Boehner to step down as Speaker, resign from Congress

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner surprised Capitol Hill this morning when he announced that he would be resigning both as Speaker and as Congressman, effective the end of October.

Here's the reaction from some of Oklahoma's congressional delegation:

Sen. Jim Inhofe:

"I was serving in the U.S. House when John Boehner was first elected, and I consider him a friend. We knew then that he would be a leader in our party. While he took positions that were not always popular, John led with conviction and was a true public servant. John will be remembered for his commitment in bringing about a new era for Republicans in the House. I wish him and his family my best."

Sen. James Lankford:

"I’ve always appreciated Speaker Boehner's sincere love for his family, his country and his party. It is admirable that he demonstrated a willingness to work on important issues, such as government transparency, energy, regulatory reform, defense, transportation and education. Leadership in Congress is a challenge for anyone, especially during a time when America grapples with so many issues. Any person who is willing to put in the long hours and endure all of the competing priorities deserves our gratitude and respect."

"Our nation, and this Congress, face very serious challenges, including massive federal debt, the deterioration of families, a stagnant economy and terrorism. Congressional Republicans need to select a new leader, set a clear path to govern, and stay focused on the needs of the American people."

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (OK-1):

"It is time to elect a Speaker who will resolve to no longer fund the government by Continuing Resolution. Congress must follow an appropriations process that ensures our constituents are represented. We must once again use the power of the purse as a constitutional check on the executive branch. I’m looking forward to supporting a candidate committed to these principles."

Rep. Tom Cole (OK-4):

“It has been a great personal privilege to serve with Speaker John Boehner,” said Cole. “I’ve had the honor of knowing the Speaker since he was a young freshman Congressman, and I’ve watched his career with admiration and appreciation throughout his time of service. After the 2008 election, most assumed that Republicans would remain in the minority for decades to come. It was because of John Boehner’s determination and leadership that Republicans recaptured the majority in 2010 and retained it in 2012 even as President Obama was re-elected.

“For the first four years of his speakership, he was both the tip of the spear and goalie in dealing with the Obama Administration. Despite having to confront a Democratic president and Senate during most of his tenure, he achieved several truly historic conservative victories. Among those for which all Americans should thank him are the rapid decline of the deficit, making almost all of the Bush tax cuts permanent and securing meaningful entitlement reforms that strengthened Medicare and Medicaid. One wonders what he might have done if given the opportunity to work with a Republican president and Senate throughout his entire tenure.

“In what is often a thankless job, made even more difficult in divided government, the Speaker has served with dignity and effectiveness. I regard John Boehner as a great Speaker, a dedicated public servant, a man of great personal integrity and a cherished friend. He leaves a truly remarkable legacy. I wish him, his family and his loyal staff all the best.”

Rep. Steve Russell (OK-5):

"History will judge John Boehner kindly."

Here is Russell's updated statement:

“It was quite a shock to the entire Conference this morning and we were all stunned when Speaker Boehner announced his resignation. I have had the privilege to get to know and work with him on important policy in my time in Washington. I have the utmost respect for him and the job he has done, as we have seen over 350 measures passed in the House this year, and see the largest majority since Calvin Coolidge was President. My hope is we can move forward and unite as a Conference, as there are many important issues we still need to address. The last thing we need is to just change out the target on the shooting range.”

In fairness to Rep. Russell, his office says he will be issuing additional comments later today (updated above). Rep. Markwayne Mullin and Rep. Frank Lucas do not appear to have issued any statements yet.

Tom Cole's glowing (and lengthy) statement praising Boehner does not surprise me -- Cole is the member of Oklahoma's delegation most out of step with most Oklahoma Republican activists. John Boehner has been, in many ways, a disaster as Speaker. Time after time, he capitulated to Democratic demands -- it's no wonder why Harry Reid says he will miss Boehner as Speaker. When Republicans needed backbone, Boehner didn't come through.

Let's hope that House Republicans make a good choice for his successor.

How did the anti-Bridenstine ads stop?

Early last week, American Action Network targeted Congressman Jim Bridenstine and two other conservative Republican congressmen with radio and TV ads over the looming Homeland Security budget vote. AAN is led, in part, by the former chiefs of staff for House Speaker John Boehner and RNC chairman Reince Preibus.

Many conservatives, both in Oklahoma and across the country, were not happy, to say the least. Frustration with the GOP leadership in Washington, D.C., continues to build among the grassroots activists, and when groups with close ties to that leadership attack conservative members of Congress who are trying to correct the course in Washington, it doesn't sit well.

Enter Oklahoma Republican Party chairman Dave Weston.

Let me start this by saying that I have not publicly picked sides in the OKGOP chair race, nor have I told any of the candidates who I plan to vote for. I gave each of the candidates the same exact survey (view those here: Brogdon, Pollard, Weston), and the same opportunity to share their vision for the Party. This post is not picking sides in that race.

Evidently, Chairman Weston contacted the leadership of AAN about the Bridenstine ads. The press release on okgop.com says Wednesday, March 4th, although the OKGOP email I received was sent Thursday the 5th, same as the party's social media postings. I don't know when the conversation took place; I'm assuming sometime Wednesday.

I applaud the chairman for being proactive about defending a conservative Oklahoma congressman from attack. However, I think his role has been over-touted in this case. I've talked with some people who got the impression from the OKGOP press release that Weston was taking credit, directly or indirectly.

Here's the problem: when the ads were first announced, they were specifically going to be running on just Tuesday and Wednesday. A specific dollar amount was named, and a specific number of ads was named, in addition to specific radio programs ads would also be run on. The House then voted on and passed the DHS funding bill on Tuesday.

So here's what we have. Ads were stopping Wednesday anyway. The bill passed the House on Tuesday afternoon, making further ads pointless, as the legislation in question was on its way to the President's desk.

Did Weston play a role in stopping the ads? Considering that they were already stopping on Wednesday, plus the other points I mentioned above, I think that's stretching the facts a bit.

Former Boehner, RNC chiefs-of-staff targeting Bridenstine & other conservatives

From Breitbart.com:

The former chiefs of staff to House Speaker John Boehner and Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus are part of a concerted effort to target House conservatives with advertisements aimed at pressuring them to cave to President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and fund it in its entirety through the end of the fiscal year. 

“An outside group aligned with House GOP leadership will spend $400,000 this week to urge dozens of conservative House Republicans to vote for Department of Homeland Security funding — a new and more aggressive phase in the legislative battle among Republicans that’s consuming Capitol Hill,” Politico wrote about a new effort from American Action Network, a group whose board is home to power players including Boehner’s ex-chief of staff Barry Jackson and immediate previous RNC chief of staff Mike Shields. 

The massive ad buy against Republican members by Boehner’s and Priebus’ ex-top aides, pressuring conservatives to drop their strong opposition to Obama’s executive amnesty, targets three specific House Republicans: Reps. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) and Jim Jordan (R-OH). 

“The 30-second spot will run at least 50 times in each district — on broadcast, in prime slots — Tuesday and Wednesday as the House is expected to take up a DHS funding bill,” Politico wrote.

[...]

 AAN is one of the biggest supporters of amnesty, having lobbied Congress in favor of the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill that failed in the last Congress. Other board members include former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), Thayer Lodging Group head and hotelier Fred Malek, former Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno, and several other lobbyists and former members of Congress from the establishment.

Read more here from Breitbart, and here from Politico.

Bridenstine: Boehner lost my vote [again]

Congressman Jim Bridenstine: I Will Not Vote for John Boehner

Washington, DC, January 2, 2015     
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The day after Republicans won the largest majority in the House of Representatives in almost 100 years and won a significant majority in the Senate, our liberal activist President claimed to hear the voices of all the people who didn't vote.  It was another example of stunning obstinacy from this President.

It seemed Democrats were melting down, Republicans were unified, and all we had to do was buy enough time to get our Republican reinforcements to Washington in January.

Like President Obama, Speaker Boehner must have heard voices that didn't vote.  Together they crafted the CR/Omnibus, a $1.1 trillion spending bill which funded the government for 10 months and blocked our newest elected Republicans from advancing conservative policy and delivering on campaign promises.  With this vote, Republicans gave away the best tool available to rein in our liberal activist President: the power of the purse.  The power of the purse is Congress' Constitutional strength.

For the next 10 months, the CR/Omnibus will fulfill Obama’s ambition of creating an even larger constituency of dependency on Obamacare. The President’s goal has always been to create as much dependency as possible before enforcing the destructive employer mandate.  The CR/Omnibus hands the liberals that victory.  This is unconscionable after watching the campaign rhetoric that won such decisive victories for the GOP.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations expire in February, when Republicans will supposedly fight to defund the illegal amnesty plan created by the President.  Does anybody believe that President Obama is concerned about Republicans not funding DHS?  Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have already sued the Administration for not allowing them to enforce the law.

The Constitution requires the President to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.  He has refused to enforce the laws on border security, Obamacare, illicit drugs, and the release of detained terrorists.  His activism in his last two years has accelerated to include executive amnesty, initiating international climate deals without a treaty, and establishing an embassy in Cuba without consulting Congress.  When our Constitution is under assault and House Republicans give away our Constitutional power of the purse, they share the guilt of abandoning our founding principles.

The CR/Omnibus legislation sufficiently undermines the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution that it warrants my pending vote against the Speaker.  Speaker Boehner went too far when he teamed with Obama to advance this legislation.  He relinquished the power of the purse, and with it he lost my vote.

Op-Ed: A GOP for America's future

A GOP for America's future

originally posted here by Dustin Siggins

Note: This piece was co-authored by seven philosophically and geographically diverse conservatives who believe the GOP must lead in 2015. Our proposals outline a path that will accomplish this goal for the betterment of America.

On Election Day, the GOP won the Senate, held the House, and made solid gains in several states. The party can rightly claim a mandate from voters.

But what is that mandate? Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have promised that Congress would move on tax reform, the national debt, and repealing the Affordable Care Act. We hope that they follow through -- but given the GOP's tendency to overpromise and under-deliver, we have our doubts.

If the world were run by scientific and mathematical reality, Republicans would pass a constitutional amendment recognizing the scientific fact that we are human beings at conception. They would enact aggressive Social Security and Medicare reform, and revamp the tax code. And they would repeal the Affordable Care Act, eliminate corporate welfare and food stamps, and drastically expand domestic energy access.

However, these goals are not politically possible with President Obama in the White House and a GOP that tends to flinch in the face of tough decisions. So what can be accomplished that would help the nation and convince its conservative base that the party can be trusted?

McConnell and Boehner have outlined good steps. But we, a geographically and philosophically diverse group of conservatives, think they can do better.

First, pass legislation that could garner bipartisan support. Greater transparency and efficiency among the executive and legislative branches should be a top priority. Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Department alone face tremendous fraud and improper payments, and the federal government as a whole loses hundreds of billions of dollars annually to mismanagement and duplication.

Expanding drilling opportunities, something supported by many Democrats, would provide more jobs and more tax revenue, reduce environmental harm, and -- over time -- allow the U.S. to reduce its funding of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that abuse human rights and/or provide fertile ground for terrorists.

The GOP should also renounce its relationship with Big Business by refusing to renew tens of billions in special-interest tax preferences at the end of the year, and end nearly $100 billion in federal corporate subsidies. Whether for oil companies, wind farms, NASCAR, or Goldman Sachs, policies that take from middle America to help the wealthy are immoral and fiscally insane.

These savings should be used to lower taxes for all Americans -- unless President Obama wants to defend giving approximately $150 billion in taxpayer dollars each year to wealthy special interests while the average American struggles to find work.

Now comes the hard stuff. We are pleased to have seen McConnell say in a press conference that the party will conduct investigations and oversight of the Executive Branch. Republicans should also allow only qualified judges to garner Senate approval, and should stop an executive amnesty cold.

Fiscally speaking, the nation is in serious trouble. Social Security and Medicare have become increasingly more expensive. They are the primary drivers of our debt. While extensive reforms are unlikely to pass, Republicans should promote means-testing of both programs and force Obama to defend giving Bill Gates and Warren Buffett retirement money.

Likewise, Republicans should demand that the president uphold his promise that all Americans be able to keep their health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and overturn the unconstitutional HHS Mandate. They should also eliminate Congress's Obamacare subsidies for themselves.

Finally, it is important that the federal government stop its funding of abortion, be it at home or abroad. In 2009 and 2014, polls found that the American people do not support federal abortion funding. Republicans should force President Obama to explain why the average American should pay for the destruction of a million unborn children each year.

The plan we have laid out is considered radical inside the Beltway. We can hear it already -- "Obama will never sign it, and getting 60 votes in the Senate will be impossible." However, this is only part of the story. In December, a government funding bill must be passed; Republicans should include some of our measures in that legislation. Likewise, each and every funding bill and debt ceiling bill should include our very reasonable recommendations.

Two weeks ago, the GOP was given a golden opportunity to prove that it is better than the other guys, a duty it has shirked for at least 15 years. This is a chance for Republicans not only to show the American people they are just as tired of Beltway politics as voters, but also to swing the pendulum just a little bit away from fiscal and cultural destruction, and toward a brighter future.

--

Dustin Siggins is the D.C. correspondent for LifeSiteNews.com and a public relations consultant. Drew Belsky is the deputy editor for the online political journal American Thinker. Oklahoma State Representative George Faught is a small business owner who was elected to a fourth term on November 4. Christopher Arndt is the chairman of the Michigan Young Republicans. John Hawkins is the founder of RightWingNews.com and a contributor to Townhall.com. Jamison Faught is a conservative activist from Oklahoma who blogs at MuskogeePolitico.com. Win Martin is an openly gay Washington State resident and formerly a political blogger.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the co-authors.

Bridenstine comments on Speaker vote

Congressman Jim Bridenstine Comments on the Vote for Speaker of the House

(Washington, DC, November 14, 2014)  I explained my reasoning on the vote for the Republican Conference nominee for Speaker of the House in an op-ed to be published in the Tulsa World on Friday.  I feel it is important to communicate with my constituents on this issue, and the Tulsa World is the largest newspaper in my District.  The following is the text of the op-ed:

The Speaker Vote

Rep. Jim Bridenstine

Yesterday, the Republican nominee for Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was selected in a meeting of all the Republican Members elected to serve in the 114th Congress.  The debate and vote was in a Members-only meeting to allow open discussion and build consensus for the Republican nominee who will face off against the Democrat nominee in a vote on the floor of the House in early January.

John Boehner was selected as the Republican nominee. While he is well liked by many within the Republican conference, I continue to believe that Speaker Boehner has not been sufficiently strong in challenging the President -- the most ideologically liberal and obstinate in our nation’s history.  Additionally, there are issues on which the Speaker and I continue to disagree.

An effort to replace Speaker Boehner would require several steps, each offering very little chance of success.  The first step would be to rally enough Republican dissenting votes to block a 50% + 1 vote on the floor.  The Republicans have a historically high 60-seat majority in the newly elected 114th Congress, possibly higher as midterm election vote counts continue.  With this large of a majority, the probability of securing enough dissenting votes is remote, especially after a private nomination meeting.

If 30 or more Republicans voted for someone else and Speaker Boehner did not get a 50% + 1 vote, a second private meeting of the Republican Conference would occur.  At that meeting the dissenting Members would have to withstand pressure from the balance of the Republican Conference.  The minority of Republicans would have to offer an alternative candidate who the majority of Republicans would accept.  The probability that there would be 30 or more dissenters is virtually zero, and likewise the chance that the majority of Republicans would capitulate to the minority is near zero.

If the minority of the Conference somehow prevailed, there would be another vote on the floor, again requiring a 50% + 1 majority.  This time, members of the original majority would vote against the new Republican nominee to block the minority.  The process would be in shambles, the public would be outraged, and Democrats would be strengthened.  If this impossible scenario happened, it would be the worst outcome for those of us who have been fighting for the conservative movement.

My goal has always been to do what is right for our country, regardless of the political consequences.  In my first term, with a smaller Republican majority, I voted against Speaker Boehner on the floor believing that we could deny him a 50% + 1 majority.  However, Rep. Boehner was elected as several potential dissenters succumbed to pressure.  While that effort may have been the right move under a smaller Republican majority, it is not the right move under a larger majority.

As the Speaker attempts to balance diverse political viewpoints within the Republican Conference, conservatives must encourage him to lead the Conference in repealing Obamacare, securing the southern border, balancing the budget, and blocking a bad deal with Iran that would endanger Israel and our partners in the Middle East.  I intend to send Speaker Boehner a letter letting him know that I will vote for him on the floor, but that I expect a bold stance on these issues.  Without Harry Reid as a roadblock in the Senate, there is no excuse for the House to underperform.

The midterm elections proved the vitality of the conservative movement.  We are strong and growing stronger.  As more conservatives join our ranks in a larger Republican Conference, we must continue doing all we can to advance conservative principles which enable economic growth and keep us morally grounded and militarily strong. As always, I will fiercely guard my independence, continuing to strive for what is right for our country.

Cantor fundraises for Bridenstine; DC GOP gives up search for opponent?

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Tulsa)

1st District Congressman Jim Bridenstine has been at it from the very beginning. One of the most conservative members of the U.S. House, Bridenstine has been somewhat of a thorn in the side of the less conservative House GOP leadership ever since he refused to vote for John Boehner as Speaker. Bridenstine has formed close ties with other "renegade conservatives", like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), and fought against Congressional GOP leadership on issues like the debt ceiling, government shutdown, and continuing resolutions. He's even one of the few House Republicans to not donate to the NRCC from his campaign.

Because of all of the above, Republican establishment-types (both in Oklahoma and in DC) have barely disguised their disdain for Bridenstine, to the point that ever since he defeated John Sullivan, they have sought to find a candidate they could run against him in 2014. However, it appears that they might have thrown in the towel.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is coming to town on the 26th to participate in a fundraising luncheon for Rep. Bridenstine, hosted by Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett. Also listed as co-hosts are some individuals who did not support Bridenstine in the last primary, who have helped to bankroll races for more establishment-type candidates.

Does this all point to the DC GOP grudgingly coming to terms with being "stuck" with Bridenstine? Perhaps so. Also of interest is the fact that when Bridenstine did not vote for Speaker Boehner, he cast his vote for Eric Cantor. Could there be another reason behind this embrace of Bridenstine?

Bridenstine: 'No Budget, No Pay', No Good [UPDATED]

From the office of Congressman Jim Bridenstine:

House Republicans have created a plan bold in name, but weak in substance.  It’s called “No Budget, No Pay”.  Here is the plan:

1. Suspend the debt limit until May 19th.  
2. Make zero cuts to spending in the deal.
3. Violate the 27th Amendment of the Constitution by “varying” congressional compensation.
4. Let military sequestration take effect, cutting $500 billion from the Department of Defense.
5. Pass a Continuing Resolution codifying federal spending at post-sequester levels.
6. Wait to fight for spending cuts until we hit the debt ceiling again in May 2013.

Here are the reasons I am voting “no” on “No Budget, No Pay.”

The first part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to suspend the debt limit through May 19, 2013 with no spending cuts.  It seems Republicans have decided not to leverage the debt limit to achieve real reforms.  In lieu of cuts, the bill will contain language stating that the Senate must pass a budget or not be paid.  This sounds strong, but there will be no clause stating that the Senate budget must place us on a path to fiscal responsibility.  Nor will there be a clause stating that the Senate budget must be reconciled with the House budget.  This is seemingly just a ploy.

American voters do not want the debt ceiling to be raised without spending cuts.  A CBS News / New York Times poll, conducted January 11-15, found 60% of all Americans want to see the debt ceiling raised with spending cuts.  Only 17% want the ceiling raised without cuts.  A Fox News poll reported 69% who say Congress should only raise the debt limit after agreeing on major cuts in spending.

A suspension of the debt ceiling is more alarming than an increase.  The bill as presented leaves no statutory limit on federal debt.  It assumes that the Treasury will not reverse its extraordinary measures, replacing the funds “borrowed” from other accounts by issuing billions of additional debt in the three month interval.  That is an assumption that has not been acceptable in the past and is not acceptable today.

I campaigned saying I would raise the debt ceiling only if substantial spending cuts or a balanced budget amendment was included.  Raising the ceiling without negotiating spending cuts will disappoint voters, putting a lot of pressure on everyone who campaigned on fiscal conservatism or responsibility.

Since the Democratic Senate will not go for a 3-month debt limit suspension that ties their pay to a budget, this plan will be spun as gimmicky and not serious.  Republicans will not win the public relations effort, but they will be on record voting to allow the debt to increase with no spending cuts.  This will alienate the Republican base.

The second part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to let sequestration take effect in March, cutting $500 billion from the Department of Defense.  This is intended to put pressure on the Democrats to reform entitlements.  Using threats to curtail military funding to create a crisis for the purpose of political advantage is an inappropriate policy.  This bad policy also enables the President to continue compromising our national security for a social welfare agenda that restricts economic freedom, punishes achievement, cripples our economy, and makes us less competitive in the world.

It should be noted that there are no new savings when we allow the Sequester to take place.  These savings were a result of the August 2011 debt ceiling increase negotiation.  It should also be noted that using a debt limit increase to control spending has been successful in the past and it will be successful in February 2013 if Republicans are willing to forgo the “No Budget, No Pay” debt limit suspension for a real negotiation.

The third part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to codify the Sequester with a continuing resolution at post-sequester spending levels.  Again, there are no new savings here.  These savings were a result of the 2011 debt limit increase negotiations.  We need new savings (cuts, reforms, etc.)

The fourth part of the “No Budget, No Pay” strategy is to have a “real” fight over the debt limit in May.  The reality is that if a vote to raise the debt limit ‘clean’ (without spending cuts) comes to the floor, 30 Republicans will join 200 Democrats and there will be no savings realized.

My final concern is the most difficult to ignore.  “Varying” congressional compensation appears unconstitutional by both letter and original intent.  The text of the 27th Amendment was submitted by the Framers as part of the original Bill of Rights in 1789.  It was ratified in 1992, 202 years later.  If the Framers of the 27th Amendment had simply meant that compensation of Senators and Representatives not be “increased nor diminished” then they would have used that exact phrase as it stands in the Constitution referring to the compensation of the President in Article II, Section 1.  Instead, the Amendment is written , “No law, varying the compensation.”  Varying the timing of payment is varying the payment.  Your banker will testify.

Jim Bridenstine is a freshman U.S. Representative from Oklahoma's 1st Congressional District. You can visit his congressional website here.


Once again, Republican leadership in the U.S. House appears to be kicking the can down the road on cutting spending. This latest proposal is dangerous, and conservatives in Congress ought to stand up against it. It would be a real shame if Jim Bridenstine is the only Oklahoma member of Congress to vote against the "No Budget, No Pay" scam.

It's time that Republicans in Congress got serious about cutting spending!

** UPDATE **

Call your members of Congress! As of last night, Rep. Bridenstine was the only Oklahoman committed to vote against the 'No Budget, No Pay' sham. Per phone calls this morning, Rep. Mullin may still be on the fence. The Muskogee Tea Party is urging members to call Congress today, as are other Oklahoma Tea Party groups like the Tulsa 912 Project, OKforTea.


Congressional District 1: Rep. Jim Bridenstine (freshman; THANK for committing to vote 'no'!)
D.C. 1-202-225-2211 
Tulsa: (918) 935-3222

Congressional District 2: Rep. Markwayne Mullin (freshman; enough calls and he might vote 'no')
D.C. 1-202-225-2701   
Claremore: (918) 341-9336
Muskogee: (918)-687-2533
McAlester: (918) 423-5951
Durant: (580)-931-0333

Congressional District 3: Rep. Frank Lucas
D.C. 1-202-225-5565
Yukon: (405) 373-1958

Congressional District 4: Rep. Tom Cole
D.C. 1-202-225-6165
Lawton: (580) 357-2131

Congressional District 5: Rep. James Lankford
D.C. 1-202-225-2132
OKC: (405) 234-9900

** UPDATE II **

H.R. 325 passed the U.S. House on Wednesday afternoon, by a vote of 285 to 144. Republicans split 199-33 in favor, and Democrats went 86-111 against. Of Oklahoma's delegation, freshmen Reps. Bridenstine and Mullin joined other conservatives in voting against the measure. They deserve kudos for the right vote. 'No Budget, No Pay' is now headed to the U.S. Senate, where it seems likely to pass as well.

Bridenstine lone Oklahoman to vote against Boehner

Amid conservative grumblings against House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) for his tenure over the past two years, there was discussion that conservative members of the House would attempt to replace Boehner with another member. However, no candidate came to fruition, and Boehner was re-elected as Speaker yesterday with 220 votes to Nancy Pelosi's 192. Twenty representatives cast protest votes, or otherwise did not vote. You can view the roll call vote here.

On the Democratic side, eight congressmen voted for someone other than Nancy Pelosi. Receiving votes from Democrats were Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), Colin Powell, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN). Primarily, those who voted this way were "Blue Dog" representatives.

On the Republican side of the aisle, twelve congressmen voted for someone other than John Boehner. Receiving votes from Republicans were Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), former Florida Rep. Allen West, and David Walker.

In a fact little known to those not intimately involved with congressional politics, the Speaker of the House does not have to be an actual congressman, hence why Powell, West, and Walker received votes.

Of the dozen Republicans, several had been stripped of committee assignments by Boehner for opposing House leadership on different issues (such as the debt ceiling, and other times Boehner has caved in to the liberals). The rest were staunch conservatives who took a stand to send a message that they will not stand for more compromising of conservative principles.

Of Oklahoma's delegation -- all Republican now with the election of Markwayne Mullin in the 2nd District -- only 1st District freshman Jim Bridenstine voted against Boehner. In light of the Speaker punishing other conservatives recently, doing so took a lot of guts for Bridenstine, especially since the voice vote was done alphabetically, making Bridenstine only the second Republican to vote against Boehner. When he voiced his vote for Cantor, blogger Michelle Malkin tweeted "Bridenstine votes for Cantor...audible murmurs on the floor." Chad Pergram of Fox News tweeted "Freshman Jim Bridenstine votes for Cantor over Boehner. Audible gasp in chamber. Audacious move for freshman."

A big target is now on Congressman Bridenstine's back, but he stood his ground and kept his word. Kudos to him. We will see if Speaker Boehner punishes him by removing him from the Armed Services Committee or the Science, Space and Technology Committee.

On the contrary, the other freshman from Oklahoma, Markwayne Mullin, voted for Boehner. On the campaign trail in 2012, Mullin railed against Boehner on many occasions, calling him "institutionalized", and indicating he would not vote for Boehner.

It will be interesting to watch the Oklahoma delegation moving forward. If this first vote is any indication, conservatives will be very happy with Jim Bridenstine as a member of Congress.

Let last US WWI vet Frank Buckles lie in honor in Rotunda

Erick Erickson of RedState.com posted this earlier today. I concur.

Speaker Boehner, Allow Frank Buckles Into the Rotunda

I think Speaker John Boehner is making a terrible mistake.

The Speaker’s Office is blocking a request that Frank Buckles be allowed to lie in state (or in honor as the case may be) in the rotunda of the United States Capitol.

Frank Buckles is not just anybody. I agree that we should not let just anybody lie in state in the rotunda. I totally understand John Boehner’s reasoning. The right should be reserved for a very special few. While I understand his reasoning, I think the last of the WWI and the last of the WWII servicemen should be given the honor.

Frank Buckles is not just a special few. He is the last of his kind. The very last.

Precisely 4,734,991 Americans served in World War I. Frank Buckles was the last of them to die. He lied to get into the Army at age 16 so he could fight the Kaiser. He is the last of a generation of Americans who heard the calling for freedom in a way others did not and rose up to fight.

He is the last of those men and boys who fought under an American flag across an ocean in a land most had never been who did so not because we were attacked or brought into a war, as we were in World War II, but because they heard the call of freedom in the first great war.

He, as the last of the embodiment of the men and boys who heard that first call for freedom across the seas, deserves to lie in the Rotunda.

The Speaker may be reached at (202) 225-0600.

I called Speaker Boehner's office to respectfully request that the last American veteran of World War I be given this honor. Frank Buckles represents millions of Americans who fought (and in 116,708 cases died) for the United States overseas. We should honor their memory and sacrifice.

Speaker Boehner's Washington D.C. office: (202) 225-0600
Sen. Coburn's Washington D.C. office: (202) 224-5754
Sen. Inhofe's Washington D.C. office: (202) 224-4721
Rep. Boren's Washington D.C. office: (202) 225-2701

I called... will you? Let's honor the memory of our World War I veterans in this small way. Allow Corporal Frank Buckles to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda.

GOP Pledge: Cut $100B? More like $35B

During the 2010 congressional campaign, Republican House leaders issued a Pledge to America, wherein the GOP leadership made pledges to make spending cuts, repeal ObamaCare, and make congressional reforms, among other things.

One of the most prominent pledges was "we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone [emphasis mine]".

A lot was made about the House Republican's intent to cut at least $100B from the budget in their first year of control. However, it seems that this particular pledge won't actually come to fruition.

It seems that the House GOP leadership is planning on cutting $74 billion from the budget. That is, $74 billion from President Obama's 2011 budget proposal. As Erick Erickson said today on RedState.com, "There’s just one problem — the Democrats left power without ever passing Barack Obama’s budget. In other words, the GOP is cutting $74 billion from a budget that does not even exist." In actuality, the GOP leadership-proposed cuts amount to about $35 billion less than the 2010 budget.

"We're going to cut at least $100 billion. No, make that $74 billion. Actually.... $35 billion. What? Is something wrong? Pledge? What 'pledge'? Oh, 'at least $100 billion in the first year alone'? Well..... yeah, about that..."

Our fiscal situation is in a mess. Everyone agrees on that. It's a total and bipartisan wreck. We have to do something about it, something major. Halfhearted, hesitant nibbles won't cut it. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has found $350B in waste, fraud and duplication that could be eliminated. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has proposed $500B in cuts.

That's more like it. As Sen. Coburn has said, we have an apocalyptic fiscal crisis on our hands. Our national debt now stands at over $14,000,000,000,000.00 (14 trillion dollars). We stand on the brink. Now is not the time for hesitant indecision. Either we take the plunge into national fiscal ruin -- or we take the plunge and make the deep cuts necessary to balance our budget and pay down our debt as speedily as possible. There is no other option.

My hope is that the Congressional Republicans will finally get the message, and do the right thing for our nation, even though it is hard. It remains to see whether or not they will summon the courage to do so.

Political Theatrics: "Blitzkrieg" Does Not Equal "Holocaust"

Politics oftentimes results in over-dramatic misrepresentations of statements by political adversaries. Quotes are taken out of context, or applied to things that don't even remotely apply.

Sometimes, I just get tired of the sensationalizing. And frankly, I'm not afraid to call out my own side of the political spectrum when I see the need to.

Take this, for instance, from the New York Daily News:

Vice President Biden is out with an alarmed e-mail cash appeal warning that the GOP will mount a “blitzkrieg” against Democrats in the fall.

Comparing GOP tactics to the fast-striking forces of Nazi Germany, Biden warns in a message sent by the DCCC today: “As things heat up, you can expect House Democrats will be hit with a GOP blitzkrieg of vicious Swift-Boat-style attack ads, Karl Rove-inspired knockout tactics, thinly veiled attempts at character assassination and tea party disruptions.”

And while the GOP is mounting a blitzkrieg, Democrats are the allies.

“Our Democratic allies in the House need your help, and the President and I hope we can count on you to come to their defense so we can hold onto our Democratic Majority and continue moving American forward in a new direction,” Biden writes in the appeal.

Subtle? Not so much.

Update: Republicans were not amused by the implications of the e-mail.

Kevin Smith, spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner, e-mailed a comment that seems sure to get under Democrats’ skins: “When will Democrats learn that invoking the Nazis’ crimes against humanity in a political debate is simply inappropriate?”

Herein lies my problem with the statement by Smith: the Nazi German blitzkrieg tactic had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Blitzkrieg refers to the strategy that the Nazis used early in World War II, namely the use of concentrated tanks in swift-moving offensive campaigns in coordination with air power, artillery, and motorized infantry. The blitzkrieg wasn't related to the Nazi's horrific Holocaust war crimes.

Can we stop with the political theatrics, and focus on the issues, please?

Boehner on Executive Order Stupak Sold Out For

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) on the Executive Order that Bart Stupak sold out for:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on a potential Executive Order from the White House on abortion:

"The law of the land trumps any Executive Order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent President without any congressional approval or notice. Moreover, while an Executive Order can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector.

"Because of Roe v. Wade, courts have interpreted the decision as a statutory mandate that the government must provide federal funding for elective abortion in through federal programs. In other words, no Executive Order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner. Legal experts at the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and Family Research Council have confirmed this view that if the Senate bill is signed into law, it is a statutory mandate for the new health plans to include federal funding of elective abortion. The need for an Executive Order is evidence that this is true, and Congressional Democrats know it. Make no mistake, a 'yes' vote on the Democrats' health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions."

Remember in November...