John Boehner Admits Republicans are Willing to Put U.S. at Risk to Play Partisan Politics (Video)

boehner8Republicans are anything if not predictable. The moment they gained power back in the Senate it was obvious that they were going to use that power to play petty partisan politics. The truth is, controlling Congress means very little as long as the person in the White House has veto power. So no matter what sort of propaganda Republicans spew about the nonsense they’re going to undoubtedly shove through Congress, it’s still on them to send the president legislation that they know he will sign, otherwise they’re essentially just wasting time.

The president is the one person who’s voted into office on a national scale, meaning that they’re the one individual who truly “represents the majority of the people.” So no matter what anyone in Congress says, it’s beholden upon them to make sure whatever bills they’re sending to the president’s desk actually have a chance at being signed. It’s extremely rare for both the House and Senate to have the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.

All that being said, as many already know the Department of Homeland Security is set to run out of funding fairly soon. Normally this wouldn’t be a huge deal; all it would take is for Congress to pass a bill funding the department, which would almost certainly be signed by President Obama.

Simple, right?

Well, not when Republicans are involved. You see, instead of simply passing a clean bill funding a department that’s largely responsible for helping maintain our national security, Republicans have decided to tack on language aimed at rolling back President Obama’s executive order on immigration.

And apparently John Boehner is more than willing to put our national security at risk just so that his party can try to play partisan politics. During an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, the House Speaker said he is fully willing to let Homeland Security run out of funding because he thinks voters will blame Democrats.

Because that’s what’s important, right? Who cares whether or not that the Department of Homeland Security is funded so that it can continue to do its job. The only thing that apparently matters is who might get blamed if their doors happen to close due to a lack of funding.

“The House has acted. We’ve done our job,” Boehner said. “Senate Democrats are the ones putting us in this precarious position. And it’s up to Senate Democrats to get their act together.”

Except, he’s lying – and he’s also wrong. Senate Democrats would gladly vote to approve a bill funding Homeland Security. The issue isn’t that they won’t support that bill, but that Republicans (more specifically those in the House) are refusing to send them a clean bill on which to vote. Which is why if Homeland Security has to close its doors due to a lack of funding, the blame falls on the GOP. This isn’t about immigration, it’s about funding the Department of Homeland Security. Except, Republicans are trying to exploit a bill to fund DHS by including a bill to undo one of President Obama’s executive orders.

This is the same thing we saw during the government shutdown. Just because Republicans now control the Senate, that doesn’t change the fact that they’re trying to use one situation to play petty partisan politics with another. The American people didn’t simply blame Republicans because the government was shut down, they blamed them because they were the ones refusing to send a clean funding bill through Congress.

That’s exactly what they’re doing now.

But if this is the road Boehner and Republicans want to go down, I’m all for it. If they want to put the national security of this country at risk just because they want to use this bill to try to force a rollback on Obama’s immigration executive order, that’s not going to end well for the GOP.

Watch Boehner’s comments below via Fox News:

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    The way I seem to remember it, the moment they gained power Obama said, ‘Doesn’t matter. I’m Da Man. I’m Da Gubmint. We doin it my way!”

    • Jillz

      The way many others seem to remember it, the moment Obama gained power in 2008, they (GOTP) said, “let’s do everything in our power to make him a one-term President”. After six years of right-wing obstruction, it’s about time President Obama said enough is enough.

      This is just another example of Republicans using the USA to try to hurt Democrats, with no seeming thought or care about the potential risks to the country.

      • Charlie

        And allowing 5 million illegals amnesty poses no risk to the country? You’re a fool.

      • Avatar

        *coughs coughs* we whites are the illegals and we murdered well over 250,000 native Americans, the biggest massacre to the date.

        You’re a hypocrite.

      • alm3texas

        Now you must go all the way back to WHY the “Crusades” came into existence! Then the whites might not have arrived at all and u wouldn’t have a comment on guilt!

      • Avatar

        As a Catholic I know a lot more about the history of Crusader than revisionist-happy Evangelicals. I have no interested in arguing with the narrowed minded Texans.

      • Jillz

        Yes, oh the horror! Having 5 million more people paying taxes who probably currently don’t.

        So let me get this straight – you see 5 million people who already live and work in the country anyway as some kind of sudden threat; but underfunding Homeland Security is just a-ok with you?

        eeeyeeaaah right. And I’M a fool *rolls eyes*

      • strayaway

        Oh, good. Now their taxes will pay for a tiny portion of the unemployed Americans’ unemployment and welfare whom they displaced by working for lower wages. Are you on the payroll of the US Chamber of Commerce? You sure aren’t on the side of American workers.

      • Jillz

        I’m on the side of the American people – period. Corporations, protected by Republicans, who hire illegal workers are NOT on the side of American workers.

      • strayaway

        You are on the side of the US Chamber of Commerce. I am on the side of US workers. there is a difference. Obama was a cheer leader for Bush’s Wall Street Bankers’ bail out. On Christmas Eve 2009, Obama shifted bad bank debt to US taxpayers by executive order. No bankers were put in jail. Now, he is giving away US working class and middle class jobs to cheaper foreign workers. You are a traitor to US workers for supporting his efforts to do so. On these issues, Obama is no better than the worst of Republicans.

      • Jillz

        LOL We’re talking about giving amnesty to millions of people who have already been here for years, and are already citizens in all but the paperwork and who will finally be paying taxes.

        The traitors to the American worker are those that allowed the deregulation of the banks to happen in the first place (not those who had to fix it in a way that didn’t collapse the whole industry).

        The traitors to the American worker are those who give unnecessary tax cuts to corporations and trick the public into believing that eventually those tax dollars saved will trickle down to jobs for the American worker.

        The real traitors to the American worker are those that keep electing teabag Republicans.

      • strayaway

        If a bank robber stole $10,000 ten years ago, he would still be punished. But if an illegal alien deprives an American of a job and then uses tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to educate or provide medical care for his family, that’s ok? I think not. The beneficiary of all this is the cheating employer as you say. Obama’s Senate amnesty bill would also over double the number of legal aliens displacing middle class IT workers for lower wages. Changing the subject doesn’t improve your basically US Chamber of Commerce argument in support of a plentiful and legal supply of cheaper foreign worker to replace US workers.

      • Jillz

        Unlike you, I don’t see those (or any) people as a “legal supply of cheaper foreign workers” – I see them as people, flesh and blood human beings with dreams and families, that have already lived there for years.

        If a bank robber stole [money] in the USA ten years ago, (or how about 2008) they would be punished? HAHAHAHAHA Still waiting for THAT to happen.

        I didn’t change the subject, my friend. The original topic was NOT immigration. The topic was Republican obstruction and how they are still trying to obstruct with their dirty little games. I admit though, that you got me a little off track calling me a traitor (oh my, lmao) when you have so many other much better candidates to be called traitors (as I listed above) – politicians negatively enabling corporations; and corporations hiring illegal workers. Oh, and voters electing the teaPublicans who are destroying freedom in the USA.

      • strayaway

        Those people would probably be nice if they stayed back home too although your friend probably didn’t include any of Mohammed Atta’s crew members who had overstayed their visas. or the gang members filling California jails. Sure, your friends are nice but there is an unemployed US citizen for most of them whom you don’t seem to have much concern for. Maybe those unemployed Americans are nice people too before your friends and their cheating employers brought on hard times for those US workers.

        The original topic was Obama’s willingness to shut down a part of the government if he doesn’t get his way with regard to his imperial edict that has almost nothing to do with national security. There should be another congressional vote on Obama’s edict. Let it stand on its own. If our elected representatives approve it, it would become law. What would be the harm in voting on that separately?

      • Jillz

        I was calling YOU “my friend” – I don’t have any illegal American friends 😉

        Again I will say that I have concern for ALL people, including unemployed Americans (and employed ones, and female ones, and black ones, and gay ones, and, and …. you get the point). Just because I am able to mentally cut through the b/s, spin and lies promulgated by the right (about the President’s EO, in this case) doesn’t mean that I am not sympathetic to the suffering caused to the American middle class and those not of the 1% (who seem to be the main targets of the GOTP at the moment). The people (immigrants) we are discussing in this case (the ones granted amnesty) are ALREADY THERE!! They are ALREADY WORKING!! So your arguments don’t make sense. Do you want all immigration to the USA to stop? If not, your arguments don’t make complete sense.

        The original topic is that the House is again trying to add unrelated language to a bill in an attempt to strong arm the President into doing (or not doing something). The President made it quite clear in his SOTU address that he would like to see a clean immigration bill on his desk and as long as it was clean he’d be happy to sign it (and therefore override his EO). However, since the Republican way is to obstruct and refuse to work with the President, they instead choose to use dirty tricks (i.e. adding unrelated language to the bill to fund Homeland Security) instead of coming up with a solid immigration bill of their own which the President has said he would be happy to sign.

        The ball is in their court – no surprise they keep dropping it.

      • strayaway

        Perhaps you could begin by explaining the constitutional basis for the president’s executive dictate. What is the exact wording giving him the power to overturn Article 1, Section1 an Article 1, Section 8’s, uniform naturalization clause? The powers delegated to presidents are mostly spelled out in Article 2. Those Americans unemployed by cheaper foreign job competition are ALREADY HERE too and they are UNEMPLOYED or working for less than they previously did. I wish that you showed the same compassion and loyalty to US workers as you do for the foreign replacement workers who have been used to slash wages and decimate unions. I think my arguments make more sense to American workers than to the president of Mexico as yours’ do.

        If the president wants a “clean” immigration bill, he should agree to take his garbage out of it and having a separate congressional vote on that instead of cutting funds to DHS. Since you probably perceive yourself to be in support of the democratic process, what objection could you have to that?

        One third of illegal aliens are people who overstayed their visas. Most of Mohammed Atta’s crew were in that category. Did you want to extend your argument to keeping such folks here too because they were ALREADY HERE? Your argument takes some responsibility for their actions. Not all illegal aliens are warm fuzzy liberal pets who replaced unionized US workers at a meat packing plant. Some actually do have bad intentions. Another 300,000 illegal aliens are serving time in our prisons. Unfortunately, they are already here too.

      • Jillz

        The President issued the EO because Congress didn’t bother coming up with an immigration bill – they’ve been too busy trying to grab healthcare back from millions of Americans, remember? There is no need to vote on his EO – what needs to happen is the House needs to come up with an immigration bill, you know, do their jobs, and put it through proper process. The President’s “garbage” as you call it is only garbage to you and those on the right who see everything the President does as garbage. It’s subjective and opinion-based.

        The topic of this thread is Republican Obstruction, not immigration, regardless of how you feel about the EO issued by the President. Republicans are still playing their stupid games instead of actually trying to do what’s best for the country. If you think flirting with (or even worse, following through on) a DHS shutdown is ok, then you are no better than they are. Even John McCain would agree with that.

      • strayaway

        Congress chose not to pass a new immigration bill. It already has immigration laws in the books. Congress is not required to update or change present immigration laws. Presidents do not have the constitutional power to legislate in the place of Congress either. President Obama said as much 22 times before he went rogue. There is a need to take his dictate out of this legislation to maintain the rule of law. Would you prefer “dictatorial edict” to “garbage”? Dictatorial edicts are Constitutional garbage.

        Anyone who values the rule of law and the Constitution has to obstruct Obama’s dictate. I guess that leaves out McCain and Democrats. Its affinity to dictatorial rule is another reason not to vote Democratic at the national level.

      • Jillz

        “Congress chose not to pass a new immigration bill.”

        Well that’s funny, isn’t that something they said was a priority for them to do in the year or so before the elections last fall?

        Listen, it’s clear you don’t like President Obama. That doesn’t mean that your interpretations and/or opinions are accurate and/or true.

        The House of Representatives is a joke and all they’ve done is obstruct since practically the minute Obama came into office. They now have a chance to show that they aren’t obstructing government and they still can’t do it even when their own party has the majority in the Senate!

        The point of the article is ongoing Republican obstruction, not immigration. They are threatening to let DHS shut down. Do you not have any concern about that???

      • strayaway

        I don’t interpret. Unlike you, I cite what the Constitution says about which body, that being Congress, legislates and has responsibility for defending our borders and legislating naturalization policy. Unlike you, I am not an apologist for Obama’s attack on the Constitution rule of law.

        As pointed out to you before in a Reuters’ article, 83% of DHS funding would continue for necessary DHS programs even if the president chooses to veto this legislation because it doesn’t include his attack on US workers and the rule of law.

      • Jillz

        And like I said – you base all your arguments off of YOUR interpretation of the Constitution. If President Obama had truly violated the Constitution at any time, impeachment proceedings would already be started.

        The topic of this thread is Republican (House) obstruction. If you have any way to justify using the funding of DHS as a hostage, by trying to sneak in language that is completely unrelated to the issue, fine. If not, I am agreeing to disagree with you.

      • strayaway

        I just reported what the Constitution says. When it says that “ALL legislative power herein granted shall be vested in Congress” how can you possibly interpret that to mean that the executive branch can legislate? Even the president supported what the Constitution said 22 times before going rogue. There is no point to impeachment proceedings because they wouldn’t be supported by the Senate. It would be a wast of time.

        I will repeat, ” Anyone who values the rule of law and the Constitution has to obstruct Obama’s dictate.” The House has done its job in approving all funding necessary to fund the DHS. Only Obama can use the DHS as a hostage at this point.

        Here is one of those 22 quotes you disagree with-

        “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)

        He lied.

      • Jillz

        “ALL legislative power herein granted shall be vested in Congress”

        And what exactly does the Constitution say a President should do when Congress refuses to do its job? And what can he do with a Congress who is actively out to sabotage him?

        “There is no point to impeachment proceedings because they wouldn’t be supported by the Senate.”

        Um, you mean the Republican controlled Senate? You’re saying that if Obama had truly violated the Constitution that the Republican controlled Senate wouldn’t support impeachment proceedings??? bwaaaaaahahhahahahahahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh 🙂

        “The House has done its job in approving all funding necessary to fund the DHS.”

        Then why the unrelated amendment? And why is John McCain speaking out against it; and even Mitch McConnell asking for a “clean” bill?

      • strayaway

        Re your second paragraph: Nothing, most of the president’s powers are listed in Article 2. Maybe he could get elected in 2016 as a Congressman or Senator if he wanted to legislate. Sorry, but the Constitution does not give the executive dictatorial powers you seem to savor. Congress has passed immigration laws. The president is supposed to enforce them instead of ignore and change them. Congresses have always been out to sabotage presidents they didn’t like. That’s the way it is.

        Re impeachment: In the Senate “no person shall be convicted without the Concurrance of two thirds of the Members present.” That’s why. A number of Democrats would have to vote against Obama. That probably isn’t going to happen. You need to brush up on the Constitution instead of mindlessly advocating dictatorial powers for presidents. Imagine when some Republican president cites Obama’s executive dictates as precedents for cutting social security or whatever. When that happens, consider it karma.

        Do you mean “unrelated amendment” or vote? A separate vote would allow Congress to pass the presidents unconstitutional dictate if it so chooses. I don’t speak or vote for McCain or McConnell. They don’t represent me. I thought McCain was worse than Obama in 2008 so I voted third party.

      • Jillz

        re: your last paragraph – I mean why did they try to slip in language unrelated to the refunding (DHS) bill? How is that NOT obstruction?

        I don’t need to brush up on the Constitution for this discussion. My comments are based on Republican obstruction, which I do not believe is a protected right in the Constitution, and which everyone in the world has been able to clearly see for the past six years.

        The President does have power to issue executive orders, otherwise he wouldn’t still be walking free (and of course, he has issued less of them than any other President).

        Republicans said they were going to address immigration reform – they didn’t and it needs to be done. The President issued an EO to do so and has said that he would be more than happy to sign an acceptable bill and override the EO. So what’s the problem?

        And btw – the fact that I disagree with you does not mean that I “savour dictatorial power for Presidents”. That’s a ridiculous statement.

      • strayaway

        answer re first question: Because they can. Congress can legislate anything it wants. The yearly omnibus spending bill and other bills under either Democrats or Republicans routinely add unrelated items. I wish it weren’t so sometimes. This time they had to do so to maintain the rule of constitutional law if for no other reason.

        Presidents execute law. Congress makes all laws. presidents do not have any Constitutional power to pick an choose laws they wish to enforce and they cannot change or make laws as the president tried to. If I am wrong please point out Constitutional wording that supports your position or amend the constitution to include an enabling act like the Reichstag did in Germany.

        What Republicans should do is make sure present laws are enforced. Put cheating employers in prison and have them pay for public costs related to their illegal employees and their families. The problem is a President who acts like a dictator and and sides with foreign and corporate interests instead of US workers.

        It wasn’t a ridiculous statement. You don’t seem to oppose this president legislating with executive orders. You have to take some responsibility for your position or some future Republican president will be overriding Social Security or (un)ACA coverage the same way you enabled Obama to override immigration law.

      • Jillz

        “What Republicans should do is make sure present laws are enforced. Put cheating employers in prison and have them pay for public costs related to their illegal employees and their families.”

        ^^ This I totally agree with.

        Tell me how the President “legislated” with EO’s. He did the same thing Reagan did by granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants who are living/working/raising families in the country anyway, and in deporting more illegal immigrants than any President before him seems to be trying to enforce existing legislation. If you are going to keep ranting about Constitutional violations when Obama did it, then please first explain why it wasn’t a Constitutional violation when Reagan did it.

        Immigration reform is desperately needed, even Republicans agree with that, yet after promising to propose reform they failed to do so, focusing instead on their ongoing attempts to claw back healthcare from millions of Americans. Their only focus seems to be to thwart the President (and keep the country divided).

        And yes it is a ridiculous statement (the savouring dictatorial power comment) just because I don’t agree with you pfffft. Thank you for posting what you meant (future similar impacts to SS or ACA) instead of just an insult.

      • strayaway

        “Tell me how the President “legislated” with EO’s.”

        The first instance I can think of is when Obama allowed Mexican truck drivers and trucks take to US roads. This was objected to by the Teamsters’ Union and overrode a law saying just the opposite. Then there was Obama’s executive ordered war on Libya which Dennis Kucinich said was an impeachable offense before he was squeezed out of his congressional seat. There were others but let’s talk about the matter at hand. Existing congressional laws require illegal aliens to be removed from the Country. President Obama chose to override those laws and instead reward illegal aliens with work permits to legally take US jobs. Congress never passed any such law and the president himself characterized his action as changing the law. (Changing laws is legislating). This is how Judge Hanen put it, “the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration scheme.”

        For the third time, Reagan’s amnesty was passed by Congress. Obama’s wasn’t. I think it’s a wonderful idea for anyone in Congress to fight for the rule of law even if Obama’s petulant ego gets bruised. Why must you be such an apologist for something amounting to Obama’s de facto enabling act? I keep asking you to provide the constitutional basis for a president ignoring and changing laws but you just keep running around in circles spouting things you want to believe. C’mon, let’s have it. What part of the Constitution overrides Article 1, Section 1 to allow presidents to legislate? I’m also curious why you think that future Republican presidents won’t be able to override legislation you happen to like and what would be wrong with doing so.

        Most people who sided with Hitler were probably nice people too but they made a huge mistake in allowing their leader to make extra constitutional laws outside of the Reichstag. You have to take responsibility for your actions.

        “We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” -Obama (5/19/08) –

        Obama lied

      • Jillz

        I already told you, I’m not getting into a Constitutional debate with you about immigration reform. I don’t have time to research it and I don’t think I need to. The topic of this thread is Republican obstruction.

        That said, if the President violated the Constitution in any way, he would not still be sitting as President. However you are interpreting the Constitution is up to you, but if the GOTP hasn’t acted on, then sorry, that’s more than enough for me to believe the President has NOT acted outside of his authority.

        So back to the topic, please tell me how “because they can” is a valid excuse for obstruction? How is that kind of an attitude helpful for the country?

        Also, I have no idea why you are now calling me an ‘apologist’. That implies that there is something to apologize for? Or make excuses for? All I see is a President who is constantly attacked, lied about, obstructed etc and so on for years. Recognizing right wing b/s and calling it what it is does not constitute being an apologist.

      • strayaway

        The Constitution is only about 12 typewritten pages long. It is what politicians swear to uphold. You might be able to better understand reasons for obstruction if you familiarized yourself with those 12 pages. Again, I just quoted the Constitution as opposed to your positions based on what you imagine. How hard can it be to find some passages that allow a president to override, ignore, or write new laws and is more specific and non-contradictory to Article 1, Section 1? Republicans are obstructing Obama’s dictatorial expression in this case which I find prudent. My observation is that other countries that have gone down the road from relative democracy to fiat rule: Rome under Caesar, Germany under Hitler, Argentina under the Perons, etc. self destruct offsetting whatever temporary benefits were had. I don’t want that happening here. An “apologist” by definition is “one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something”. You write in defense of Obama’s executive dictates which are so precious to you that you would countenance partial government funding caused by an Obama veto. Take heart. The administration having already overridden Congress is now shopping for a court to issue an emergency stay to override Judge Hanen. The normal process is to go to an appeals court. Better though, from the administration standpoint, to find a friendly judge to override the normal constitutional process. Who needs Congress and constitutional jurisprudence when you can have a dictator disregarding Congress and the court system instead?

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        What’s the difference in what so many big wig wealthy employers ( ex. Romney) who outsource everything they possibly can and then hide their assets in another country—-and the illegals who have been here for a long time and working and paying taxes trying to be citizens?

      • strayaway

        Romney was legal. We already have a naturalization process though to allow in the number of chosen individuals legally. Article 1, Section 8 says that “Congress have have the power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. Note two things: 1)It is Congress and not the president that has that power and 2) the word “uniform”. In other words one legal process not two different processes one legal and the other overstaying visas or hopping fences.

      • GenerallyConfused

        Reagan did the same thing. Why is this different?

      • strayaway

        Reagan was a fool to believe that Democrats would honor their share of his agreement about protecting the border afterward. What was different was that Reagan’s bill to give amnesty passed Congress.

      • alm3texas

        “Hurting” the Democrats. They don’t look too hurt these days. Remember “FOLKS” as Obama refers to “everyone”, these people eat, drink and are merry with each other….Dems and Repubs……Time to get up to speed.

      • Jillz

        Well sorry that Republican efforts aren’t working then! The fact that their (Republicans) tactics aren’t working doesn’t mean their agenda hasn’t been to put hurting Democrats over the best interest of the country, though.

    • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

      You have your presidents mixed up. W. is the one who said he’s the decider and talked like he was a Texan. And anything you say is not counted as being the truth anyway because of the troll that you are.

  • hockeyray

    When you have an Administration that refuses to Seal the Borders and also refuses to destroy ISIS then it’s useless to fund DHS anyway. Shut it down.

    • alm3texas

      For real. Stirring a stick in a purse at Sea World San Antonio keeps us “safe.” Good grief. TSA-time for an extended vaca.!

    • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

      How do you define “seal the borders”? If you call what W. put up along the Texas/Mexico border as “sealing the borders” you are sadly mistaken!! Those “fences” were worthless and stopped abruptly with all kinds of ways to get across. Do you think these millions of people coming here just started coming the minute Obama took office? Do you think there were no illegals here before then? OH my you are delusional!!

  • Wiley

    Sarah Palin was awesome last night on the SNL 40th Anniversary show.

  • Timothy Johnson

    When will people finally listen to the facts, and just admit what those of us who can think on our own already know, that John Boehner and the rest of the Republican Party are nothing but a group of rebels and terrorists who care only about their own personal interests and anything and anyone that gets hurt or damaged along the way to their objectives are considered by them to be nothing but meaningless collateral damage!

    Sure the Democrats or no Angels either but they are the lesser of the evils that run this poor excuse for a nation in which we live!

    • alm3texas

      And Pelosi and Reid and Feinstein’s real estate husband.
      When the true majority admits the Congressional majority stinks and is not for the majority of citizens, then & only then we a bright light be turned on.
      Another Bush.

  • FD Brian

    If the republicans had any balls they would just get rid of DHS, because their mantra and political platform is less government. They talk about it, but they fail on so many levels to live up to things they only pay lip service to, except tax cuts, great at tax cuts, not so great at cutting spending.

    • alm3texas

      Repubs, are wienies. Both parties statistically stink. Both sides except perhaps NOW only 20 brave souls, have any intellect with regard to the 320,000,000 they have agreed to “work FOR”. States rights have ALL been lost!
      Old saying of sorts: IF you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything!”
      And the dribble and crap emu mates from both sides, like it or not!

    • Pete cocoon

      Hey FD get a job

  • strayaway

    There is no threat to national security threat posed by eliminating the president’s unconstitutional legislation to give working papers to 5 million illegal aliens. It makes more sense doing it this way than fooling around with ultimately unsuccessful impeachment procedures. Even if Democrats decide to shut homeland security down, Reuters says that 85 percent of HS workers are ‘exempt’ from a forced furlough given they work in areas that are vital to security or are funded by sources unrelated to the congressionally-approved budget. This article is demagoging and attacking constitutional rule of law in which only congress is given the power to legislate. A couple of days ago, this website attacked Jefferson’s vision of inalienable rights and today is attacking the rule of law.

  • The Gimlet Eye

    Benghazi Pictures™ presents:

    ” This Time We’ll Get It Reich”, Starring barak obama as Franz Von Papen, Valerie Jarrett as Adolf Hitler, John Kerry as Joachim Von Ribbentrop, Joe Biden as Eva Braun,Eric Holder as Heinrich Himmler, Sheila Jackson Lee as Hermann Goering, John Koskinen as Hjalmar Schacht, David Axelrod as Joseph Goebbels, Josh Earnest as Frau Goebbels, Lois Lerner as Reinhard Heydrich, Hillary Clinton as Benito Mussolini, Harry Reid as Ernst Roehm, Chuck Schumer as Rudolf Hess, John Podesta as Leni Riefenstahl, and Zeke Emmanuel as Dr. Josef Mengele. With the Democrat Party and La Raza as the Brown Shirts. . Rated XXX

  • The Gimlet Eye

    My Dog is a Progressive…

    He chases his own tail. He takes other people’s stuff and chews it up. He humps the guests at cocktail parties. He sleeps all day while I am at work, the world is his toilet, and he has no idea who his daddy is. He tears up his own yard when he feels like it. He also expects me to feed him and provide him with free housing and medical care.

  • The Gimlet Eye

    The Progressive Ten Commandments

    The government is your awesome god. You were made to serve it.

    Do not presume that anything you make is yours. You didn’t build that.

    Do not question your government.You don’t want to be accused of being a racist, a bigot, or of the Tea Party.

    Keep holy the day of April 15.

    You may, and should, blame your parents for whatever shortcomings you have.Especially if they are old bitter clingers.

    You may kill unborn children if they would be an inconvenience to your life-style

    Sleep around. Monogamy is boring. Extra points for being a homosexual.

    Steal what you can get away with.

    Lying for the cause is admirable.

    Your neighbor has stuff you don’t. You deserve some, or all, of it.

    • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

      If YOU think that this is how democrats feel and operate you sure don’t know the democrats that I know. KILL unborn children? No—-democrats for the most part believe in free choice—–rather than watch helplessly as all of the children that the repubs want to be born no matter what the circumstances are mistreated, murdered, unfed and uneducated because they were born into horrible situations. It’s rather sad that once all of these babies are born the repubs want no part of taking care of them. They cut welfare, food stamps and any other help that a poor struggling Mom or family might need to raise the child. No babies should be put into that situation. I don’t know anyone who LOVES abortion. I also don’t know anyone who desires “stuff” that other people have. How you can differentiate those people as republicans or democrats I can’t even imagine. The democrats I know work hard and pay for what they want and need. You talk about putting people in categories—sleep around?? Homosexual? You are a sad excuse for a human being and a nut case if you think that those types of things are democratic ideas.

      • The Gimlet Eye

        You want to murder babies. And you construct excuses for your evil. It is that simple.

      • Pete cocoon

        Pro life fag boy!

  • GenerallyConfused

    When will this become treasonous instead of “playing politics”? Enough is enough. Acting like children is not something we need our elected officials to do.

  • Cuzzy levin

    Marilyn Olsen u need a date and good drink! Anyone in the United states way should be mowed down. They are animals and you should be in the kitchen cooking for your girlfriend…cheers, cuzzy

  • Pete cocoon

    Cuzzy should also go take a long walk off a short pier! Swim baby swim like the demo s in 2016

  • Cuzzy levin

    And here we go..Pete cacoon?? U must have hatched from a egg. You low life liberal pig. you and big al sharp and the rest of the pigs should go over eat and shit yourselves with your bullshit comments! Mike Tyson… ‘True to life hero’

  • Pete cocoon


  • Cuzzy levin

    Democrats are misled, non raised right liberal morons. Your parents should have made better decisions you fat assed pigs