Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘House of Representatives’

‘The Five’ Hosts Unleash on Disgraceful Barr Hearing: ‘I’ve Never Seen Anything More Disgusting on TV’


Reported By Andrew J. Sciascia | Published August 2, 2020 at 12:37pm

The hosts of Fox News’ “The Five” rightly raked House Democrats over the coals Tuesday for their “disgusting” and “infantile” treatment of Attorney General William Barr during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Barr had appeared before the committee earlier in the day for the first time in his more than one year with the Trump administration, after months of legal and political pressure to do so.

When House Democrats finally got a chance to ask Barr questions regarding the Justice Department’s response to recent nationwide civil unrest and treatment of both the Mueller investigation and its resulting prosecutions, they were anything but civil, leveling wild accusations against the attorney general and frequently speaking over him.

“The Five” wasn’t buying it.

In an introductory monologue, co-host Jesse Watters described the proceedings better than most anyone could — that is, without the use of the odd expletive. The hearing “was not a hearing” at all, he said. Instead, it had been a strategic “cancellation” of the nation’s ranking legal mind.

“They just wanted to cancel Bill Barr,” Watters said. “They were not interested in hearing or listening to anything he had to say because they know he’s armed with facts. He’s calm, cool and collected and they’re just angry. They’re furious. They look unserious and they look unprofessional.”

He went on to suggest the Democratic House Judiciary’s treatment of Barr had been the result of pent up “bad energy” toward the attorney general for his department’s investigative attempts at “turning the tables on [the left’s] Russia hoax.” And given House Democrats’ behavior Tuesday, it would be hard to argue any differently.

What other than bad blood could possibly motivate a 15-term legislator to deny the Attorney General of the United States the congressional courtesy of a bathroom break? No, that is not a joke. As the hearing dragged on into its third hour Tuesday, an unexpectedly tense standoff was sparked over Barr having the apparent gall to request that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler grant him a five-minute recess.

“I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, could I– could we take a five-minute break,” Barr asked Nadler in a down moment while the line of questioning was transferred from one committee member to the next.

Nadler rejected the request, only to be reminded by ranking Republican Rep. Jim Jordan that unscheduled breaks are a “common courtesy” often extended to congressional witnesses. Even a reminder from Barr to Nadler that the committee had been late in getting underway that morning did not change the liberal legislator’s mind.

“Mr. Attorney General, we are almost finished,” Nadler said. “We are going to be finished in a few minutes. We can certainly take a break, but–“

“You’re a real class act, Mr. Chairman,” Barr responded sarcastically, “a real class act.”

Jordan then interrupted again, saying, “He wants a break now, and you just mentioned rudeness. I think we’re seeing it on display. Let’s let the attorney general have a break.”

Finally, the tiny tyrant relented and let the attorney general take his leave to the bathroom. Of course, this paled in comparison to the way Democrats spoke over the attorney general during the rest of the hearing. In fact, in an afternoon punctuated by interruptions, Barr was forced to ask on one occasion in particular that he “be heard” at his own hearing.

The interaction came as Barr was questioned by Democratic Rep. Lou Correa of California regarding President Donald Trump’s push for citizenship and illegal immigration to be addressed on the 2020 United States census.

“Let’s talk a little bit about the census,” Correa said. “Every 10 years, we decide how many congressional sears each state gets, how much funding for schools, health care, other issues each region gets. Let’s talk about the president’s memo directing the commerce secretary to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count of the 2020 census.”

“Are undocumented people not whole individuals?” Correa asked, demanding (rather ridiculously) to know whether the Barr Justice Department believed illegal immigrants to be people at all.

“They are obviously people,” Barr said. “The legal issue there was the terminology of the Constitution.”

“What the department advised — this came up because Alabama claims you cannot count illegal aliens in the census under the Constitution — the department looked at it and advised that Congress can determine the meaning of ‘inhabitant’ for this purpose, that it is not a self-defining term,” Barr said.

Attempting to squeeze in another question before his time expired, Correa spoke over the attorney general, saying, “We’ve only got two minutes, sir. Mr. Barr, if I may–“

“Yeah, but this is a hearing,” Barr said. “I thought I was the one who was supposed to be heard.”

This was not the only time Barr was interrupted by legislators looking to “reclaim” their time, however. Far from it. In fact, it got so bad conservatives compiled Democratic interruptions into a minute-long video that would be hilarious if it were not so deeply frustrating.

It was this unwillingness to listen that seemed to grate most on the nerves of “The Five” co-host Greg Gutfeld. What was the point of  Democrats dragging Barr through the legal and establishment media mud for months on end for his testimony, if they only ever intended to use his appearance before the House as an attempt to grandstand and talk over him in pursuit of political points? Like most of us, Gutfeld reflected the day’s proceedings as a complete and utter waste of time.

“After that fiasco, we have to reclaim our time for America,” the host joked. “Have you ever heard of a more infantile loser defense? In the hearing that you could ask a question, then cut the answer off with ‘I’m reclaiming my time.’ It creates a one-way street, in which you could actually accuse somebody of murder, you could accuse them of treason and then you deny them the opportunity to defend themselves.

“This is the party of compassion? I saw nothing but fascists. These guys — no wonder they think the mob in Portland and Seattle is not a bad thing. The mob is just their street team,” he said.

“I have never seen anything more disgusting on TV. I thought the Kavanaugh hearing was an injustice. This is pretty close.”

Conservative commentator and alternate “The Five” co-host Katie Pavlich raised similar concerns, suggesting the hearing had revealed House Democrats to be responsible for the politicization of justice in Washington D.C. — an allegation often leveled against Barr by the American left.

“Their behavior of cutting him off and not allowing him to answer questions about very serious issues shows this is just an extension of the impeachment trial in terms of their behavior and they can’t move forward,” Pavlich said.

“While they accuse Bill Barr of being political, they were all very political today in trying to put the administration on trial again.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew J. Sciascia

GOP Rep: Pelosi Blocking Wuhan Investigation in Favor of Pinning Pandemic on Trump


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published May 6, 2020 at 12:38pm

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/gop-rep-pelosi-blocking-wuhan-investigation-favor-pinning-pandemic-trump/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear she’s going to work very hard to pin the coronavirus pandemic on President Donald Trump. Just don’t ask her to find out where the pandemic actually started.

Pelosi, as you may have heard, has put together a committee to oversee the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis. In a “Dear Colleague” letter, she assured everyone this was about ensuring the relief money was spent the way it was supposed to.

“We must make sure that the historic investment of taxpayer dollars made in the CARES Act is being used wisely and efficiently to help those in need, not be exploited by profiteers and price-gougers,” Pelosi wrote in the letter late last month, according to Politico.

However, you can probably tell where this whole thing is headed when you consider that each of the seven members she appointed to the committee were Democrats. The chairman, meanwhile, will be House Majority Whip James Clyburn, the South Carolina Democrat best known as the man who pretty much saved Joe Biden’s campaign by  endorsing him before the South Carolina primary in February. No conflict of interest there whatsoever.

Just don’t ask Pelosi to join an investigation of the origins of the novel coronavirus.

According to GOP Rep. Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania, his attempts to investigate a New York firm that sent money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology — potentially the source of the virus, according to some sources — have been stymied by Pelosi and House Democrats. During an appearance on “Breitbart News Saturday” this weekend, Reschenthaler talked about a letter he sent to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper regarding a Pentagon grant that went to EcoHealth Alliance, which has given money to the Wuhan institute on a number of occasions. (It’s unclear whether the Pentagon grant went directly to the Wuhan institute.)

Another grant he talked about involved the National Institutes of Health (in particular the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, run by Dr. Anthony Fauci) giving money to the EcoHealth Alliance — which, in turn, gave some of that money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to research coronaviruses in bats.

Just don’t expect much to come of any of this from Congress.

“We should have an investigative body looking at these grants, but Nancy Pelosi is not going to do that,” Reschenthaler said. “So you have myself and House Republicans. I can tell you I’m going to continue to look into these grants. I’m going to continue to look into the Department of Homeland Security as well to see what grants are going from there to China. I’m also looking at defunding the World Health Organization and we can talk about that as well.

“But the bottom line of the Democrats’ behavior is this: They hate this president so badly that they would rather side with the Chinese Communist Party than defend Americans and defend our spending and spend wisely and just be honest. That is their hatred for President Trump and disdain for President Trump’s supporters.”

Reschenthaler said he is trying to determine if money from the Pentagon grant went to the Wuhan lab.

“The [Department of Defense] also gave EcoHealth Alliance $6.5 million in a grant, and like you said, that grant was to understand bat-borne zoonotic disease in context with weapons of mass destruction, what I’m trying to find out is whether or not the DOD funding that went to EcoHealth also went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” he said.

“We know that the NIH funding did, and we also know that all money is fungible, but I want to see if we can trace that money to Wuhan to see how much and to what extent the DOD and American taxpayers actually funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

His ability to investigate these grants has been blocked specifically because the Democrats are in control of the House of Representatives and have no intention of conducting such an investigation. They already have a committee to deal with the coronavirus, after all, and they’re going to investigate pretty much nothing else but Trump.

“It’s imperative that we as House Republicans take back the House in this next election because Nancy Pelosi and the far-left Democrats are thwarting everything we do,” Reschenthaler said. “I do have to say I cringe when the media says ‘Nancy Pelosi and the squad’ because that minimizes how far left this party has gone. It’s just not ‘the squad.’ It’s not just Nancy Pelosi. It’s most of their members.

“Look at the Green New Deal. When that was floated, half of their co-sponsors were on the Green New Deal. Most of these Democrats vote 90 plus percent of the time with [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez],” he continued.

“This party has moved drastically to the left to the point of siding with the CCP over Americans. They don’t want to get to the bottom of these grants and they also don’t want my resolution run on the floor about defunding the World Health Organization or at least getting Dr. Tedros [Adhanom Ghebreyesus, head of the WHO] to resign and getting an international organization to investigate how the World Health Organization was either grossly negligent in dealing with the Wuhan virus or how they worked hand-in-glove with the Chinese Communist Party in trying to cover up the virus early on. But that’s the extent of their hatred, again, of this president and his supporters where they will not run these bills and they will not do these investigations because, again, they would rather side with the CCP than do the right thing.”

Unless Republicans take back control of the House in November, the body isn’t going to be doing much when it comes to investigating how much money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, much less whether the institute was at all responsible for the accidental release of the coronavirus — something that the American intelligence community hasn’t ruled out and that the president and others in the administration say they’ve seen evidence of, according to NBC News.

“But I think whether or not this disease came from a bat through a wet market or it came from a lab, we’ve got to see where it originated and we’ve got to see what we can do to make sure we stop these pandemics in the future,” Reschenthaler said.

“That could be something like encouraging other nations to stop interactions at wet markets, which should be happening anyhow. If it originated in a lab and somehow leaked from the lab, we shouldn’t be funding labs that study virology and weapons of mass destruction in terms of biological weapons. We shouldn’t fund these labs unless they have procedures in place where the disease won’t leak out and kill 60,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands around the world. This is a very responsible thing to do as good stewards of taxpayer money.”

And, as Reschenthaler pointed out, we don’t know how much data on coronaviruses we got from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We know that we certainly didn’t get any investigators inside of China after the coronavirus went worldwide. We still haven’t gotten investigators on the ground in Hubei province — and we won’t. But what we will get is Clyburn’s committee, which features firebrands like Reps. Maxine Waters of California and Nydia Velazquez of New York, among others.

This will certainly be a way for Democrats to go after the Trump administration, at least until the election and possibly beyond. It could even be, as House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy called it, “another impeachment committee.”

But the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Don’t expect that to be investigated anytime soon — not until the Democrats are out of power in the House.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Fauci To Testify Before Senate, Trump Stonewalls ‘Haters’ in House


Reported By Erin Coates | Published May 5, 2020 at 12:44pm

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/fauci-testify-senate-trump-stonewalls-haters-house/

“The House is a setup. The House is a bunch of Trump haters. They put every Trump hater on the committee. The same old stuff,” Trump told reporters outside the White House.

“They, frankly, want our situation to be unsuccessful, which means death. Which means death. And our situation’s going to be very successful.”

He added that Fauci, the director of the Nationals Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, will testify before the Senate, “and he looks forward to doing that.” The president went on to say that Democrats in the House “should be ashamed of themselves.” “They want us to fail so they can win an election, which they’re not going to win,” he said.

Fauci will join Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in testifying before a Senate committee on May 12, NPR reported.

Trump’s comments about the House confirmed reports that the White House had blocked Fauci from appearing before the House Appropriations Committee as part of its investigation into the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Democratic Reps. Nita Lowey of New York, the chairwoman of the committee, and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut condemned the White House’s decision to allow Fauci to testify before the Senate and not the House panel in a Saturday news release.

“The White House’s decision to allow Dr. Fauci to testify in the Republican-controlled Senate but not before the House Appropriations Committee is letting politics overtake public health. There is no distinction between our two co-equal legislative bodies,” they said in a statement.

“The COVID-19 pandemic should not and cannot become a partisan issue — there are too many lives at risk,” the lawmakers said. “We are all Americans first. But the White House’s partisan politics are clearly at play in this decision during our nation’s most challenging public health and economic crisis, and that is both alarming and offensive to the work the American people have elected us to do.”

White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said that allowing Fauci to appear before the committee would be “counter-productive.”

“While the Trump Administration continues its whole-of-government response to COVID-19, including safely opening up America again and expediting vaccine development, it is counter-productive to have the very individuals involved in those efforts appearing at Congressional hearings,” Deere said in a statement last week, according to The Hill.

“We are committed to working with Congress to offer testimony at the appropriate time,” he said.

Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway said Democratic lawmakers should not conduct their “usual fishing expedition” if they hear testimony from Fauci.

“I just hope that the people who are asking the questions are asking intelligent, rational questions that are actually relevant to the American health because we’ve seen what they do before,” Conway told Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” Tuesday.

“For example, they say stupid things like, ‘This is a job interview — this is a job interview for a lifetime appointment’ about Brett Kavanaugh. ‘Let’s believe all women’ — or at least those three women, most of whom then retracted or didn’t have corroborating evidence,” she said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – This Little Piggy

Pelosi and the Democrats, not letting the coronavirus crisis go to waste, are trying to throw unrelated pet pork projects into the rescue bill.
Pelosi COVID-19 Rescue BillPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – China Syndrome

Chinese propaganda and the mainstream media news seem to be aligned on blaming Trump for the coronavirus.
MS Media Run By ChinaPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at Flag And Cross.com here.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great Rush Limbaugh.

please likeand share and leave a comment

Watch: NY Times Headline Evolves, as It Spins Dems Blocking Virus Relief Bill that Would Help Americans


URL of the original posting site: https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/03/22/watch-ny-times-headline-evolves-to-spin-dems-blocking-bill-to-help-hard-hit-americans/

Watch: NY Times Headline Evolves, as It Spins Dems Blocking Virus Relief Bill that Would Help Americans

FILE- This May 2, 2017, file photo, shows the corporate signage on the headquarters building of The New York Times in New York. The New York Times Co. reports earnings Thursday, May 3, 2018. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, File)

As my colleague Bonchie reported earlier, Democrats blocked a bill to provide Americans with an economic stimulus to weather the harm to the economy the Wuhan coronavirus quarantines have wrought.

Democratic senators had reportedly worked on it with Republicans all weekend, had it ready to go, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allegedly stepped in and quashed the deal.

If you noticed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is absolutely livid.

Why? Because the woman who so successfully shepherded the impeachment fiasco may be trying a little more gamesmanship. Too bad, American people or the American economy, if you lose in the process. Democrats are playing their petty little power games again.

Guy Benson

@guypbenson

Spiraling global pandemic w/ people’s livelihoods getting wiped out…and Democrats are filibustering relief bills while internally debating how this will impact their electoral fortunes. Good look! https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1241855692815949832 

Maggie Haberman

@maggieNYT

Some Dems are betting that Trump will he received as Bush post-Katrina as opposed to Bush post-9/11. And there’s a split among Dems about how they ought to be handling Trump in this moment, which so far has ended up benefiting the president. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/22/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-wartime-president.html 

The Chief of Staff and Communications Director for Rep. Mark Meadows, Ben Williamson:

Ben Williamson@_WilliamsonBen

Senate spends all weekend negotiating a bipartisan deal. Agreement reached. Pelosi flies in from California, whips out her unrelated “wishlist,” and says no. Senate Democrats then vote against proceeding on a bill they negotiated.

Jaw dropping.

Because if they drag it out a little longer, they can do in some more businesses, cost people more jobs and that might hurt President Donald Trump, so it can be his “Katrina.” This is just despicable.

A lot of people are getting the message on social media about what the Democrats did.

But apparently Americans who read the New York Times aren’t supposed to really understand what went down, at least not if you check how the headline on the story about the Democrats blocking the stimulus package has changed.

Ken Farnaso, the deputy press secretary for the Trump campaign, picked it up.

But apparently that first change wasn’t good enough, because people could still read it was the Democrats who blocked relief for Americans. So the headline got yet another rewrite.

Ken Farnaso@KLF

Before and after.

View image on Twitter

Ken Farnaso@KLF

…and after, again?

View image on Twitter

“Democrats block” was changed to “partisan divide.” But as Elizabeth Harrington, GOP national spokesperson, observed, “Who is being “partisan”? Democrat leaders are blocking a bill negotiated by their own members.”

So how does this work? Does Pelosi or Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) make a call? Or is there a special person supervising the headlines to make sure they’re Democrat-friendly and compliant?

Democrats are playing with people’s lives and livelihoods. But apparently the “paper of record” doesn’t think that’s important to say in a headline.

But sure, no bias here.

please likeand share and leave a comment

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt


Posted By

URL of the original posting site: https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/20/john-bolton-admits-last-minute-impeachment-leak-was-a-publicity-stunt/

John Bolton Admits Last-Minute Impeachment Leak Was A Publicity Stunt

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted Wednesday that his testimony in President Donald Trump’s recent impeachment proceedings involving Ukraine would have had no impact on the trial’s outcome even after sections of his upcoming book leaked attempting to convict the president in its final days.

“People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said at Vanderbilt University Wednesday night during a forum with his predecessor Susan Rice, according to ABC News. “I will bet you a dollar right here and now my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”

“I sleep at night because I have followed my conscience,” Bolton added.

Rice challenged Bolton’s decision to remain silent throughout the process despite not ever being subpoenaed by the House or Senate in the proceedings.

“It’s inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony,” Rice said. “I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution.”

Bolton argued that the House botched the process and condemned House Democrats for having committed “impeachment malpractice.”

“The process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away from the president because it was so partisan,” Bolton claimed.

Bolton’s new book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” is slated to be released next month is expected to reveal what Bolton might have said had he been forced to testify before lawmakers in the impeachment proceedings. Republicans in the Senate defeated Democrats’ efforts to bring Bolton before the upper chamber before the final vote with only Sens. Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine voting in favor of the measure.

In the final days of the trial however, sections of Bolton’s upcoming book were leaked to the New York Times, featuring Bolton accusing Trump of tying the nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine with politically motivated investigations as Democrats alleged. The leak happened to come on the same day the book became available for online pre-order revealing the move as nothing more than a publicity stunt.

On Monday, Bolton accused the White House of trying to suppress details in the book in his first public remarks since the president’s exoneration at Duke University.

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Time for Comey To Sweat: Rep. Nunes Confirms Multiple Criminal Referrals on Witch Hunt Going to DOJ


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published April 8, 2019 at 6:17am

Ever since the release of Attorney General William Barr’s synopsis of the Mueller report, Rep. Devin Nunes — the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee — has been talking about criminal referrals for acts committed during the 2016 presidential campaign and its aftermath.

Now, the California congressman is making it clear just how many people he’s going after — and former FBI Director James Comey is just one of those who has a reason to sweat.

In an appearance on Fox News on Sunday, Nunes said he’d sent eight criminal referrals to Barr, the latest sign that high-level Republicans were going on the offensive in the wake of the Mueller report. Nunes told Fox News he’d been working on the referrals for over two years. However, he had delayed sending them over until Barr’s confirmation. (The Mueller report, one imagines, didn’t hurt his case either.)

“We’re prepared this week to notify the attorney general that we’re prepared to send those referrals over,” Nunes told host Maria Bartiromo. “First of all, all of these are classified or sensitive. … Five of them are what I would call straight up referrals — so, just referrals that name someone and name the specific crimes.

“Those crimes are lying to Congress, misleading Congress, leaking classified information. So five of them are those types.”

“There are three (referrals) that I think are more complicated,” he added.

They involve material investigators presented to the special court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

“So, on the first one, is FISA abuse and other matters. We believe there was a conspiracy to lie to the FISA court, mislead the FISA court by numerous individuals that all need to be investigated and looked at that, and we believe the (relevant) statute is the conspiracy statute,” he said.

That likely referred to the use of the “Trump dossier” — assembled as opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee — to obtain a warrant in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court against a Trump campaign official.

Nunes later said that “we’ve had a lot of concerns with the way intelligence was used” in the probe into the Trump campaign and possible collusion with the Russians.

“The second conspiracy one is involving manipulation of intelligence that also could ensnarl many Americans,” he continued.

“The third is what I would call a global leak referral,” Nunes said. “So, there are about a dozen highly sensitive classified information leaks that were given to only a few reporters over the last two-and-a-half-plus years. So, you know, we don’t know if there’s actually been any leak investigations that have been opened, but we do believe that we’ve got pretty good information and a pretty good idea of who could be behind these leaks.”

The “horrific” leaks Nunes referred to involved Trump’s conversations with major world leaders as well as the transcripts of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s phone calls.

“I think it’s impossible to ignore,” Nunes said. “If the Mueller team was busting people for lying to the FBI — there are some pretty simple times when people lied to Congress for the sole purpose of obstructing our investigation.”

The criminal referrals also might involve more than one person. In fact, Nunes said that a conspiracy referral could ensnare “a dozen, two dozen people.”

There are a few individuals we can possibly guess will be among those referred. Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen is being investigated for lying to Congress by both sides after inconsistencies in his testimony last month arose. And then there’s House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, who was suspected by Donald Trump Jr. when it came to leaking his closed-door testimony before the committee.

Fox News reported that in January, Trump Jr. said “there’s a 99.9 percent chance (House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is) the guy” who leaked the 2017 testimony, adding that he “came out of testimony 8 at night and CNN is running quotes from noon on about my testimony, you know, in the House Intelligence Committee.”

“I mean, that has to say something about what is going on and who they are. Since (Schiff has) never met a camera he didn’t love, I would bet a lot of money that it was him.”

The FISA warrant, however, might be of more concern to Democrats, particularly when it comes to Comey. Even if the criminal referrals don’t include him, they’re bound to include those close to him — and that’s something that’s probably going to make him sweat. Others who have reason to sweat? Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. They all signed FISA warrant applications.

The Republicans have increasingly gone on the offensive since the release of the Mueller report. Nunes’ criminal referrals aren’t even the most aggressive move — that award, thus far, has to go to Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who’s proposed a special counsel to look into all matter of Obama-era shenanigans in regard to the 2016 election — but it’s in the same vein.

The message is clear:

Now it’s the Republicans’ turn. And unlike the chimerical Russiagate accusations — what President Donald Trump repeatedly called a witch hunt — this is actually real. The idea that a dossier consisting of dodgy opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats was used to get a FISA warrant against a Trump campaign employee — that’s real.

Lives being destroyed to promote a narrative? That’s real, too.

Peter Strzok’s text messages and conflicts of interest in several investigations? Again, real.

This is about justice. Now that the phony “collusion” narrative is out of the way, we can finally seek it.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia.

Trump Furious as New Docs Show Potential Charges Against Hillary Quashed by Obama’s DOJ


Reported By Jack Davis | Published March 13, 2019 at 9:46am

New information shows the Justice Department was a “broken and corrupt machine” during its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails, President Donald Trump said Wednesday.

This week, Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia released 370 pages worth of transcripts from testimony given to the House Judiciary Committee last summer. Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who shared her anti-Trump sentiments with former FBI special agent Peter Strozek in a series of text messages that were later uncovered, testified about the 2016 investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

“The American people deserve to know what transpired in the highest echelons of the FBI during that tumultuous time for the bureau,” Collins said in a statement.

Trump cut to the chase in a pair of Wednesday tweets that condemned the Justice Department under the leadership of former President Barack Obama and the FBI under the leadership of former Director James Comey, whom Trump later fired.

“The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!” the president tweeted.

“Comey testified (under oath) that it was a ‘unanimous’ decision on Crooked Hillary,” he said. “Lisa Page transcripts show he LIED.”

Trump focused on a part of the transcript in which Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe was questioning Page, Fox News reported.

“So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory,” Ratcliffe began as he questioned Page under oath, according to the transcript, “but when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to –“

“That is correct,” Page said before Ratcliffe could finish.

Page said she and other FBI officials objected to Justice Department decisions, according to excerpts published in The Washington Post.

She said that “we all at FBI” also disagreed with the ruling to let “fact witnesses” — Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — sit in on Clinton’s interview about her email scandal. Page said that decision was made by Justice Department officials and not within the FBI.

“It is not typically appropriate or operationally necessary to have fact witnesses attend an interview,” Page said in the transcript, noting that no other witness was allowed to bring such an entourage.

Ratcliffe tweeted Tuesday that Page essentially confirmed that “the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information.”

Page said the DOJ and FBI had “multiple conversations … about charging gross negligence.”

She denied the FBI “blew over” potentially charging Clinton with gross negligence under the Espionage Act.

Officials considered the charge, she said, but thought it would be “constitutionally vague,” without any recent precedent, and “they did not feel that they could sustain a charge.”

Page said Richard Scott of the Justice Department advised against making the harsher charge, according to The Post. Scott had not responded to news outlet as of Wednesday morning.

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz criticized FBI officials for showing their biases in the Clinton case.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Jack Davis is a free-lance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

‘Superman’ Does Simple Math, Rips Apart Congresswoman’s Minimum-Wage Example


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published February 9, 2019 at 8:50am

Whenever one sees that Rep. Ilhan Omar has gone viral these days, the odds are better than not that it involves some sort of gaffe. And while a clip of the Minnesota Democrat decrying the wages that McDonald’s workers receive initially went viral because it made her liberal fans happy, it quickly became apparent she had no idea what she was talking about. In fact, her economics were so off that actor Dean Cain — who may have played Superman but certainly isn’t Milton Friedman when it comes to the dismal science — was able to rip it to shreds.

The clip in question came Thursday when Terrence Wise — a Missouri McDonald’s shift manager who has been active in the “Fight for $15” movement — was being questioned by Omar during congressional testimony.

“So the median pay for a McDonald’s worker was $7,000 in 2017,” she said. “And that is the pay gap between the CEO that’s making $21.8 (million) to the $7,000 that a worker who has put in 40 hours a (week) gets paid.

“To me, that just morally does not sit well.”

Omar posted the clip on Twitter along with a stronger statement: “This is a moral outrage. We need a $15 minimum wage so that no one is paid a poverty wage.”

Cain, an outspoken conservative, noticed a few problems with this proposition.

“At $11/hr. your math ain’t making any sense,” he tweeted. “Unless that dude works only 15 weeks of a year. And flipping burgers not quite the same as being CEO.”

First, a good reason those numbers don’t sound right: The median pay for a McDonald’s worker isn’t determined by the pay for a worker in the United States.

Omar likely got the statistic from a May 7, 2018, Associated Press story on the pay gap between CEOs and employees: “McDonald’s Corp. CEO Steve Easterbrook was paid almost $22 million last year, while the company’s median employee received around $7,000 annually. The fast-food company has the largest ratio in Illinois at 3,101 to 1.”

Denuded from the context was just what a “median employee” was.

“McDonald’s defines a median employee as a part-time hourly restaurant crew member in Poland, where wages are lower than in the U.S. and it didn’t use any of the exclusions allowed,” the AP story continued.

“Companies, like McDonald’s, with global workforces and that rely on part-time or temporary employees tend to have higher pay gaps. Easterbrook’s pay is also based on company performance, and the company’s value grew $36 billion last year.”

Even the AP’s wording was somewhat misleading, but Omar’s remarks went well beyond that — saying that someone working 40 hours a week at $11 an hour would end up with that $7,000. It didn’t take long for Twitter to pile on.

For the record, $11 an hour times 40 hours per week times 52 weeks in a year equals $22,880, not $7,000.

While this probably isn’t Omar’s worst gaffe thus far (I think her tweet about the poor Black Hebrew Israelites — members of a racist organization — getting harassed by Covington Catholic High School has to take the cake), this is certainly up there. Surely someone on her staff could have run the numbers?

But that’s the thing about the new Democrats. They operate by a motto that’s an inverse of conservative commentator Ben Shapiro’s trademark phrase: Feelings don’t care about your facts. Liberals feel for low-wage workers and don’t like CEOs, no matter how much low-wage workers are worth to a company or how much value CEOs may add.

Therefore, these numbers might be wrong, but they don’t feel wrong.

It’s the same way they know that $15 is the perfect minimum wage. This isn’t from studies, mind you (which show a $15 minimum wage kills jobs, especially given automation), but seemingly from the fact that it’s a nice, round number and the “Fight for $15” is alliterative.

With logic like that, we should get ready to see a lot of this from Omar in the coming years. More’s the pity.

ABOUT THE REPORTER:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Dick Morris: Trump’s Base Returns in Nick of Time


Opinion By Dick Morris | October 22, 2018 at 10:53am

The voters who elected Donald Trump in 2016 are returning to him just as the midterms approach. With their help, Trump has recorded his highest job approval in the WSJ/NBC poll since he took office — 47 percent.

But the real story is behind the numbers. Trump’s base — white non-college voters (38 percent of the country) is rallying to his candidates just as they did in the closing weeks of 2017. According to a Fox News poll, the only one that measures white non-college voters as a discrete group, Trump’s approval has surged among these folks.

In August 2016, his margin of approval over disapproval was only 11 points (54-43).  By September, it had risen to a 17 point margin (57-40).

In their latest poll, Oct. 13-16, it surged to a 21 point margin (60-39).

These voters are coming home.

This base lives in a place that is a blind spot for the mainstream media. It doesn’t really know that these voters exist. They live away from the West Coast and outside of the Northeast. They haven’t been to college. And they are white. The failure to measure their changing opinions is responsible for the media’s error in predicting a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016 — and they haven’t changed their methodology since.

Trump’s base hides in plain sight during the bulk of the year. Estranged from the political process, they don’t follow it closely except when their man is in danger and summons them forth. That’s why the GOP did not do as well in the special elections of the past two years as Trump had hoped. But when the national fireball rings, they wake up and respond.

The controversy over the Kavanaugh nomination and the phony stories of sexual abuse energized the sleeping giant and motivated the voters to return to the Trump banner. Since, by emphasizing the immigration issue and the caravan arriving from Central America, he has held their attention.

The national polling is slow to pick them up on its radar. While their participation and increasing enthusiasm shows up quickly in the national job approval polling, it is slower to make its impact felt in the less frequent polling of the nation’s Senate races. The House polling, less frequent still, takes even longer to manifest their participation, but they are there, moving the needle.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owner of this website.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.

Maxine Waters Panders To Millennial Voters, Shamed When Only 10 Kids Show Up For Event



disclaimerReported By Ben Marquis | June 4, 2018 at 1:25pm

 

Largely owing to her vehement and vitriolic opposition to President Donald Trump, Democratic California Rep. Maxine “Impeach 45! Waters has been heralded as something of a leader among liberals these days.

The media has even attempted to portray the 79-year-old Waters as some sort of guiding beacon for liberals of the millennial generation, granting her the nickname “Auntie Maxine” in a bid to further the notion that young people will flock to and follow her experienced wisdom.

But that image of Waters is little more than illusory, as was clearly revealed during a campaign event Sunday which was explicitly targeted toward young millennials but had an exceptionally low turnout among the desired audience, according to The American Mirror

Waters promoted the June 3 event on Twitter as a “Meet & Greet Tweet-a-thon” with the elected representative and young supporters.

max01amax01b

The event was intended to teach Waters’ young supporters how to “reclaim our time” and get them “energized and ready” to get out and vote on her behalf.

But judging by the comments on that post, Waters’ support among not just millennials, but voters of all ages in general, was simply not evident, nor was it evident in a short video from the event tweeted out by Waters later in the day. 

Judging by that tweet, not many more than 10-15 actual millennials showed up to meet and greet Waters, a majority of whom ended up uncomfortably arrayed at the front with a microphone shoved in their face to speak about the issues most important to them. They mostly spoke about immigration concerns and their mounting student debt, as well as the increasingly dismal homeless problem in the state.homeless numbers

Waters eventually reclaimed the microphone from her young supporters and delivered a brief campaign-style speech which proclaimed that Democrats would retake control of Congress via an energized “Blue Wave” of liberal and progressive voters in the November midterm elections.

As the camera panned around during her speech, empty tables and chairs sparsely populated by a handful of older and senior supporters were on display. 

At one point near the end of her monologue, Waters shifted her focus toward attacking her chief rival in the upcoming election, Republican candidate Omar Navarro, who she appeared to smear based on his alleged wrong way of thinking as a person of Latino heritage.

“He has a last name that is Latin. He’s Cuban and what a lot of our people don’t understand is, he supports the president building a wall,”  Waters said of her GOP opponent.

“He’s opposed to DACA, he does not support DACA, and in addition to that, he is not worried at all, has not said a word about what is happening at the border,” Waters added, a reference to the separation of families that come across the border illegally, a policy that existed under former President Barack Obama but which has now drawn fire under Trump as it is actually being enforced.

Waters does not represent the next great hope of the Democratic party among young millennial voters, but if the liberal media wants to continue to press that ludicrous narrative in spite of evidence to the contrary, let them have at it.

please likeand share and leave a comment

Comey Disaster: Agent Who Quit Over Rigged Hillary Investigation Heads to Congress


disclaimerReported By Cillian Zeal | May 25, 2018 at 6:50am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/comey-disaster-agent-who-quit-over-rigged-hillary-investigation-heads-to-congress/

An FBI agent who allegedly quit the bureau over his belief that the Hillary Clinton email investigation was rigged will testify before the House of Representatives, The Hill reported.

The joint investigation between the House Judiciary and the Oversight Committees — led by Republican Reps. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia and Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, respectively — has been a source of consternation for Republicans and Democrats alike.

Conservatives have complained about the slow pace of the examination into how the Clinton email investigation was conducted, noting that only two witnesses have appeared before it.

Democrats, of course, have complained that it exists at all, since anything that distracts from the endless investigation into how President Donald Trump is really a Russian plant is simply frivolous — particularly if it implicates former FBI Director James Comey, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or former President Barack Obama in any wrongdoing.

Well, now we’re finally about to see some fireworks. Three top witnesses are going to testify before lawmakers: John Giacalone, who was in charge of the Clinton investigation for the first seven months; Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division; and Michael Steinbach, former head of the FBI’s national security division and the man who succeeded Giacalone.

All three are of particular interest, especially since Priestap was the supervisor of FBI agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages have thrown the objectivity of the entire investigation into doubt.

However, the real headliner here may be Giacalone. Shortly after then-FBI Director Comey announced he wouldn’t be pursuing charges against Hillary Clinton for the email server, Fox News pundit Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote a column in which he claimed Giacalone had quit the bureau because he believed the investigation was rigged.

In the Oct. 28, 2016 column, Napolitano claimed at that at the start of the Clinton email investigation, “agents and senior managers gathered in the summer of 2015 to discuss how to proceed. It was obvious to all that a prima-facie case could be made for espionage, theft of government property and obstruction of justice charges. The consensus was to proceed with a formal criminal investigation.” 

“Six months later, the senior FBI agent in charge of that investigation resigned from the case and retired from the FBI because he felt the case was going ‘sideways’; that’s law enforcement jargon for ‘nowhere by design,‘” Napolitano wrote.

“John Giacalone had been the chief of the New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., field offices of the FBI and, at the time of his ‘sideways’ comment, was the chief of the FBI National Security Branch.”

“The reason for the ‘sideways’ comment must have been Giacalone’s realization that DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury. That is nearly fatal to any government criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony or for tangible things; only grand juries can,” Napolitano continued.

“Giacalone knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would be toothless, as it would have no subpoena power. He also knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would have a hard time persuading any federal judge to issue search warrants.”

Napolitano speculated there were several possible reasons that the case went “sideways.” One was that Obama feared having to testify if Clinton went to trial (he had sent emails to the private server, after all, meaning he was aware of it). There was also the fact that a Clinton indictment could have led to Trump becoming president, and Obama simply couldn’t countenance that. (Less than two weeks after Napolitano’s column was written, it must be noted, that reason became moot.)

Either way, if the investigation had indeed gone “sideways,” it would need to have done so with approval from the highest levels — certainly James Comey and possibly Barack Obama.like i said

Whether or not Giacalone has any concrete evidence of this or not is another issue entirely. My guess would be no, given that we’re going on two years since Comey’s infamous news conference and we still haven’t heard anything to that effect from Giacalone.

However, of all of the congressional testimonies we’ve seen over the past few years, this could be one of the most underreported. John Giacalone may open up a gigantic can of worms for Comey and Clinton — one that drags them back in the spotlight for reasons significantly less pleasant than their book tours.

please likeand share and leave a comment

Over 100 Conservatives Come Together, Call on Jim Jordan To Replace Paul Ryan as Speaker


disclaimerReported By Robert Donachie | May 22, 2018 at 8:09am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/over-100-conservatives-come-together-call-on-jim-jordan-to-replace-paul-ryan-as-speaker/

A coalition of more than 100 conservatives sent a letter to House Freedom Caucus co-founder Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio on Monday urging him to throw his name in to replace outgoing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

“There must be a real race for Speaker of the House. Now. No backroom deals. A real race, starting this spring, to make every incumbent and candidate commit on the record, as a campaign issue, whether they’ll vote to save the Swamp or drain it,” the letter reads. “America needs you to declare yourself as a candidate for Speaker at once. We write to you on behalf of millions of Americans who want Congress to Drain the Swamp.”

Ryan rattled Capitol Hill in April when he announced he will retire from the House after nearly 20 years in Congress, telling reporters he wanted to spend more time with his family and pursue other opportunities. 

Two of the top House Republicans — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana — are angling for the position, but neither are thought to have a guaranteed lock on the speakership.

McCarthy failed to garner the 218 required votes to become speaker in 2015, but his particularly close relationship with the president has some expecting that, along with Ryan’s full-fledged endorsement, it will give him an upper hand over Scalise in the coming months.

Scalise wouldn’t rule out a potential bid for Ryan’s job but is also adamant he would not run against McCarthy, who he considers a “good friend,” he said in March. 

Yet, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, who is best friends with Jordan, might have the closest relationship with the president over any other member of Congress. During a speech Thursday in which Jordan appeared to preview a bid for the speakership, Jordan joked that Meadows was in the back, taking a phone call from the president, which Meadows is known to do on a regular basis.

The letter Jordan received Monday from conservatives echoes a great deal of what the congressman has said himself since Ryan announced his retirement. Namely, Jordan is adamant that Republicans need to get back to accomplishing what they promised voters during the 2016 election cycle, like dealing with immigration and border security, repealing and replacing Obamacare, and stopping out-of-control spending.

Jordan’s response to questions about the speaker’s race have been the same since the day TheDCNF first reported the growing wave of support for his candidacy: There is no speaker’s race, and conservatives need to focus on the issues.

Conservatives are pushing back against Jordan’s assertion that there isn’t an ongoing race to replace Ryan.

“To those who say there is no Speaker’s race at the moment, we say that it’s already underway — in back rooms, behind closed doors, and aimed at preserving the Swamp and making it bigger. The Speaker’s race must be public. There will be no Republican Speaker in 2019 unless the GOP can appeal to those Americans in its own ranks, among independents and even many Democrats who voted for Donald Trump to drain the Swamp and for the current Republican-led House to help him do that,” the letter reads. 

“The present House Republican leadership has failed. It is part of the problem. You are the solution. This is your moment. We pray you will seize it, knowing that if you do, we will do everything we can to help you succeed.”death-of-the-gop

The HFC is no stranger to putting leadership on notice. Jordan, Meadows and HFC members shot down a farm bill in order to secure a vote on an immigration proposal they were promised months ago. Ryan and McCarthy huddled with Meadows and Jordan in the back of the House chamber before the final gavel Friday, but their 11th-hour attempts were unable to sway the conservative members. The bill failed with members voting 198-213, dealing a decisive blow to leadership.

Friday’s vote is evidence the HFC has the leverage to sway major policy issues, given the power of the caucus’ 36 members’ votes. If the caucus votes as a coalition, they can kill a bill or get concessions from leadership.

Many believe Jordan’s bid would be to get concessions from either McCarthy or Scalise, but Ryan still has the rest of the year as speaker, assuming he isn’t pressured to step down earlier.

McCarthy’s folks are reportedly nervous about the potential heat he will take in a drawn-out speaker’s race if Ryan decides to stay through the November midterm elections, which he has promised he intends to do.

A version of this article appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.please likeand share and leave a comment

Steve Bannon: Pelosi Will Try to Impeach Donald Trump if Republicans Lose the House


Reported by Michelle Moons

URL of the original posting site: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/05/steve-bannon-pelosi-will-try-impeach-donald-trump-republicans-lose-house/

WASHINGTON, DC — Breitbart News executive chairman and former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon warned a room full of immigration activists on a Washington, DC, afternoon that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi lives for that “one more bullet in the chamber,” to impeach President Donald Trump if Democrats win back the House of Representatives.

Bannon called out House Speaker Paul Ryan for attempts to “slip amnesty into a spending bill,” warning also that if he continues to press for amnesty, “Republicans are going to lose the House of Representatives.”

“It’s so obvious,” said Bannon, who further alerted the crowd at the Remembrance Project conference that “if they lose the House of Representatives, you’ve already got a Wall Street billionaire in Tom Steyer up there putting what? Millions of dollars in the ads to do one thing, what? Impeach the president of the United States. That’s all Nancy Pelosi lives for.”

On Thursday New York Times political reporter and MSNBC Contributor Jeremy Peters told MSNBC viewers that Pelosi will impeach Trump if Democrats win back the House. He suggested that the real purpose of Trump’s negotiations with Pelosi was to “undermine” Ryan and McConnell.

Pelosi has tried to tamp down on the idea that she is for impeaching Trump after billionaire Steyer ran ads calling for Trump’s impeachment. Vanity Fair reported on the ads and fears within Democrat leaders that these calls for impeachment “could imperil the party’s chances of retaking congressional control in 2018 and winning the White House in 2020.”

“She thinks she’s got one more bullet in the chamber,” Bannon said of Pelosi, adding that she has fought back attempts to drive her out of Democratic Party leadership. “She’s not going. You know why? She knows Ryan’s going to play right into her hands.”

Pelosi knows Ryan will keep trying to “force amnesty down the throats of the Republican Party and voters of the Republican Party and break the back of the grassroots and their enthusiasm for 2018,” he said. If the House then flips to Democrat control, Bannon said the first action Democrats will take against Trump is “payback for all of this.”

“So this is a struggle, this is every day, and the first struggle, as we often have, is the Republican establishment. Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan,” said Bannon, who said the fight doesn’t start in 2018, but in the next 30 to 40 days, or the next two months. He warned that the Republican establishment will try and “hide the football and they’re gonna try to tell you that they’ve got enhanced border security and they’ve got 10 times more ICE agents and they’re gonna have, this is never gonna happen again.”

“They’re lying,” warned Bannon. “And here’s the important thing, you know they’re lying. You’re on to their game now.”

“This fight is going to be so nasty,” said Bannon. “They’re gonna tell so many lies, but at the end of the day I’m glad I’m on your side of the football.”

Follow Michelle Moons on Twitter @MichelleDiana 

House passes budget, paving way for tax reform


Reported

House passes budget, paving way for tax reform

 

The House passed its 2018 budget resolution Thursday in a party-line vote that represents a step toward its goal of sending tax-reform legislation to President Trump. In a 219-206 vote, lawmakers approved a budget resolution for 2018 that sets up a process for shielding the GOP tax bill from a filibuster in the Senate.

A total of 18 Republicans voted against the resolution, along with all the Democrats who were present.

GOP lawmakers hailed the vote as meaningful because of the tax measure.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We haven’t reformed this tax system since 1986. We need to pass this budget so we can help bring more jobs, fairer taxes and bigger paychecks for people across this country,” Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said during House floor debate.

Democrats lambasted it for the same reason.

“This budget isn’t about conservative policy or reducing the size of our debt and deficits. It’s not even about American families. This budget is about one thing — using budget reconciliation to ram through giant tax giveaways to the wealthy and big corporations — and to do it without bipartisan support,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee.

The budget reconciliation rules would allow Republicans in the Senate to pass tax reform without any Democratic votes, though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) can only afford two defections. Republicans used the same strategy for ObamaCare repeal but failed, and are hoping for a better outcome on taxes.

Yet there are already signs of trouble, with some Republicans questioning whether the tax proposal would add too much to the deficit, and others balking at plans to eliminate a deduction for state and local taxes. The tax plan is now estimated to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit over a decade, but that figure would grow if the state and local tax deduction is not eliminated.

Republicans have yet to secure a major legislative win despite having unified control of government. They hope to secure a tax win by the end of the year, which is an ambitious timeline.

The GOP tax reform framework unveiled last week would cut the top tax rate for the wealthy and lower taxes for businesses. The proposal would consolidate the current seven individual tax brackets into three, with rates of 12 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. Committees may choose to establish a fourth rate above 35 percent for the wealthiest Americans. The current top individual rate is 39.6 percent. 

House Republicans are far behind schedule in passing the budget, which is normally approved in the spring. Thursday’s vote comes five days into the new fiscal year, and a month after the House passed all 12 of its spending bills for 2018. 

The government is operating under a temporary spending measure that runs out on December 8. Congress and Trump must strike a new deal to prevent a shutdown after that deadline. The House budget is in many ways an opening bid in that battle. 

Like the already-passed spending bills, it would increase defense spending by $72 billion, and cut nondefense spending by $5 billion. The Senate’s plan keeps overall funding levels steady.

It also includes plans for trillions of dollars in spending cuts over a decade, including from programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but does include enforcement mechanisms to enact those plans. The budget outline, for example, assumes the adoption of a House-passed ObamaCare repeal bill that has not advanced.

The House budget leaves no room for tax reform to add to the deficit. Instead, it provides instructions for $203 billion in spending cuts from welfare programs in areas such as nutritional assistance and education. 

To unlock the reconciliation rules for tax reform, lawmakers will likely have to go to conference to sort out differences with the Senate’s budget resolution. The upper chamber’s version is being marked up in committee Thursday and is expected to move to the Senate floor in two weeks. 

The Senate budget carves out $1.5 trillion in possible tax cuts for the reform effort, a figure the House is expected to agree to. The Senate is not expected to accept the $203 billion in mandatory cuts from the House budget, but House Budget Committee Chairman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) said she will fight to keep them in. 

House passes 20-week abortion ban


Reported

House passes 20-week abortion ban
© Greg Nash

The House passed a bill Tuesday that would ban abortions after 20 weeks. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), would make it a crime to perform or attempt an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with the possibility of a fine, up to five years in prison, or both. The measure passed heavily along party lines, 237-189.

ADVERTISEMENT

The bill allows exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman and wouldn’t penalize women for seeking to get abortions after 20 weeks.

The legislation is likely to face a tough sell in the Senate. A similar bill passed the House in 2015 but was blocked by Senate Democrats. With only a 52-seat majority it would be unlikely Senate Republicans could gather the 60 votes needed to move the legislation to President Trump’s desk.

The White House said Monday that it “strongly supports” the bill and “applauds the House of Representatives for continuing its efforts to secure critical pro-life protections.” 

The bill is a top priority of anti-abortion groups, which argue a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation and later.

“It’s past time for Congress to pass a nationwide law protecting unborn children from the unspeakable cruelty of late-term abortion,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group in D.C. 

Abortion rights groups, however, have condemned the bill.

“The agenda behind this bill is clear: to shame women and to ban safe, legal abortion,” said Dana Singiser, vice president for government relations and public policy for Planned Parenthood.

Pelosi: ‘Hundreds Of Thousands’ Will Die If GOP Health Care Bill Passes


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/pelosi-hundreds-of-thousands-will-die-if-gop-health-care-bill-passes/

The California congresswoman went on to contend that Republicans should join with Democrats to fix Obamacare, not scrap it, and she argued that Republicans are currently sabotaging the law. According to Pelosi, the GOP House and Senate bills are “systemically, structurally, they are very, very harmful to the American people. They will raise costs, with fewer benefits. …They will undermine Medicare.” The minority leader likely meant to refer to “Medicaid,” because neither GOP bill seeks to change Medicare.

As reported by Western Journalism, Obamacare has failed to live up to many of the promises made by former President Barack Obama and the Democrats.

Perhaps the most infamous promise broken was Obama’s claim, both before and after the bill’s passage, that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

Politifact named this promise the “Lie of the Year” in 2013, as over four million cancellation letters went out to policy holders that year, and such letters continued in the years thereafter.

Despite the insurance mandates contained in Obamacare, the former president promised that premiums would go down an average of $2,500 a year per family of four, thereby living up to the name “Affordable Care Act.” However, the opposite proved to be true, and Politifact listed Obama’s assurance as a “Promise Broken.”

The average nationwide premium cost has increased by 99 percent for individuals and 140 percent for families from 2013 through February 2017, according to an eHealth report.

Moreover, the Heritage Foundation determined that 70 percent of U.S. counties have only one or two insurers offering coverage through the Obamacare exchange. Some areas of the country could face having no insurers on the exchange at all in 2018, according to Bloomberg.

Despite the law’s major failings, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., joined with Pelosi in arguing that the only solution is to fix Obamacare.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Durbin pointed to the Republican plan to provide Medicaid funds to the states in block grants as something he could not support. He added that the Republican plan would result in 23 million less people obtaining health insurance, which is what the Congressional Budget Office projected would be the result over 10 years.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., responded, “The amount of dollars going into Medicaid continues to go up year after year. So if Senator Durbin refers to a cut, only in Washington is giving more each year, something you can conceive as a cut, if it doesn’t go up as fast as he would like it to go up.”

Under Obamacare, the Medicaid rolls grew by approximately 12 million people, thanks to new eligibility guidelines. Over 70 million are now enrolled in the program, or about one in every five Americans.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies with the Cato Institute, told Western Journalism that even the so-called cuts designed to slow the growth of Medicaid should be viewed with skepticism.

Cannon explained that proposed legislation does not call for true block grants, but rather matching grants based on the number of Medicaid enrollees in each state. States can increase the grant cap simply by increasing the number of enrollees.

Further, Cannon noted, in both the Senate and the House plans, the restraints in the increase in Medicaid spending are not due to take effect until the 2020s, after multiple intervening federal elections. Therefore, he believes the chances of them being repealed is high, particularly since many Republican governors support Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

“This is a Medicaid expansion repeal that was designed never to take effect,” he said.

Pelosi Claims Trump Will Self Impeach


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/pelosi-has-lost-it/

Advertisement – story continues below

It’s a bit difficult to take talk of impeachment of President Donald Trump from the left seriously, if only because we’ve been hearing it from the moment that he was elected. Any misgiving the left has about our 45th president is almost immediately transmuted into a clarion call to impeach the man and throw him out of office.

In fact, a recent poll by Politico and Morning Consult found that 43 percent of the people who favor impeaching the president don’t actually think he’s committed a crime that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is the standard the Constitution sets.

Don’t worry, though. Nancy Pelosi has a new strategy to impeach Trump, and it shows just how much she’s lost it: she thinks that the president can be “self-impeached.”

Yes, really. Politico reported that during a closed-door meeting with Democrats on Tuesday, the House minority leader used the expression to mollify her charges in the lower chamber and implore them to wait for investigations of the president to run their course.

“It’s a big deal to talk about impeachment,” multiple sources present reported Pelosi as saying. “I think he’s going to self-impeach.”

I’m not quite sure how that works (is it like an Ouroboros of impeachment or something?), but it’s become pretty clear that the Democrats are now pinning their hopes on the president tweeting something that lets them vote him out of office. Good luck with that one.

Advertisement – story continues below

In spite of the fact that she has turned into a bit of a nutter, there is (kind of) a method to Pelosi’s madness. According to The Hill, Democrat leadership is quickly coming to the realization that the perfervid rage of their constituents and rank-and-file legislators against the president is translating into poor decisions — including an effort by Rep. Brad Sherman of California to introduce evidence-free articles of impeachment.

At the same caucus meeting, Rep. Michael Capuano — a Massachusetts Democrat who is an ally of party leadership — said there needed to be “a discussion within the caucus — in a public forum — before we do something that would position our colleagues or our future colleagues.”

“Emotions are high. These issues have political implications and government ones,” he added. According to reports, Pelosi backed Capuano’s statement.

However, this shouldn’t be a surprise to Minority Leader Pelosi. Even the slightest innuendo about the president gets liberals talking about impeachment. Why should we be surprised when the men and women who represent these snowflakes take them seriously?

Here’s a brief compendium of the things the left thinks Trump should be impeached for:

  • Firing James Comey. (Even though they wanted to.)
  • Colluding with the Russians. (Even though he didn’t.)
  • Obstructing justice. (Even though that’s a matter of opinion.)
  • Eating two scoops of ice cream while everyone else had one. (Call me when he eats an entire Fudgie the Whale cake.)
  • Being the second shooter on the grassy knoll. (We all know that shot was fired from an Illuminati black helicopter.)
  • Canceling “Twin Peaks” back in 1991. (David Lynch is just existentialist nonsense masquerading as profundity, anyhow.) Making up the last two items on this list. (Fair enough.)

There is not, at this time, any evidence which should lead to the impeachment of President Trump. This puts the Democrats in a bad position. Either leadership allows the party’s most unhinged members to go through an impeachment attempt they know won’t (and shouldn’t) succeed, or they acknowledge that the fervor they’ve been fomenting against the president has all been for show.

For now, Pelosi is splitting the difference, setting a strategy of “self-impeachment.” Nice try. I think it’s time to consider “self-retirement,” Rep. Pelosi.

A Look at 4 of the GOP’s Obamacare Replacement Plans


waving flagAuthored by Melissa Quinn / / January 23, 2017

During the 114th Congress, Republicans introduced at least 400 bills changing the health care system and crafted several Obamacare replacement plans, including “A Better Way,” which was released by House Speaker Paul Ryan and the Republican conference last year. (Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom)

complete-message

<!– United States House Speaker Paul Ryan (Republican of Wisconsin) speaks to reporters after meeting with US Vice President-elect Mike Pence on their plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the US Capitol in Washington, DC on Wednesday, January 4, 2017. Photo Credit: Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia –>

As Republicans debate their strategy for repealing and replacing Obamacare, GOP lawmakers have been accused of failing to put forth a replacement plan for the health care law. But since President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, Republicans in both the House and Senate have unveiled a number of proposals mapping out how the health care law would be replaced, should it be dismantled.

Most of the major plans share some key provisions: they offer tax credits to consumers; expand the use of health savings accounts, or medical savings accounts; and reform Medicaid. But differences emerge in the nitty gritty details of each proposal, including whether tax credits are based on age or income, where to cap the tax exclusion on employer-sponsored coverage, and whether to turn Medicaid into a block grant program or per capita allotment.

House and Senate Republicans, along with President Donald Trump, are meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Thursday and Friday for their annual retreat, where House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said earlier this month lawmakers will have a “full, exhausting” conversation on their plan for repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Already, there are at least four plans crafted to replace the law. On Monday, Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Susan Collins of Maine introduced another proposal ahead of this week’s GOP gathering.

While the other major Republican proposals repeal all of Obamacare, the Cassidy-Collins plan repeals only the health care law’s mandates, like the individual and employer mandates; maintains its subsidies and taxes; and allows states that like Obamacare to keep Obamacare.

In addition to the Cassidy-Collins plan, The Daily Signal examined proposals offered by Ryan and the Republican conference; Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., who Trump nominated for secretary of health and human services; the Republican Study Committee; and Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, and Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan.

See how these Obamacare replacement plans stack up.

170118_obamacare-replace_price-plan_v3

170118_obamacare-replace_ryan-plan_v4

170118_obamacare-replace_rsc-plan_v2

170118_obamacare-replace_burr-plan_v3

House Panel Set To Consider Law Protecting Religious Americans From Discrimination


waving flagAuthored by Randy DeSoto June 30, 2016

Over a year after it was introduced, the First Amendment Defense Act, designed to protect Americans from being discriminated against by the federal government based on their religious beliefs, will soon get a hearing in the House of Representatives. The Daily Signal reports that the hearing is set for July 12 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah.Happy Happy Joy Joy

The proposed legislation, H.R. 2802, prohibits;

“The federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that:

(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or

(2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

 

H.R. 2802 lists specific discriminatory acts the federal government may not take, including:

  • Altering the federal tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay or revoke certain tax exemptions of any such person.

  • Disallowing a deduction of any charitable contribution made to or by such person.

  • Withholding, reducing, excluding, terminating, or otherwise denying any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment or similar position or status from or to such person.

  • Withholding, reducing, excluding, terminating or otherwise denying any benefit under a federal benefit program.

 

The bill currently has 171 co-sponsors, all of whom are Republican, save Rep. Daniel Lipsinski, D-Ill.

Dan Holler, with the conservative advocacy group Heritage Action for America, is encouraged that the committee is finally moving forward with a hearing and hopes the legislation will now be expedited. “Given the bill’s broad support, both on the committee and within the Republican conference as a whole, there is no reason for delay,” he said.

Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign, said of the bill when it was introduced, “Once again, House Republicans are pursuing an extreme agenda that is designed to harm LGBT families under the guise of religious freedom. The right to believe is fundamental. The right to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate is not.” Leftist Propagandist

Clearly, the organization would not be willing to accept the federal government denying a businesses or individuals contracts or tax benefits because they believed in or advocated for LGBT issues; however, it is supportive of allowing the federal government to do just that to people of faith.

A related issue came up in the House of Representatives in May when Rep. Sean Maloney, D-N.Y., offered legislation seeking to codify an executive order by President Obama barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers, with no exception for those with sincerely held religious beliefs.

The amendment passed with 40 Republicans joining the Democrats in a 223-195 win for Obama; however, the overall bill it was attached to was soundly defeated, so the amendment did not become law.

H.R. 2802 may be able to garner broader support because it zeroes in on specific discriminatory acts by the federal government against religious Americans. Liberal objections to religious liberty measures passed in certain states in recent years have centered on concerns that business owners, based on their religious beliefs, would be allowed to discriminate against LGBT customers.

fight Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagFoul Movement

Occupy House Floor, another democrat anti-gun movement raising a stink in order to deflect attention away from Obama’s failed terrorism policy.

House Democrats Protest / Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco.

More A.F. Branco cartoons at Patriot Update here.

A.F. Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies Hey Leftist Armed Criminals and Dictators Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

BREAKING: Trump Insider Reveals Top Candidate for VP Post, and It’s AWESOME


waving flagBy: Wilmot Proviso on May 12, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/trump-insider-top-candidate/

An insider close to presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump told reporters that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has emerged as an early favorite for running mate. According to Newsmax, while Trump is publicly saying that there are a few names that are being considered, the campaign insider said that Gingrich comes the closest to what Trump wants in a running mate.

Trump recently told Associated Press that his ideal vice presidential pick would be someone who could help “with legislation, getting things through.” According to the anonymous insider, Trump realized that he’s a political novice and saw Gingrich, who served in the House of Representatives for 20 years, as someone who could guide him through the complexities of Washington and help him “make nice” with Capitol Hill.

Secondly, Trump wanted someone he “can live with for eight years.” Gingrich and Trump are said to get along well, as opposed to some of the other more conventional picks. Word is that former competitors Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who allegedly lobbied hard through surrogates, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who Trump finds “kind of quirky,” were out of the running for that very reason.

Thirdly, while Gingrich didn’t initially endorse Trump (he has since), he was an early defender of his when the media began attacking him. “Donald values loyalty,” the source told Newsmax.

Finally, Trump wanted a candidate who has been extensively vetted by the media. Gingrich, who ran for president in 2012 and was a top Congressman for 20 years, has been through a very strong vetting process.

“For the most part, they’ve been vetted over the last 20 years,” Trump said of the candidates on his shortlist.

For his part, Gingrich was admirably terse when Newsmax asked him via email if he’d been in discussions with the Trump campaign, simply replying, “No.” However, given he’s the name that’s popped up the most often in the past few weeks, we can only assume him to be the front-runner.

H/T teaparty.org

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

From My Email INBOX


waving flagThis is a letter from a Democrat to his two Democrat Senators.  My belief is that it applies to virtually all Senators of both parties and probably the House also.  Caution this is political but also bipartisan.

This is really a great letter.  I am most impressed by the fact the gentleman that wrote it signed his name and address to it. Snopes.Com confirmed this letter to be true.

This came from a democrat much to my surprise! I read it and it certainly hits the nail where it would hurt. Google has the letter posted on their web site.

This is well written and should be read by everyone in these United States! It will be well worth the three minutes it requires to read this. It is quite impressive.

You can be Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Independent or Libertarian and I bet this will hit a nerve.  Our country is in real trouble.

This gentleman is obviously quite smarter than the two senators he sent it to. All I can say is amen to everything he said. A very articulate letter sent to the two U.S. Senators from Washington State.

_______________________________________

Senator Patty Murray
Senator Maria Cantwell
Washington, DC , 20510

Dear Senators:

I have tried to live by the rules my entire life. My father was a Command Sergeant Major, U.S. Army, who died of combat related shortly after his retirement.  It was he who instilled in me those virtues he felt important – honesty, duty, patriotism and obeying the laws of God and of our various governments.  I have served my country, paid my taxes, worked hard, volunteered and donated my fair share of money, time and artifacts.

Today, as I approach my 79th birthday, I am heart-broken when I look at my country and my government.  I shall only point out a very few things abysmally wrong which you can multiply by a thousand fold.  I have calculated that all the money I have paid in income taxes my entire life cannot even keep the Senate barbershop open for one year!  Only Heaven and a few tight-lipped actuarial types know what the Senate dining room costs the taxpayers.  So please, enjoy your haircuts and meals on us.

Last year, the president spent an estimated $1.4 billion on himself and his family. The vice president spends $ millions on hotels. They have had 8 vacations so far this year!  And our House of Representatives and Senate have become America’s answer to the Saudi royal family.  You have become the “perfumed princes and princesses” of our country.

In the middle of the night, you voted in the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. “Obamacare,” a bill which no more than a handful of senators or representatives read more than several paragraphs, crammed it down our throats, and then promptly exempted yourselves from it substituting your own taxpayer-subsidized golden health care insurance.

You live exceedingly well, eat and drink as well as the “one percenters,” consistently vote yourselves perks and pay raises while making 3.5 times the average U.S. individual income, and give up nothing while you (as well as the president and veep) ask us to sacrifice due to sequestration (for which, of course, you plan to blame the Republicans, anyway).

You understand very well the only two rules you need to know – (1) How to get elected, and (2) How to get re-elected. And you do this with the aid of an eagerly willing and partisan press, speeches permeated with a certain economy of truth, and by buying the votes of the greedy, the ill-informed and under-educated citizens (and non-citizens, too, many of whom do vote ) who are looking for a handout rather than a job.  Your so-called “safety net” has become a hammock for the lazy.  And, what is it now, about 49 or 50 million on food stamps – pretty much all Democrat voters – and the program is absolutely rife with fraud and absolutely no congressional oversight?

I would offer that you are not entirely to blame.  What changed you is the seductive environment of power in which you have immersed yourselves.  It is the nature of both houses of Congress which requires you to subordinate your virtue in order to get anything done until you have achieved a leadership role.  To paraphrase President Reagan, it appears that the second oldest profession (politics), bears a unremarkably strong resemblance to the oldest.

As the hirsute first Baron John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834 – 1902), English historian and moralist, so aptly and accurately stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Great men are almost always bad men.” I’m only guessing that this applies to the female sex as well.  Tell me; is there a more corrupt entity in this country than Congress?

While we middle class people continue to struggle, our government becomes less and less transparent, more and more bureaucratic, and ever so much more dictatorial, using Czars and Secretaries to tell us (just to mention a very few) what kind of light bulbs we must purchase, how much soda or hamburgers we can eat, what cars we can drive, gasoline to use, and what health care we must buy. Countless thousands of pages of regulations strangle our businesses costing the consumer more and more every day.

As I face my final year, or so, with cancer, my president and my government tell me “You’ll just have to take a pill,” while you, Senator, your colleagues, the president, and other exulted government officials and their families will get the best possible health care on our tax dollars until you are called home by your Creator while also enjoying a retirement beyond my wildest dreams, which of course, you voted for yourselves and we pay for.  The chances of you reading this letter are practically zero as your staff will not pass it on, but with a little luck, a form letter response might be generated by them with an auto signature applied, hoping we will believe that you, our senator or representative, has heard us and actually cares.  This letter will, however, go on line where many others will have the chance to read one person’s opinion, rightly or wrongly, about this government, its administration and its senators and representatives.

I only hope that occasionally you might quietly thank the taxpayer for all the generous entitlements which you have voted yourselves, for which, by law, we must pay, unless, of course, it just goes on the $19 trillion national debt for which your children and ours, and your grandchildren and ours, ad infinitum, must eventually try to pick up the tab.

My final thoughts are that it must take a person who has either lost his or her soul, or conscience, or both, to seek re-election and continue to destroy the country that I deeply love.  You have put it so far in debt that we will never pay it off while your lot improves by the minute, because of your power.

For you, Senator, will never stand up to the rascals in your House who constantly deceive the American people. That, my dear Senator, is how power has corrupted you and the entire Congress.  The only answer to clean up this cesspool is term limits.  This, of course, will kill the goose that lays your golden eggs.  And woe be to him (or her) who would dare to bring it up.
Sincerely,

Bill Schoonover
3096 Angela Lane
Oak Harbor, WA

Tytler cycle cdr modified 071712 Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

Glenn Foden Cartoon: Obama’s Division of Power


waving flagCommentary By Glenn Foden / / January 15, 2016

Glenn Foden is an editorial cartoonist for The Daily Signal.

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/15/cartoon-obamas-division-of-power

(Photo: Glen Foden)

(Photo: Glenn Foden)

Genevieve Wood wrote earlier this week on President Obama’s executive actions:

kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204Many of President Obama’s executive actions—whether the most recent ones calling for more gun control or past ones extending amnesty to millions here illegally—are already being or will one day be challenged in the courts.

This is why it’s encouraging to see reports this week that lawmakers may finally make a real effort to checkmate the president’s proclivity to go around them and create laws on his own. It’s a strategy grassroots activists should demand.

Though Congress has given up much of its power when it comes to using its “power of the purse” to stop executive overreach, there is one power it still holds, and there is absolutely no reason not to use it. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, popularly known as Advise and Consent,” requires the Senate to approve all presidential appointments of cabinet officials, ambassadors, and federal judges.

The day of the Senate “consenting” and following a go-along get-along strategy on such matters should be over. I don’t care which Republican senator is being pressured to get one of his buddies or constituents seated on a court or appointed to a high-ranking government position.

As my colleague at Heritage Action, CEO Mike Needhamsaid this week, “given the administration’s disregard for Congress’ role in our constitutional system of government, the Senate should refuse to confirm any more of the president’s judicial nominees.”

Amen.

Be prepared to hear from the left that this will cause a judicial crisis and from some weak-kneed Republicans that it’s not nice. Both arguments fall flat.

For one, as Heritage legal expert Elizabeth Slattery told me, “President Obama himself hasn’t really made judicial appointments a priority. He is ahead of President George W. Bush in terms of overall appointments at this point in their presidencies but slightly behind presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.”

I guess when you view yourself as the creator and interpreter in chief of our country’s laws, who needs Congress, and who needs the courts?

Additionally, this past year had one of the lowest average vacancy rates in the past 25 years. A total of 91 percent of district and circuit courts are filled. There is no judicial crisis.

As to members of the GOP who find it hard to stand up to the president, it would be nice for a change if they would do that instead of going back on promises to their constituents to stop the president from doing end runs around the Constitution.no more rinos

Checks and balances are what ensures that one person or one party or one branch of government can’t act as dictator. Yes, there are still ways Congress could use its power of the purse to “check” the president.

There are limits on how appropriated funds can be spent, but good luck getting the Obama administration to live within those.  

Congress could pass a rescission bill (basically taking back the money it originally approved spending, and thereby try to prevent the president from using it to enforce his executive action on guns or amnesty), but Obama would veto it.

And while Congress could say it will not fund X or Y activity after the latest funding bill it just passed expires on September 30, that still gives Obama eight months between now and then to continue his imperial mischief.Tyrant Obama

Refusing to confirm any more of the president’s judicial nominees is something Senate Republicans can do immediately. No filibuster by Minority Leader Harry Reid or veto by Obama can stop them.

Republicans have no excuse not to use their power to prevent the president’s unlawful executive actions from becoming long-term assaults on the Constitution and the rights of American citizens.

AMEN In God We Trust freedom combo 2

BREAKING: U.S. Lawmakers Make Stunning Move To Investigate Obama For Helping ISIS


waving flagBy: Wilmot Proviso on December 12, 2015

muslim-obamaThree committees in the House of Representatives announced Friday that they were launching concurrent investigations into allegations that President Barack Obama deliberately manipulated intelligence reports from Syria and Iraq, allowing the Islamic State group to thrive.

According to the Washington Examiner, Republican Reps. Ken Calvert of California, Mike Pompeo of Kansas and Brad Wenstrup of Ohio will lead the investigations for the Armed Services Committee, Intelligence Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, respectively.

“In addition to looking into the specific allegations, the Joint Task Force will examine whether these allegations reflect systemic problems across the intelligence enterprise in CENTCOM or any other pertinent intelligence organizations,” read a joint statement from Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Freylinghuysen, R-N.J.

The investigations by the House committees joined an investigation by the Pentagon’s inspector general’s office in relation to the Obama administration’s alleged manipulation of Islamic State group intelligence at U.S. Central Command.

A September report said that 50 intelligence officials at CENTCOM had signed a letter claiming intelligence on the Islamic State group had been doctored. The report claimed that the Obama administration would deliberately punish any intelligence official who gave accurate assessments of terror group strength and didn’t doctor the information to make it look like the United States was winning the battle against them.ISIS is contained

Even Democrats have gotten on the president and the administration about the intelligence doctoring, including one of the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jackie Speier of California.

“More recently the intelligence community, I think, has provided much more accurate assessments. But CENTCOM, which is the area that is responsible for the Middle East, has, for whatever reasons, we don’t know yet why, has dumbed down the intelligence, has sweetened it, has made it seem like we are being more successful there than we are,” Speier said.

“I’m deeply troubled by what I believe is doctoring that has taken place and has created an impression that we are doing better there than we actually are.”

Rep. Speier may claim “we don’t know yet why” intelligence reports were doctored, but we’re pretty sure we understand why.Delusional Mental Illness Gibberish

And pretty soon, these congressional investigations will reveal officially put the “why” out there for the world to see.

Do you think this deriliction of duty by Obama has helped the Islamic State group to thrive?

Islam is NOT In God We Trust freedom combo 2

House De-Funds Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Caught Selling Aborted Baby Parts


Posted by Steven Ertelt   Oct 23, 2015   |   Washington, DC

I AM A PERSON with PoemThe House of Representatives today approved a bill that will use the reconciliation process to approve legislation to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, which has been caught selling aborted babies and their body parts. The House passed the Planned Parenthood de-funding bill on a 240-189 vote margin with all but seven Republicans voting for the bill and only one Democrat willing to vote to de-fund Planned Parenthood after it kills unborn babies in abortions and sells their body parts for profit. (Scroll down to bottom to see how your member voted.)

“Fighting for families hurt by the President’s health care law and for women and children harmed by abortion providers has consistently been a priority of mine,” said Representative Randy Hultgren of Illinois.

PP MonsterHe applauded the bill for prohibiting all federal mandatory funding for one year to abortion providers while the House continues its investigation into Planned Parenthood’s activities. He said by redirecting $235 million in federal funds to community health centers for the next two years. Community health centers are widely available and provide a full range of health services for women. There are 670 community health care centers in his home state of Illinois vs. only 18 Planned Parenthood centers and there is a similar breakdown in states across the country.

Today’s vote comes just one day after hackers posted online new footage of shocking Planned Parenthood videos that the Center for Medical Progress has not had a chance to release to the public but that have been provided to a Congressional committee investigating Planned Parenthood.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

After the House approved a previous de-funding measure, Senate Democrats defeated a bill to fund the federal government that included language de-funding Planned Parenthood for one year while the Congressional investigation continues into how it allegedly violated multiple laws to sell aborted babies and their body parts.

how many body partsThe legislation the House approved today would hopefully be able to overcome the Democrats’ filibuster and be approved on a majority vote in the Senate.  H.R. 3762 is a special once-a-year measure called the “reconciliation bill.” Unlike almost every other kind of bill, the “reconciliation bill” cannot be filibustered in the U.S. Senate — so it can pass with only 51 votes, rather than 60 (of 100 senators). Republicans currently hold a narrow majority in the U.S. Senate, 54-46.

The bill would block, for one year, most federal payments to Planned Parenthood. At least 89% of federal funding of Planned Parenthood would be blocked by this bill. The bill would repeal a number of major components of the Obamacare health law, including two of the major provisions that will lead to rationing of lifesaving care — the “Independent Payment Advisory Board” and the “excess benefits tax.”Complete Message

Dozens of leading pro-life groups have already indicated their support for the bill, including the National Right to Life Committee. In a letter to members of Congress that NRLC provided to LifeNews.com, the group indicated it strongly supports the bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

“NRLC strongly supports the language in the bill that would block, for one year, most federal payments to affiliates of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). It would close the largest pipeline for federal funding of Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, and apply as well to the CHIP and the Title V and Title XX block grant programs, thus covering roughly 89% of all federal funds to Planned Parenthood. The amounts denied to Planned Parenthood in effect are reallocated to community health centers,” the pro-life group explained.

“Over one-third of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at PPFA-affiliated facilities. Longstanding objections to the massive federal funding of PPFA have been reinforced by recent widely publicized undercover videos, which illuminate the callous brutality that occurs daily in these abortion mills,” NRLC added.Abortion monster

The reconciliation bill also repeals portions of Obamacare,including its rationing components. With regard to the rationing aspects of Obamacare, NRLC strongly supports a repeal.

“In addition, NRLC has always opposed the Obamacare law and advocated its repeal. With respect to H.R. 3762, we particularly endorse the components that would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and the “excess benefits tax” (“Cadillac Tax”), both dangerous mechanisms that would ultimately contribute to the rationing of lifesaving care,” the right to life group said.

Leading pro-life groups that also support the reconciliation bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood include Susan B. Anthony List, National Right to Life, Family Research Council, March for Life, Concerned Women for America, Students for Life, Priests for Life, Operation Rescue, and American Life League, among others.

While the reconciliation process would result in getting a bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood to pro-abortion President Barack Obama’s desk, Obama has already promised repeatedly to veto any bill that revokes taxpayer funding for the abortion company. The Senate does not have enough votes to overcome such a veto, leading some pro-life groups to point out that there is little hope of de-funding Planned Parenthood until the election of a pro-life president next year.

“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of the Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 61, making continuing appropriations for fiscal year (FY) 2016, and for other purposes, which contains highly objectionable provisions that advance a narrow ideological agenda,” the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said before the vote. Eliminating federal funding to Planned Parenthood would “limit access” to healthcare for women, men, families and “disproportionately” affect low-income people, the OMB said.Bull

Weeks ago, a previous Senate vote on de-funding Planned Parenthood saw Senate Democrats filibuster and block legislation to revoke $550 million in taxpayer funding.

A new Congressional report finds that de-funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business — even for one year — would save “several thousand” unborn babies from the nightmare of abortion. The report also finds de-funding Planned Parenthood would save the federal government $235 million.

The 10th video by The Center for Medical Progress features several top-level Planned Parenthood executives discussing the organization’s secretive practices around aborted fetal parts harvesting. The video includes comments from Deborah VanDerhei, the National Director of the organization’s Consortium of Abortion Providers, describing the harvesting of fetal body parts as “donation for remuneration.”

The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all ten:

  • In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
  • In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
  • In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
  • In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
  • In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
  • In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
  • In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
  • In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.
  • The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.
  • The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies. The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.
  • Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

The full, unedited videos have confirmed that revelations that some aborted baby remains sold by Planned Parenthood go to biotech companies for the purpose of creating “humanized” mice. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has been exposed as having sold body parts from aborted babies for as much as 15 years.comparison

The federal law that technically prohibits the sale of aborted babies and their body parts was written by a pro-abortion Congressman decades ago and essentially spells out a process by which sellers of aborted baby body parts can meet certain criteria that allows the sales to be legal. That’s why a Colorado congressman has introduced legislation to totally ban the sales of aborted baby body parts.

ROLL CALL OF VOTE TO DE-FUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD:

A yea vote is a vote to de-fund Planned Parenthood. A no vote is a vote in opposition of de-funding.

—- AYES    240 —

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

—- NOES    189 —

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buck
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cárdenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutiérrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O’Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walker
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

—- NOT VOTING    5 —

Castor (FL)
Deutch
Kelly (IL)
McNerney
Payne 

 

defundplannedparenthood

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Ted Cruz: ‘Republican Leadership Leads The Onslaught Attacking Conservatives’


waving flagby Katie McHugh28 Sep 2015

The Democrats are “relentless” in pursuing their principles, Cruz said, which include ever-increasing government spending and unlimited abortion rights. They’re “willing to crawl over broken glass with a knife between their teeth to fight for their principles,” Cruz said. Republican leadership “reflexively surrenders,” Cruz said. “President Obama simply has to utter the word shutdown and Republican leadership runs for the hills.” Cruz explained three types of votes take place in the Senate:

  • “show votes,” a limp-wristed attempt to placate voters by staging a pre-ordained surrender to Democrats;
  • votes that simply grow government;
  • “must-pass” votes that include continuing resolutions, appropriations bills, and debt ceiling raises.

The Texas senator compared GOP leadership to an NFL coach that declares “we forfeit” at every single coin toss. The “clean” continuing resolution rubberstamps Obama’s hard-left agenda. “It funds 100 percent of Obama’s agenda, executive amnesty, Obamacare, the Iran nuclear deal. It is essentially a blank check to Barack Obama,” Cruz said. Cannot fix RINOS

“How is it that Speaker Boehner can promise there would never be a shutdown? Because I believe Speaker Boehner has cut a deal with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA),” Cruz said. He believes Boehner plans to cling to his Speakership for another month in order to ram through a spending deal which will continue to fund industrial baby body parts seller Planned Parenthood, thereby avoiding a government shutdown.how many body parts

Republican leadership told voters they needed a majority in the House of Representatives in 2010, and a majority in the Senate in 2014 in order to effectively oppose Obama. Voters delivered in “tidal wave” elections, Cruz said. But now, nine months after the November election in which Republicans gained nine Senate seats, voters ask Cruz in town halls: “What exactly have those Republican majorities accomplished?” The spontaneous response to their own question is “absolutely nothing.”no more rinos

But Cruz said it’s far worse than that. “It would have been better if the Republican majorities did ‘absolutely nothing,’” he said, but they took the lead in imposing the cromnibus, Obamacare, executive amnesty, continued funding of Planned Parenthood, and confirming Loretta Lynch as attorney general — even after she promised to act as lawlessly as Eric Holder and to never oppose Obama.

“We keep winning elections but the people we put in office don’t do what they said they’re going to do,” Cruz said. GOP leadership is “quite competent and willing to fight. The question is what they’re fighting for.”Reality 2

A list of major corporations’ priorities would be identical to that of the GOP leadership’s, Cruz said. Voters’ are far, far down on the list. And defunding Planned Parenthood isn’t among “the priorities of K Street,” Cruz added.

The billionaires who fund Democrats “don’t despise their base,”  Cruz said, unlike top GOP donors. “They don’t despise the radical gay rights or radical environmental movement.” 

“A very large percentage of top donors actively despise our base… who voted you and me into office,” Cruz continued. He added he’s talked with many New York Republican donors who ask three questions: Do you support same-sex marriage? Are you pro-choice? Pro-amnesty? “The people writing the checks agree with the Democrats,” Cruz said, and look down on the Republican base as “hicks and rubes.”

“Which is why the Republican leadership likes show votes,” Cruz said. But now, voters understand difference between show votes and real votes.”watching

A restless base has sparked scorn and fear in the GOP establishment.

“Notice how much energy Majority Leader McConnell devotes to attacking conservatives? Notice how much energy Speaker Boehner devotes to attacking conservatives?” Cruz said. Boehner denounced Cruz as one of the GOP’s “false prophets” and a “jackass” on Sunday’s Face The Nation. He’s repeatedly and publicly mocked the same Tea Party voters who helped elect him and significant Republican majorities. His described his attitude towards dealing with conservatives as: “Garbage men get used to the smell of bad garbage. Prisoners learn how to become prisoners, all right?”

Boehner is free to insult whomever he likes, Cruz said. But, he asked, “Where is that level of venom and animosity to President Obama and the Democrats? It’s Republican leadership that leads the onslaught attacking conservatives.”

Breitbart News has dubbed the season of Washington Kabuki as “Failure Theater” during Boehner’s embarrassing tenure as Speaker, during which he fought for the interests of the Chamber of Commerce and liberal GOP donors.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Federal Judge Hands Republicans ‘Historic,’ Unexpected Win Over Obama


waving flagPosted by Jack Davis September 10, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/federal-judge-hands-republicans-historic-unexpected-win-over-obama/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=TeaPartyNewsletter&utm_campaign=PM2&utm_content=2015-09-10

Image Credit: Flickr/Erik Drost

Constitution 1; Obama 0.

That was the score Wednesday as a federal judge gave House Republicans the go-ahead to proceed with their lawsuit to block President Obama’s budget-busting healthcare law. “This suit remains a plain dispute over a constitutional command, of which the Judiciary has long been the ultimate interpreter,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who said that House Republicans have legal standing to sue.

The Constitution, Collyer wrote, “could not be more clear: ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’ Neither the president nor his officers can authorize appropriations; the assent of the House of Representatives is required before any public monies are spent.”

Complete Message

Republicans had argued the Obama administration violated the Constitution by spending money on Obamacare without Congressional approval. House Democrats had called the Republicans’ suit “a political stunt.” The suit focuses on the $175 billion Obama wants to spend as part of a cost-sharing program with health insurance companies.

“The United States House of Representatives now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the power of the purse,” said Jonathan Turley, the attorney for House Republicans.

“The president’s unilateral change to Obamacare was unprecedented and outside the powers granted to his office under our Constitution,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement. “I am grateful to the court for ruling that this historic overreach can be challenged by the coequal branch of government with the sole power to create or change the law. The House will continue our effort to ensure the separation of powers in our democratic system remains clear, as the Framers intended.”B2A_FvyCMAE14px

Arguments on the merits of the suit are scheduled to be heard in the fall, although the White House said Wednesday it will appeal Collyer’s decision.

The Lower you go Indenification of Obama 95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

House conservatives submit bill to replace ‘ObamaCare,’ amid ‘defund’ fight


Published September 18, 2013, 

FoxNews.com

 

A group of House conservatives introduced legislation Wednesday that members say will replace ObamaCare and its “unworkable” taxes and mandates with a plan that expands tax breaks for Americans who buy their own insurance.

Under the proposal endorsed by the 175-member Republican Study Committee, Americans who purchase coverage through state-run exchanges can claim a $7,500 deduction against their income and payroll taxes, regardless of the cost of the insurance. Families could deduct $20,000.

The plan — which appears to be congressional Republicans’ first comprehensive alternative to President Obama’s health care overhaul  — also increases government funding for high-risk pools. The plan serves as a rebuttal to Obama’s claims that Republicans just want to eliminate the health law and are no longer interested in replacing it. And it comes as House Republicans, on a different track, prepare to vote on a budget bill that would also de-fund the existing health care law. Democrats have vowed to oppose that bill, warning the strategy risks a government shutdown, with funding set to expire by Oct. 1.

Roughly 75 percent of rank-and-file House Republicans are on the study committee, and the new legislation is being formally presented at a time when leaders of the GOP-led chamber have yet to advance any comprehensive alternative to ObamaCare.

Lawmakers have voted more than 40 times on repealing part or all of the 2010 law, despite Republicans vowing over the past three years to “repeal and replace” the existing law.

“We can lower health care costs and fix real problems without a government-run system that puts unelected Washington bureaucrats between you and your doctor,” said Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise, the committee chairman.

Scalise also said the group wants an alternative that lowers health care costs and increases access and is going to push for a full House vote, which would call for a full repeal of ObamaCare that Republicans have opposed from the start.

House Speaker John Boehner said on Wednesday that chamber Republicans will pass a budget bill this week that withholds funding for ObamaCare.

The effort stands little chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate, setting up a showdown that could push the government toward a partial shutdown at the end of the month. Funding to operate the federal government runs out at the end of September.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the House will also push to delay the health care law for a year as part of a plan to extend the government’s ability to borrow. He said debt ceiling talks will include a path forward on tax reform and approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., who led a small group that drafted the study committee measure, said the tax deduction would ensure that individuals and families enjoy “the same buying power” as employers who are permitted to deduct the cost of coverage they provide to their workers.

He also said the commitment of $25 billion over 10 years to defray the cost of coverage for high-risk patients would ease a problem caused when funding provided under Obama’s plan ran out. Premiums in the high-risk pools would be capped at twice the average cost of insurance sold in the state.

Individuals with pre-existing conditions who already have coverage would generally be permitted to shift existing insurance without fear of losing it.

The legislation also includes expanded access to health savings accounts, which are tax-preferred accounts used to pay medical expenses by consumers enrolled in high-deductible coverage plans.

The RSC legislation includes a number of proposals that Republicans long have backed to expand access and hold down the cost of health care, including features that permit companies to sell policies across state lines and that let small businesses join together to seek better rates from insurers.

In addition, awards for pain and suffering, emotional distress and similar noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases would be capped at $250,000, unless a state had a higher cap.

No overall cost estimates for the bill were available.

The legislation contains no provision to assure insurance coverage for millions of lower-income Americans who are scheduled under current law to be enrolled in Medicaid, a state-federal health care program for the poor.

Nor are there replacements for several of the requirements the current law imposes on insurance companies, including one that requires them to retain children up to the age of 26 on their parents’ coverage plan and another barring lifetime limits on coverage.

Internal divisions have plagued Republicans this year as they struggle to produce alternatives to the Obama plan. Legislation backed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., to increase funding for high-risk pools was pulled without a vote after some conservatives objected to improving ObamaCare at a time when they want to repeal it.

Obama and Democrats frequently criticize Republicans for focusing so much attention on repeal efforts without coming up with an alternative.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

“RINO’s” Beware. We Are Watching, Taking Notes and Voting Accordingly


101213_bachmann_tax_deal_605_ap

There have been so many false narratives getting tossed around by the Democrats that it’s hard to keep up with them. For a while the narrative was that the far right wing whacko Republicans are to blame for all your problems, and that’s why the House needs to flip in 2014. Lately the narrative is that the Republicans are cowards who are afraid of Rush Limbaugh, and that’s who to blame for all your problems. Instead of trying to chase down every narrative that they throw against the wall to see what will stick, let’s look at some data.

Heritage Foundation has an entity, Heritage Action Scorecard, that measures votes to see how conservative members of congress are. Since the Republicans control the House, one might think the Heritage Action Scorecard position on the majority of the key votes would be Aye. This is not the case. Most of the key votes so far have the Heritage position to vote No. It’s not been conservatives that have been in control of the docket of key votes coming to the floor. There is an inherent problem with placing too much trust in the No votes to measure how conservative members are. Nancy Pelosi is voting No on these same floor votes. You know what someone is voting against, but you really don’t know what they are for. One key vote the Heritage position on the vote was Aye occurred back on March 20th.

Bill: H.Con.Res. 25: Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2014 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023.

Introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI1] on March 15, 2013

Amendment: H.Amdt. 35 (Woodall) to H.Con.Res. 25: Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to insert the Republican Study Committee budget proposal.

Offered by Rep. Rob Woodall [R-GA7] on March 20, 2013

This was a vote to approve or reject an amendment.

Result: Failed 104-132

Now the result is a very interesting number. At the time of this vote there were three vacancies in the House, but only 236 of the 432 members voted. There were 14 Democrats who voted No, but their votes did not matter. They could have joined the 171 Domocrats on the floor who voted Present or the 15 Democrats who were not there and didn’t vote. The bill still would have failed.

The Aye votes are 94 out of the 168 Republicans who are members of the Republican Study Committee and 10 out of the 64 Republicans who aren’t members. Obviously there are those who join the Republican Study Committee to leave people the perception that they are conservative. There also those who hold TownHall meeting and interviews with the driveby print media and Sunday morning talk shows so they can be perceived as conservative. Don’t assume by perception. Verify by looking at the vote result.

    8 No votes and 2 who did not vote that may surprise you

  • Jeff Miller FL-01
  • Jason Chaffetz UT-03
  • Lynn Westmoreland GA-03
  • Ed Royce CA-39
  • Steve Southerland FL-02
  • Tim Walberg MI-07
  • John Campbell CA-45
  • Lynn Jenkins KS-2
  • Michele Bachmann MN-06
  • Virginia Foxx NC-05
    10 Aye votes by those who aren’t a member of the RSC

  • Jo Bonner AL-1
  • Dave Camp MI-4
  • Candice Miller MI-10
  • Charles Boustany Jr. LA-7
  • Lee Terry NE-2
  • John Duncan TN-2
  • John Mica FL-7
  • Tom Rooney FL-16
  • Dana Rohrabacher CA-46
  • Jim Sensenbrenner WI-5

Discovering the details reminds me of something Ronald Reagan often said.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.

Our elected politicians are comparable to major league batters in one respect. It’s more important how well you are batting and helping your team now than what your lifetime batting average is. Let’s remind our elected that they serve us, their constituents. We don’t serve them. They are not royalty to hold the power to bequeath us with royal pardons and favors. Conservatives should hold on to the principles of freedom and opportunity instead of going for a bidding war with the Democrats on promising to give away stuff.

Cross-posted at Unified Patriots

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: