Down With McCarthy

Author: Mike Sonneveldt


UPDATE: Supposedly, there may be a deal, but the information is confusing at this moment as this goes out.
Zerohedge reports some new concessions made by the McCarthy camp to those holding out. As this story changes and morphs, we'll do our best to keep up.

The changes:

  • A one-member “motion to vacate”: The GOP leader appears to have finally acquiesced to a demand to lower the threshold needed to force a vote ousting a speaker to just one member. While McCarthy originally indicated that restoring the one-member “motion to vacate” was a red line, his allies now argue that there’s not a huge practical difference between this and his previous offer of requiring five members to trigger the vote.

  • Rules Committee seats for the Freedom Caucus: McCarthy is prepared to give the House Freedom Caucus two seats on the powerful House Rules Committee, which oversees the amendment process for the floor. (Some conservatives are still holding out for four seats on the panel.) There are also talks about giving a third seat to a conservative close to the Freedom Caucus but not in it — someone like Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. Who would pick those members is still under discussion. Typically, it’s the speaker’s prerogative, but conservatives want to choose their own members for these jobs.

  • A vote on term limits: This is a key demand of Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who has proposed a constitutional amendment limiting lawmakers to three terms in the House.

  • Major changes to the appropriations process: Fears of another trillion-plus-dollar omnibus spending bill have been a major driver of the conservative backlash to McCarthy. The brewing deal includes a promise for standalone votes on each of the 12 annual appropriations bills, which would be considered under what is known as an “open rule,” allowing floor amendments to be offered by any lawmaker.


Here we sit, waiting for the mantel of Speaker of the House to be placed upon the shoulders of the next worthy man or woman.

Who knows, perhaps they'll finally get enough votes to put in Kevin McCarthy as GOP Speaker of the House.

At the moment (as I'm writing this) he's failed to garner enough votes to become Speaker. McCarthy needs 218 votes to seal the deal and become the next white-washed tomb standing before the House of Representatives.

Thankfully, a handful of republicans are sick of the status quo and the act that has gone on for decades in Washington. At first, their votes went instead to a Jim Jordans or a  Byron Donalds. It seems that the votes rejecting McCarthy are beginning to coalesce around Donalds.

Slowly, republicans are starting to slip away and detach themselves from McCarthy. On Wednesday, Victoria Spartz of Indiana voted present instead of following her previous votes for McCarthy.

It sounds as though the backroom deals are not going well either. While McCarthy has shored up some PAC deals, some of the other GOP representatives voice concern over the hostility happening. It seems as though McCarthy might not be keeping his cool when he's not getting what he wants.


I find it all entertaining. You can exclaim, “But there's gridlock in Washington!” And I would cheer and clap at the thought. Washington was not meant to hum and rip down the tracks. It should sputter, grind and clang through the entire process, lucky to get anywhere. Why? Because the more time they argue about enacting a law or a tax, the more time people have to find out whether it's really necessary. We're so convinced that their effectiveness rests in their “productivity” that we've decided that if they don't just all agree, then something is wrong.

I want them fighting. I want them arguing. I want this exact situation. For once, a group of republicans are putting their foot down and saying, “No more. We need a man of principle, not a man of opportunity.”

I don't know much about Byron Donalds, so I can't make that judgment. But I do know that Kevin McCarthy is comfortably established, along with the likes of McConnell. I won't call him a Romney, but I swear I will if I have to...


One of the former major holdups is McCarthy's refusal to agree to some proposals from the Freedom Caucus. They want new procedures that would prevent massive spending bills and laws (cough cough $1.7 trillion omnibus) from getting shoved through without adequate time for review and closed-door meetings. Who knew that a group of people want transparency and proper ventilation of the stink of a massive spending bill that monumentally shifts the nature of America further down the course of destruction?

McCarthy seems to only be agreeing in order to win the Speaker position. His conduct in action is vastly different from what he suddenly is willing to agree to. And we all must question his motives. What's really strange to me, is that Trump is backing McCarthy and saying the republicans should just get it done and seal the deal. It surprises me, but his endorsement repulses me even further from McCarthy. It feels dirty. It feels slimy, like a business deal that sells out a bunch of people but benefits those clamoring for it.

I don't see principle in Trump. He's now come out against pro-lifers, saying they're a reason for mid-term losses, yet he dove over millions of dead babies to claim he was the most pro-life president. Just the fact you blamed pro-lifers for a mediocre showing proves that you're more interested in the win and the opportunity than the principle.

However, there are plenty of moments he showed his opportunist hat. So forgive me if this feels strangely similar. A “you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back,” event.


My main thrust with this article doesn't even have to do with the negatives, but with the positives starting to show. Finally, a group of people are rallying to stand against the status quo and the establishment that has repeatedly sold the American people down the river. Honestly, they have Trump to thank for that. If only he carried their sense of principle.

Give these people credit. Don't give into all of the cries that nothing can get done unless a Speaker is confirmed. It's true, but is that such a bad thing? Couldn't we do without massive spending bills and massive legislation for a little while? If only just to breathe for a moment before the boot returns to press harder on our necks?

Fox News hosts are coming out of the woodwork to support McCarthy and end the stalemate. That should tell you something right there about this sick relationship between the media and the government. Fox News doesn't shill for the Biden administration. They shill for whoever has the power in the GOP.

Dan Crenshaw has come out hot and heavy against the movement, stating that this group has no clue what they're doing and no plan. Maybe they don't. Frankly, I don't care. A finger in the eye hurts. What shakes my head is the fact that Crenshaw is so ready to blast their inability to decide on a single person to nominate, yet he stands staunchly in McCarthy's corner. He comes out guns blazing against this group of “terrorists” and argues he's standing on principle, but my question is: what have those types of “principles” gotten us? Why is it suddenly principle to pass trillions of dollars on every spending bill, when only 8-10 years ago we freaked out about 700-800 billion? Care to tell me it's inflation? Then why inflation? If you're going to take credit for the necessity of writing massive blank checks again and again, then take credit for the damage they do to the American economy.

His vitriol is speaking loudly. 

The Daily Wire reports, “Speaking to reporters, Crenshaw unloaded on the 20 Republicans, saying, 'I’m tired of your stupid platitudes that some consultant told you to say on the campaign trail, alright.'

'Behind closed doors tell us what you actually want, or shut the f**** up,' he said. 'They need to be men and adults and say what they want, instead of playing these little games, that’s what we’re asking.'

'That’s what I’ve asked them. Some of them are my friends. Stop saying platitudes like, ‘Washington is broken. We can’t do the status quo,’” he continued. “They want to pull the pins on the grenades and lock the doors.'”


My question for Crenshaw is this: if you recognize the untenable nature of modern politics, and the true destruction of liberty, then why aren't you suggesting an alternate candidate? Or, are you so adamant about your opposition to what the Freedom Caucus wants that you'll align with McCarthy just to prove a point?

It's the symbolism of the act, and more and more your constituents are eager to watch the whole thing implode with the proverbial “grenade in a closed room.” The Trump movement thrived on draining the swamp. Guess what...that means your own party as well.

But don't worry Crenshaw and Fox News. You'll get your McCarthy, you can shove through your massive spending bills and legislation. You'll pat yourselves on the back about how you slowed down the Democrat agenda for a few months, and you can get paid. Because the GOP is not about actually shaping America into an image of limited-government and true liberty. The GOP is about counteracting the Democrats just long enough to feel like you're doing something good. You've become the true conservative. Conserve what you're given until you're given something new to try to conserve for a little while. The progressives will always win at that game because the nature of a conservative is to merely conserve the status quo.

But I digress.

To me, this is an enjoyable show of solidarity. It's showing courage and honor to stand against something you know isn't right, and not just give into the deal that people fear needs to be done.

Because that's what it boils down to; Fear. People are being driven by fear. If they don't vote for him, the establishment won't support their next run. If they don't vote for him, new legislation can't pass. If they don't vote for him, they'll be shunned by their peers. If they don't vote for him, they may lose their job.

Welcome to the real world of principle. Millions of Americans go through it every day, and plenty of times the pressure comes from this government that acts as though it serves at the pleasure of the people. Not that all of these politicians don't go through stressful times where conscience and comfort come into tension, but I wonder how many of them truly choose conscience over comfort? Compromise becomes dangerously easier each time we choose it, and there is a large group of people in Washington who would step over their own mother just to get a little more of the power and influence.

To me, these people standing are remaining firm to support an idea; a principle, and defend a wall. I can't know all of their motives, but I agree with them shaking up the entire system a little bit.

They also need to know that they're doing the right thing. It can get lonely standing, especially when you're at the front lines of the battle. They deserve to hear from you. And I mean this. They deserve to know that you have their back and that you appreciate what they're doing. They need to know that even if they lose their job, they'll hold onto something vastly more important and useful: their conviction.

I urge you, with all that I am, to write to those standing, and write to those who need to gather up the guts to stand. The people are ready for a change, and they want reform. They want to see the government act the way it was originally intended to: protect my rights and get out of my business. Protect me from foreign invaders, set some trade deals, and only write laws that truly protect my liberty, not remove it under the guise of safety.

To those who are standing currently: we support you with all that we are. We're so unbelievably thankful that you're standing in the face of intense heat and adversity. The courage of a man is tested in the fire. Remember, the dross burns away when the gold is refined. I pray these moments of standing on principle, no matter the odds, are paying you massive dividends in becoming more of who God created you to be. 

People look at the founders as pinnacles of achievement, but we often do not meditate on the sacrifices and difficulties they must have faced day-to-day. They truly pledged everything they owned and found valuable and put up with an onslaught of criticism, death threats, and personal inner struggle. But they stood for what they knew to be right, and their conviction carried them into the annals of history.

I am not saying that you'll be remembered 200 years later for this. I won't even pretend that you'll be remembered a year from now, but you will hold in your hearts an assurance that you got so sick of the crap, that you stood and said, “No more.”

You may think I'm over-dramatizing this. But in the current political landscape, anybody who actually stands on some conviction outside of the general political machine needs to hear some credit. Look at the approval of Desantis. He didn't even make all the right choices in his political career, but you can tell he's trying to defend principle and not just go with the flow. The people recognize it and support it.

People understand that mistakes are made. What they tend to sniff and revolt against is the decisions made for selfish gain, for opportunity, or for downright traitorous means. We love America and don't want it to be run by the rest of the world. We don't want to sell ourselves into debt slavery. We don't want jackbooted authoritarians controlling our speech or attempting to control our minds.

We just want to live freely. And for a moment, this seems as though it is a small kick in the womb. It's a tiny rumbling of energy, that we pray is the earthquake that will shake the foundations of the nation, and turn people back to the original intent of the American experiment.

But at the end of the day, all I know is: I'd rather stand for something than sit for nothing.

Self-Evident Ministries