'll get into some details -- basically all you need to know is whatever Obama wants, he's got. Whatever Hillary wants, she's got. Whatever you thought you were voting for in 2010 and 2014, you've been lied to, in terms of how your representatives were gonna fight the Democrats, fight spending, fight this constant bloat. We can now officially claim that the Republicans are responsible for five trillion additional new dollars added to the national debt. Spending bills originate in the Congress. The president could ask and demand and do whatever, but he can't write the bills, he can't write the laws. All he can do is sign them or veto them.

We turned over the writing of the budget to Obama and the Democrats, essentially. It wouldn't be much different if they had started the whole process and completed it. So I don't know how this helps them. I don't know how they think it helps them. I don't know why it's happening. Is this all because of the demands made by donors? I mean, that's the latest excuse we're given for everything else they're doing. "Well, the donor class, they're demanding this, and donor class is demanding amnesty, donor class is demanding nuke deal with Iran." Is what explains this budget deal, that donors are demanding all of this? Or have the Republican leadership just become a bunch of pathological actual left-wingers in the last couple years?

I don't see the difference in the current Republican House leadership. When it comes to government spending, the whole philosophy behind government spending, big government, I don't see any difference between the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership. When I look on the Democrat side I see Pelosi and Reid and everybody cheering the budget. Are they still scared to death of Obama? Do they still think that they have to show that they can work with Obama, be cooperative, let Obama have everything he wants otherwise the media's gonna call them racists?

We've got a year to go, for crying out loud, just one more year of this. And they are going to put it on paper that we get two more years of this. It's the most confounding thing. We've got one year of Obama left, but the Republican leadership in the House has passed a budget, or is about to, that will essentially give us another year of Obama in terms of philosophy on government size and spending.

Are they doing this to prove that they can be bipartisan? Do they think that's gonna help them in the presidential race? Are they doing this to show they can cooperate? Are they doing this to show that they love and support entitlements and nobody should think Republicans are gonna take anything away from them. Are they that defensive? Are they that scared? Are they that convinced the media can define them and there's nothing they can do about it so they may as well do everything the media is demanding of them so that the media will shut up and not be mean to them anymore? Is that what's going on here?

Are they hell-bent on showing their ability to cooperate, cross the aisle? They think that's helping the presidential field by doing this? Are they ambivalent? Are they unfeeling in any way about...? Folks, the blatant lies that Republicans in the House have told their voters during campaigns. All the documents, the contracts, the pledges that they wrote and signed that none of this would happen. Virtually everything they pledged not to do, they are doing in this budget deal.

Are they unconcerned about destroying the economy? Are they so secure in their own existence that they don't care what happens outside their own lives? Are they set now for the rest of their lives because of the votes that they have secured for big donors? Are they happy that in the places they live there isn't any unemployment, there isn't any real difficulty managing the cost of living?

Are they unconcerned about destroying our culture? Do you have any idea what this budget's gonna do to our culture? This culture is creating more dependence and more dependence. It's practically designed to put people on the welfare rolls. It's practically designed to tell people to stop relying on themselves and look to government for whatever you need or whatever you want. That's not who we are. But that's what this budget deal does.

The spending caps that they negotiated with Obama? They've blown those up. The one thing that they won, spending caps, they got rid of them themselves in this deal. I'm trying to understand, are they totally in debt to K Street? Do they all have jobs waiting for them on K Street? It doesn't compute here. Who are these people in the House Republican leadership? What are they? I'll tell you what I've concluded, and it's something that I have forecast before, mentioned before. We've even discussed it on this program.

I think what's going on in Washington right now -- and it isn't new, it's just more visible than it's ever been. I think there's all kinds of bipartisanship going on in Washington. I think there's all kinds of cooperation going on in Washington. I think that it's kumbaya time. I think they are linked arm in arm. I think the bipartisan project is to destroy conservatism. I think they would be happy. They would prefer... I'm talking about the Republican leadership. Not the whole membership, but the Republican leadership.

I have the idea they would be happier with Hillary Clinton as president than Ted Cruz, and that's not a feeling. I know that almost for a fact. I know that with almost ontological certitude. They, as members of the inside-the-Beltway establishment, no way, no how do they want anybody like Ted Cruz in the White House. They would much prefer Hillary. The only thing that explains this, looked at in any kind of prism of common sense, is that there is a combined bipartisan effort to finally render conservatives and conservatism as irrelevant as a pockmark.

The only thing that explains this: This is not good budgeting. Not only is this not conservative, it's not even Republican, even moderate Republican. This is rubber-stamp liberal Democrat budgetary philosophy. This violates every pledge and promise that they've made in election campaigns going back to 2010, repeated in 2012 during the presidential race, and repeated again in 2014. And I shall remind you word by word of some of the pledges they've made, the contracts they wrote, reminiscent of the Contract with America.

I actually think... You know the Democrats want to get rid of conservatism. They want to get rid of all opposition. That's their modus operandi. The thing here is the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, I think, wants to do the same thing. I think we're a burr on their butts. I think we're a pain in the rear to them. I think they much more resent us than they do liberal Democrats. Romney gave it all away the other day. He gave it all away when he came out -- and have you noticed how there hasn't been any reaction to that anywhere?

I have been studiously observing. Mitt Romney comes out, laments/longs for the good old days when we all get the same facts. There were only three different places you could get news America: ABC, CBS, and NBC. Those were the good old days. Those were the good old days when everybody got the same news, everybody got the same facts, and it's easy to collaborate. Democrats and Republicans could work together. But now we have these insurgent, extremist right wingers in this New Media confusing everybody with different facts.

And he also did give some lip service to saying the left has their own version, but he's not concerned about them because the extremists on the left still have the same facts that the Democrat Party has. However, us? We extremists on the right. We seem to be operating with a totally different set of facts and the mainstream doesn't want to deal with it, and the establishment doesn't want to deal with it.

So Romney comes out and sides with the people who called him a liar about paying his taxes, who told everybody he hated women and hated his employees and allowed them to get cancer and didn't care -- and put the dog on the roof of the station wagon -- and much more incendiary stuff designed to destroy his career and his reputation, and that's who he thinks his friends are. So Romney let it out of the bag with this idea that the good old days, you have to go back 25, 27, 28 years to find them. (paraphrased) "Yeah, everybody got the same news!

"Everybody got the same facts! There weren't any controversy day to day over what was what. We could collaborate and get along and everything was fine and dandy and hunky-dory. Yeah. Now we can't do." There hasn't been a... I haven't found any reaction to that anywhere. Have you, Mr. Snerdley? Have you seen it? (interruption) Not a peep. And to me it was the biggest news because it confirmed long-held suspicions. But there hasn't been a repeat of that. There hasn't been a repeat. There hasn't been anybody. I have not seen it other than where it originally appeared, in Breitbart.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, back to the budget deal for just one or two things here. I mentioned at the outset that the Republican leadership has violated practically every promise they made to voters in 2010, 2012, 2014 about how they would behave if they were elected. And what they would do to stop Obama, stop the Democrats, stop the spending. One of the things that Boehner promised was three full days, 72 hours to read all legislation before voting on it.

Not here. This is being rammed through. This is going to have to happen today. It has to happen before Paul Ryan becomes Speaker so his fingerprints are not on it. This is supposedly Boehner's gift to Paul Ryan, a clean Speakership with no budget battles in the immediate future, the budget's done, no arguments with the Democrats. The conservatives out in the country can't do anything to you because it's a done deal, no threats of government shutdown. Boehner thinks this is his present to Ryan as new Speaker, a clean slate when it comes to the budget.

But to make it happen, they have to violate the promise and the pledge that Boehner and the leadership made. If the vote happens before 11:36 p.m. tomorrow, then Boehner's pledge would be violated. It's 144 pages. It raises the debt limit by a trillion dollars. Why does it take 144 pages to do that? But there are many more promises that were made and pledges that were signed way back when.

Let's talk about a Pledge to America, a little pamphlet the Republican leadership put out. It had all kinds of pictures of Boehner and Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, other Republican leaders. And this Pledge to America began thus: "An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down long-standing laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.

"An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many. Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose."

Well, we all read that, those of us who did, we all heard that, those of us who did, "Man, these guys get it. These guys get it. They're gonna go in there and they're gonna stop this stuff. They understand all this elites are implementing things with executive action. The will of the people is being thwarted. Spending is out of control." We bought it. We elected 'em in droves. By the way, this pledge was made when all they had was the House. And this pledge did not say anything about we must have the Senate before we could do any of this. That came later.

They were making these promises when all the Republicans controlled were the House of Representatives, folks. And when they won the House of Representatives, that's when they said, "We can't do any more. We need the Senate." But yet they made these promises when they didn't control the Senate. The Republicans in this Pledge to America promised to do a lot of things to address this crisis. "They said they had 'A Plan to Reform Congress and Restore Trust.' They committed to change the abuses of Democratic leadership, who had 'consolidated authority, abusing the letter and spirit of the House rules to get the outcome desired, while ignoring voices of the American people, the minority, and even dissenters within [its] own party,'" and they were gonna make the Democrats pay for that. It's right from the Pledge to America.

When you hear that now, if you happen to read that now, how do you not snicker or get enraged? When you remember all of the complex, voluminous, endless bills, great consequence, that would no longer be dumped on members, they'd be given no meaningful opportunity to read the legislation, much less propose changes. Everything they pledged just kind of drifted away by the wayside when reality set in.

Further from the pledge: "We recognize that if we are truly committed to addressing the American people’s highest priorities, the House of Representatives must operate differently -- differently from the way the Democrats do now, and differently from the way Republicans did in the past. Change begins at home." This is what they promised to win the House. And here's the requirement to read the bill part of the pledge: "We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on."

Can't blame Republican voters for eating this up. It's exactly what needed to be done. It's exactly what they promised to do. So they were elected and they gained control of the House. And then we began to hear, "Wait. We forgot to tell you something. None of this can be done 'til we have the Senate." But this just scratches the surface on pledges and promises which were made.

[Norm Lenhart]

” And finally, hindsight has nothing to do with it. Finny and Norm Lenhart and I and many others here were quite explicit that we were not voting as you did for the single sorriest excuse for a GOP candidate in party history.”

Yup and we have pounds of scar tissue to prove it. We also predicted he would lose, predicted he would immediately revert to his openly liberal positions and spend the rest of his life destroying conservatives.

All of that happened exactly as we said beginning with his loss, continuing within 18 hours of his loss and ever day since.

And we are supposed, with a straight face, to say ‘Yes, this is a man we could trust to be an improvement over the other liberal?” A man that would not wait 24 business hours to disavow his entire campaign? Everything he said? THAT is the guy that was BETTER than Obama? On what F’ing PLANET? Not this one.

“Get used to it! Rule or ruin!”

Either way is fine. It is DEMONSTRABLY better than living vaselined up on ones knees and lying to ones self about unicorns. If I want to hear unicorn promises, My Little Pony fills that need and regularly shows more conservatism than Romeny’s entire record anyway.

[BlackElk]

Sorry. I failed to ping you on a lot of my previous posts on this thread. My apologies.

[fieldmarshaldj]

No worries. I’m seeing them. ;-)

[CHISEL32]

I don’t think Romney didn’t want to win, but yes we need someone with some backbone this time around. Trump or cruz in 2016.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Wow, where have you been for the last 5 years ?

[CHISEL32]

LOL reading Black Elk’s book list. I’m not sure why I never got back into posting after the 2010 election but I decided to check the site back out so I could see who you all were supporting and as expected lots of Cruz and Trump fans. I’m glad because that is the way I’m leaning too.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Yes. Trump did us an enormous favor exposing the RINOs and soft-bellies in this race who would’ve lost to a very evil and media-assisted Hillary and running them out. Hopefully El Jebbe & Roofio and the remaining midgets will be out before long. Trump, Dr. Carson and Sen. Cruz are the only ones with credibility to carry out a win next year.

[CHISEL32]

I agree, except on Carson. I don’t like him, I was watching him the other day and he literally had his eyes closed for 6 seconds while talking. Also Carson has stated past support for legalization or at least not being for deportation. Cruz is the most conservative and Trump has the status to draw the most voters. A Trump/Cruz ticket would be incredible. Any ticket involving Trump or Cruz would have my support.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Dr. Carson has the support he does (second only to Trump) for one simple reason: he’s an outsider. Folks are so sick of these corrupt insiders that have stood by while the country continues to sink into the abyss. Although I have some problems with him, he’s one of the only 3 I could vote for in a general election. I expect Trump will give him a position in the administration (and there remains a decent chance he may pick him for his VP. If that happens, Cruz will go to State or Justice). I’m still voting for Cruz in the primary, however.

[mkjessup]

Oh, such roaring fury. Where to begin.

You talk a brave game now that we did the heavy lifting of destroying Mittens' candidacy.

Would you like a medal, or a chest to pin it on? You can be sure that the 'RAT party of 2012 and the Obama campaign appreciate your efforts more than they can say. That is the bottom line here. They were trying to destroy Romney too, and by your words now, you admit that you made common cause with them.

Heckuva job there Blackie.

The fact is that you voted FOR Romney and all that he represents and all he had done and all of his unmitigated evil.

I (and millions of others) were voting AGAINST Obama. You and Finney can play word games and twist semantics all you like. If you vote 'for' any particular candidate for any specific office, you are by default voting against the opposing candidate. That is irrefutable.

Don't bother rationalizing it now when it is too late for you to have served your country by voting FOR a worthy candidate like Eternal Vigilance.

By your logic, I should have written in Ronald Reagan in 2012, even though Reagan was dead and in the grave, just like Eternal Vigilance's chances of capturing the White House were.

You are in a gunfight with a foul and vicious opponent. You have one gun, and one bullet. Instead of aiming at your opponent, you raise the barrel skyward, pull the trigger and scream YEEEHAAAAH!! with a mighty report and smoke. Your opponent didn't suffer a scratch, and you wasted the only bullet you had, making no difference at all. But you can smugly think "THERE!! I showed 'em!!"

Again, heckuva job there Blackie.

Now, on to the next volley of your self righteousness at #119.

[mkjessup]

The one and only assertion in your post that passes the smell test was your analogy of FDR allying with Stalin against Hitler to squishballs posing as conservatives and patriots voting for the Stalin equivalent of Willard Mitt Romney. Each was a sellout of monumental proportions. In each case, the enemy was truly reprehensible and in each case the "ally" was equally reprehensible.

Is it your position that Romney was every bit as morally reprehensible as Stalin? Just want to clarify that.

It could be demonstrated that Romney loves this country????? No, it cannot because he does not, like his execrable daddy and mommy before him. What convinced you? Was it his heroic service in Viet Nam? Oh, that's right, he served in Paris dodging the draft as a "missionary." which is something he could have done AFTER military service. Parisian cuisine beats K-rations anytime, right? Was it his steadfast protection of the jobs of American workers? Oh, that's right he is a major broker of jobs to places like Bangladesh and the mere middle class and working class who actually fight and die in our wars and for our country, unlike anything named Romney, be da*ned so long as Muffie's trust fund is fattened by resulting "profits" from impoverishing his fellow Americans.

David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett could not have written a more stinging denunciation. Kudos to you.

Well, he is a member (and to their shame an elite member) of the Church of Latter Day Saints. He must be pro-life and pro-marriage as a bishop of that church, right? Oh no, Willard got a pass from church leadership (to their everlasting shame) on both publicly funded abortion on demand and perversion posing as marriage of the fudgepackers. I wrote this paragraph as one who has often defended the LDS here and I am a Catholic. LDS has a tremendous number of wonderful decent people who are among the most personally moral in our nation, but NOT anyone in clan Romney. I disagree with their theology but admire their morality based on Mormons I have known.

"The Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office, and I'm a Constitutionalist"
~ Senator Ted Cruz, September 2015.

And such an unConstitutional 'test' would apply to either an entire religious denomination, or to one individual from that denomination as you would apply it.

Just as Kerry, Pelosi, the late Kennedy the Last (hopefully although his son and namesake has been elected to Connecticut's State Senate), Rosa DeLauro, Patty Murray and so many, many others ought to be summarily excommunicated publicly by their respective bishops, so Romney should be cast in the outer darkness and excommunicated by LDS.

Well take it up with the LDS then. You're preaching to the choir and that takes no courage at all.

Oh, so Romney called Putin and Russia our adversary? Be still my beating heart over his extraordinary courage in giving you the tiniest of fig leaves. If he were POTUS, the POS would have done absolutely NOTHING but conclude new trade deals with Putin so that American donor class of corrupt greedocrats like himself could get their piece of the Russian slave labor market.

Did you obtain that insight into some parallel future timeline by communing with familiar spirits, using your tarot cards, pendulum or the always trusty Magic 8-Ball(c)? You are making an assertion not supported by any facts.

And finally, hindsight has nothing to do with it. Finny and Norm Lenhart and I and many others here were quite explicit that we were not voting as you did for the single sorriest excuse for a GOP candidate in party history.

Hindsight has EVERYTHING to do with it. You had the right to waste your vote on a candidate that had no chance in Hell to unseat Obama, and you did so. Bully for you. Your fellow FReepers who chose to cast their vote for the only candidate that DID have a chance to end the Obamunist regime did so not to betray the holiness of absolutely pure conservatism, but to try and stop the 4 years of national destruction that was taking place by Obama's direction, and to prevent another term of it. We had a flawed and imperfect candidate, but that was the only candidate who had a realistic chance of prevailing. By your logic, every conservative should have stayed home on election day, refused to participate, and who knows? Obama and Biden might have ended up with a 50 state landslide and a 'mandate' for even more horrific 'hope and change' and wouldn't you feel good about that?

As you can see from this year's debates, the GOP-E may have learned their lesson in POTUS nominations and El Jebbie is going nowhere but home to Florida. Money can't buy him votes as it did for Romney in the halls of blind party first voting in "GOP" primaries. Next up to be purged: Ryano, McConnell, McCarthy, Cornyn, Corker, LAMAR!!!, Cockroach and their ilk. The we can concentrate on those who are flat out liars when posing as "conservative." Get used to it! Rule or ruin!

Jebuardo and the rest of the GOPe Axis of Oafs are fully deserving of the political fate that appears to be awaiting them, you'll get no arguments from me about that. But as you and your fellow Defenders of the Conservative Faith prepare for your upcoming purge and pogrom, take a moment to study some history, and consider how many innocent people were swept up in those Stalinist purges in the old Soviet Union, sent off to the gulags, tortured or executed, all because some party apparatchik made the subjective decision that they were not 'Communist' enough.

Trotsky got a pickaxe to his skull. What do you have planned for those who don't measure up to your conservative standards?

[CHISEL32]

I understand. Carson isn’t tainted and so he has appeal and I know he has a lot of appeal to Protestant and Evangelical type voters (I’m one of them). But we really need a Trump or a Cruz at the top of the ticket. I Imagine as we start voting the field will narrow and Rubio will be the establishments fall back after Bush, Kasich, and Christie collapse. I see Trump and Cruz polling below Rubio but combined polling more than Rubio. Trump and Cruz need to then join in and make thier voting block combined so they can have one of them be at the top of the ticket. If we have a brokered convention I see Trump being the nominee with an establishment VP as the most likely outcome so Trump/Cruz uniting early would be important to preventing a brokered convention. Especially since the establishment will have a big advantage in a brokered convention. We have to unite the conservative vote to avoid another Establishment nominee. In 2008 I went with Huckabee and we got McCain. in 2012 I went with Newt and we got Romney. I swear if I go Trump or Cruz and we get Kasich I will be very mad. Obviously I would still vote R but I know we would probably lose again.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I expect Trump to romp. Roofio will collapse. As for the scum from Ohio (whom if you’ll recall was a good buddy of Gary Condit’s... they used to go through interns like a hot knife through butter), he isn’t fit to serve as dogcatcher. If Kay-Sick were anointed by the GOP establishment just as McQueeg and Willard were, he would be the 3rd ringer in a row, especially designed to help Hillary easily win. Hell, they’d rather have Hillary, she’s a leftist like they are, which is why they were ecstatic to support Zero twice in a row.

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2014/03/24/mark-levin-john-kasich-belongs-in-a-cell-with-bernie-madoff/

[EternalVigilance]

And such an unConstitutional 'test' would apply to either an entire religious denomination, or to one individual from that denomination as you would apply it.

A common misunderstanding.

The constitutional prohibition on a religious test for public office is a governmental one.

Individual citizens retain their full right to reject or accept any candidate for public office based on absolutely anything they damn well please.

[EternalVigilance]

You are in a gunfight with a foul and vicious opponent. You have one gun, and one bullet. Instead of aiming at your opponent, you raise the barrel skyward, pull the trigger and scream YEEEHAAAAH!! with a mighty report and smoke. Your opponent didn't suffer a scratch, and you wasted the only bullet you had, making no difference at all. But you can smugly think "THERE!! I showed 'em!!"

Your bullet didn't hit a thing either.

And it cost more than a billion dollars.

[EternalVigilance]

You are in a gunfight with a foul and vicious opponent. You have one gun, and one bullet. Instead of aiming at your opponent, you raise the barrel skyward, pull the trigger and scream YEEEHAAAAH!! with a mighty report and smoke. Your opponent didn't suffer a scratch, and you wasted the only bullet you had, making no difference at all. But you can smugly think "THERE!! I showed 'em!!"

And by the way: Don't think we haven't noticed that most of the bullets of the Romney Republican establishment are aimed at conservatives, not at Democrats.

It's no coincidence that Mitt Romney himself was in the House chamber grinning from ear to ear when that particular love fest was taking place.

[mkjessup]

The Defenders of the Conservative Faith can continue this retrospective navel gazing forever and ever, however as I stated several posts ago, the past is past, and the sadistic second guessing and chest beating engaged in by the purists among us accomplishes nothing, it’s like a forensic review of the last Super Bowl, it doesn’t matter who threw what pass, who fumbled the football or missed that kick, it doesn’t change who won or who lost. Fans of the winning team cheered, the rest of the crowd, not so much. It’s done.

It is not 2012, it is now 2016. The GOPe has been exposed for what it is, likewise for their liberal handmaidens in the MSM, the anointed establishment candidates are failing to gain traction, and the outsiders (most of them conservative) are gaining support with each passing day, despite the efforts of the RINO Axis of Oafs to bring them down. Jeb’s campaign is all but done, and Romney isn’t about to enter this contest.

I’m all in for either Trump-Cruz or Cruz-Trump, how about you?

[EternalVigilance]

Nope.

[EternalVigilance]

What’s the old saying? ‘Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it?’ Something like that.

[EternalVigilance]

By the way, I’m not doing any ‘second-guessing’ or “navel-gazing,’ or anything like that. I’m simply reviewing the recent past in order to learn whatever I can from it.

How about you? Are you learning anything? Or are you getting ready to make the same mistakes all over again?