Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Republicans’

Mitch McConnell Gets Bad News… Asked To Step Down


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/conservatives-demand-mcconnel-step-down-as-senate-leader/?

Advertisement – story continues below

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has been hit with a heavy vote of no confidence from conservative groups around the country. On Wednesday, leaders from several conservative organizations called on McConnell to abdicate his position, citing a list of broken promises he made to Republican voters.

They are calling on not only McConnell, but also members of his leadership team, to step down.

“You and the rest of your leadership team were given the majority because you pledged to stop the steady flow of illegal immigration,” states their letter to McConnell, according to Fox News. “You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce the size of this oppressive federal government. You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce, and ultimately eliminate the out-of-control deficit spending that is bankrupting America. You have done nothing. You promised to repeal Obamacare, ‘root and branch.’ You have done nothing. You promised tax reform. You have done nothing.”

Disgruntled conservatives held a news conference in Washington, D.C. to address their concerns and desire to see the leadership team dissolved.

“We call on all five members of the GOP Senate leadership to step down, or for their caucus to remove them as soon as possible,” Ken Cuccinelli, the president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, said at the conference.

Advertisement – story continues below

The Senate Conservatives Fund, founded in 2008 by former Senator Jim DeMint, has worked for years to elect more conservative GOP candidates to the upper chamber in Congress. The group has regularly clashed with the more moderate wing of GOP leadership. The SCF wasn’t the only group calling for McConnell to vacate his position.

Members from FreedomWorks, For America and the Tea Party Patriots also joined the chorus in demanding GOP Senate leaders step aside after failing to enact conservative legislation, despite voters giving the Republican Party full control of Washington, D.C. on Election Day.

This is not the first time conservatives have called on McConnell to step down as majority leader, but the ferocity of Wednesday’s press conference certainly puts an added weight on Republican lawmakers to get things done this legislative session.

The letter and press conference come as congressional Republicans are currently working to enact tax reform. GOP leaders so far have not succeeded in repealing Obamacare, failing several times to push through their own GOP health care bills. Republicans are hoping tax reform will be an issue the entire party can rally behind.

“If this was a football team, and you’d lost this many times, you’d start seriously considering firing the coaches,” said For America President David Bozell.

Despite all agreeing that they’d wish to see McConnell go, many conservative leaders are not certain who they would like to see as a replacement.

“If I had to pick someone, I’d love to draft like Pat Toomey maybe,” FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon said, referring to the GOP Pennsylvania senator. “There’s a lot of different people out there who I think could unite this caucus and actually lead on some issues.”

Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots group, said she could see herself supporting Georgia GOP Senator David Perdue. “I’m from Georgia, so I’m not opposed to him,” Martin explained, touting the junior senator’s extensive business background as a former CEO.

Conservative candidates are taking notice as well. As the 2018 election cycle begins to heat up, many pro-Trump candidates are hoping to gain traction by displaying stronger support for the president.

“With rare exception, GOP senators blocking Trump’s agenda are impediments we can not afford. Double that for Senate leaders,” Ron Wallace, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Virginia, said in a statement to Western Journalism.

Wallace is an insurgent candidate hoping to win the GOP primary and take on incumbent Democrat Senator Tim Kaine. Wallace is running on a pro-Trump platform and believes it’s imperative the GOP majority pass what they promised to do.

“The American People voted for Tax Cuts, Border Walls, Rapid Growth, Excellent Law Enforcement, and Better Education. I expect strong proactive policies to make those outcomes possible and deliver cost-effective solutions, by whatever means may be necessary,” he said.

McCain Health Care Bill Kills


By Chip Bok of http://bokbluster.com/2017/09/23/mccain-health-care-bill-kills/ | September 23, 2017

McCain

Senator McCain sided with Jimmy Kimmel in shooting down best bud Lindsey Graham on Friday. He announced he would vote “no” on the Graham Cassidy health care reform.

Two McCain Bill Kills

Those in the know think that pretty much kills the bill. And that would make two health bill kills for McCain.

Damn, should have drawn that on the fuselage.

Proof that Mass Voter Fraud Swung New Hampshire Election?


Reported By Onan Coca | September 8, 2017

Republicans have been warning about the dangers of voter fraud for years, and for most of that time Democrats have been pretending that the problem just doesn’t exist.

Democrats argue that the GOP fixation on voter fraud is all  about denying some citizens the right to vote, meanwhile Republicans argue that the Democrats near-monolithic defense of voter fraud is all about winning extra votes. Both arguments have merit, but the Democrats are lying when they pretend that the problem simply doesn’t exist.

Every election there are countless examples of voter fraud (sometimes even mass voter fraud) that come to light, and this election has been no different. However, the latest shoe to drop on the voter fraud front could be a game changer… if the national media will pay any attention to the story.

In New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton won the vote by the slimmest of margins. Less than 3K votes separated the two candidates. The race for Senator was even closer, and some local elections were decided by just a handful of votes. These facts make what the state government just discovered all the more troubling. 

State law requires that anyone moving to the state must acquire a new driver’s license within 60 days of establishing residency, but more than 5K 2016 voters have still not done that, leading authorities to believe that these were fraudulent voters who came to the state to influence the outcome of the election.

On Nov. 8, 2016, 6,540 voters used an out-of-state driver’s license as identification to vote but as of Aug. 30, 2017, only 1,014 of those individuals – 15.5 percent – had been issued a New Hampshire driver’s license, according to the data. 

Of the remaining 5,526 individuals, only 3.3 percent – about 213 people – had a registered motor vehicle.

That would leave 5,313 people who used an out-of-state license to vote but never obtained a new New Hampshire license despite being required to by state law after implying that they were establishing residency or domicile in the state to vote in November. 

Of the 5,313 individuals who registered to vote same-day on Election Day, 81 percent – 4,314 people – neither held a New Hampshire driver’s license nor had a registered vehicle in the state ever. 

With the exception of the gubernatorial race – where Republican Chris Sununu easily bested Democrat Colin Van Ostern by more than 16,000 votes – Democrats won all the other statewide and Congressional races.

But three races were determined by less than 5,000 votes: Gov. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, beat incumbent U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte by 1,017 votes although many have suspected that last minute, illegal campaign mailers pushing votes to independent Aaron Day cost Ayotte the race. Hillary Clinton bested Donald Trump by 2,736, earning the state’s 4 Electoral College votes even though she ultimately lost the presidency. U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter was sent back to Congress after she bested incumbent U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta by a few more than 4,900 votes.

In the grand scheme of things 5K fraudulent votes in a nation of 315 million people may not seem like much, but in a state where 3 of the most important races were decided by less than 5K votes, it’s monumental. Consider the failed Obamacare repeal vote; could Senator Kelly Ayotte have helped the GOP ram repeal through? Or how much help could Rep. Frank Guinta be giving the House GOP if he’d actually defeated his liberal opponent?

The state government must continue its investigation and these fraudulent voters must be brought to justice. Voter fraud is a felony and it should be investigated and prosecuted as such.

Moer Pollitcally INCORRECT Cartoons for Friday September 8, 2017


Image

Another Politically INCORRECT Cartoon for Thursday September 7, 2017


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Nightmare

Democrats and Republicans could care less that the American workers pay the price for amnesty.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

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

The Ann Coulter Letter: “Why the Media are in a Never-ending Hunt for Right-wing Violence”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  

After I’d spent a decade begging Republicans, including a few presidential candidates, to take up the immigration issue, Donald J. Trump came along, championed the entire thesis of “Adios, America,” and swept all contenders aside. It’s too late for the likes of Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to avoid humiliation, but if they don’t want to keep making asses of themselves in public by, for example, praising today’s version of the KKK, they should read my entire corpus of work, starting with “Demonic.” (Trump somehow grasped the whole point of that book, too.)

The reason normal people are suspicious of the media’s narrative on Charlottesville is that we’ve heard this exact same story many, many times before.

Facts on the ground:

— Approximately every other year since forever, liberal hooligans have been rampaging through the streets, beating people up, setting off bombs, killing cops, smashing store windows, assassinating politicians and burning down neighborhoods — against capitalism, Vietnam, Nixon, Wall Street, a police shooting, Trump, Starbucks, a sunny day.

— Conservatives, mostly families, have generally avoided even the mildest forms of political protest, and, when they finally are driven to petition the government over their grievances, they pick up after themselves — at tea parties, town halls, Trump rallies and so on.

Result: The entire media are constantly on Red Alert for the threat of Right-Wing Violence.

The explanation for this apparent madness is that the left — both the scribblers and the shock troops — bear all the characteristics of a mob, as set forth more than a century ago by the father of group-think, French psychologist Gustave Le Bon. No behavior of the left is mysterious if you’ve read Le Bon — or “Demonic.” In “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” Le Bon observed that the “complete lack of critical spirit” prevents crowds from “perceiving … contradictions.”

No matter the year or the circumstances, the media and their eunuch politicians are quick to blame any surprising violence on the Right-Wing Nazis of their imaginations — from Lee Harvey Oswald (communist) to Jared Lee Loughner and James Holmes (psychopaths) to the two stabbing murders on a Portland train earlier this year committed by a Bernie Sanders supporter, whom the media — to this day — insist, all evidence to the contrary, was a Trump supporter.

When, a few months after the first murders by a Sanders supporter, a second Sanders supporter opened fire on a congressional Republican baseball practice, putting GOP Rep. Steve Scalise in critical condition, that political attack was simply discarded. The media put the story of left-wing assailant James Hodgkinson in a lead casket and dropped it to the bottom of the sea.

There are the scores of other examples of imaginary right-wing violence invented by the media — then quietly abandoned when the facts come out. After weeks of hair-on-fire headlines, suddenly you just stop reading about the Duke lacrosse “rapists,” homicidal maniac Officer Darren Wilson or legions of Trump-supporters ripping off Muslim women’s hijabs.

But I remember! Here are as many as my word limit allows — maybe more!

SARAH PALIN AND THE RISE OF NAZISM IN AMERICA:

During the 2008 campaign, the media were in a perpetual state of fright that racist Republicans would assassinate Barack Obama. Naturally, when a local reporter claimed he’d heard someone in a crowd at a Sarah Palin rally yell, “Kill him!” about Obama, the media didn’t wait for more facts! The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank promptly reported the reed-thin allegation, which was then repeated in hundreds of other news outlets.

On CNN, David Gergen said that Palin was “whipping up these crowds,” creating “ugly scenes” with audience members yelling, “Kill him. Kill him” — and also claimed (without evidence) that they were yelling “racial epithets.” A CNN article on the alleged shout-out appeared under the headline: “Rage rising on the McCain campaign trail.”

Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden weighed in, somberly calling the alleged incident “dangerous.”

MSNBC’S Rachel Maddow railed against the “mere mention of killing someone at a political rally,” saying, “it’s horrific.”

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann took the gold, yammering on and on about the claim in nightly updates, culminating in one of his prissiest ever “Special Comments,” in which he demanded that John McCain suspend his campaign until “it ceases to be a clear and present danger to the peace of this nation.”

Needless to say, the Secret Service undertook a complete review. Agents listened to tapes of the event, interviewed attendees and interrogated the boatloads of law enforcement officers spread throughout the crowd. Conclusion: It never happened. As even the nutty left-wing site Salon noted, “If (the Secret Service) says it doesn’t think anyone shouted, ‘kill him,’ it’s a good bet that it didn’t happen.”

No apologies, no retractions, no memory.

THE TEA PARTY AND THE RISE OF NAZISM IN AMERICA:

Remember when polite, hardworking Americans came together to oppose Obamacare at tea party rallies in 2009 and 2010?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Steny Hoyer called the protesters “un-American.” The Democratic National Committee called them “rabid right-wing extremists.” Sen. Harry Reid called the tea partiers “evil-mongers.” Jimmy Carter pronounced an “overwhelming portion” of them racists. ABC called them a “mob.” CNN called them “rabble-rousing critics.”

Democratic congressman Brian Baird of Washington accused tea partiers of using “close to Brown-shirt tactics.” The AFL-CIO called them an “extremist fringe,” using “mob rule.”

As Le Bon explained, “one of the surest means of making an idea enter the mind of crowds” is to affirmatively state something, “free of all reasoning and all proof.” Indeed, “the more destitute of every appearance of proof and demonstration” a claim is, “the more weight it carries” with a mob.

As usual, once the dust had settled, the only violence at the tea parties and town halls had been committed by liberals.

On Aug. 6, 2009, for example, a black tea partier was beaten up by union thugs shouting the N-word at him at a St. Louis town hall. Six members of the Service Employees International Union were arrested. About a month later, on Sept. 3, 2009, 65-year-old tea partier Bill Rice had his finger bitten off at a health care rally in Thousand Oaks, California, by a lefty Obamacare supporter.

To this day, The New York Times has never mentioned either incident, so it can happily return to railing against the non-existent right-wing rage surging in the red states.

THE CENSUS WORKER AND RISE OF NAZISM IN AMERICA:

In the fall of 2009, the naked body of Census worker Bill Sparkman was found hanging from a tree in southwestern Kentucky, with the word “fed” written across his chest. Liberals wasted no time in concluding that right-wing extremists had murdered Sparkman in a burst of anti-government hate. A Census worker? Who hates Census workers? Unlike an IRS agent, an EPA inspector or even an agriculture inspector, a Census worker can’t arrest you, seize your property or fine you hundreds of thousands of dollars. They just hand out questionnaires.

No matter. The left has been waiting for right-wing violence for centuries and, finally, here it was!

  • New York magazine ran an article about the dead Census worker, asking, “Has Nancy Pelosi’s Fear of Political Violence Been Realized?”
  • The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan blamed “Southern populist terrorism” for Sparkman’s death, “whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts.”
  • But MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow owned the Bill-Sparkman-was-murdered-by-right-wingers story. Night after night, she breathlessly reported this “breaking national news.” Although Rachel’s main move is giggling and eye-rolling, she was all deadly earnestness when it came to the “troubling story” and the “worry that he was killed in fact because he was a federal employee.”

In case you missed the point, Maddow reminded viewers there’s “a strong suspicion of government generally among people who live in that area.”

A month later, investigators announced that Sparkman had committed suicide in an insurance scam. Rachel left it to her guest host, Howard Dean, to break the bad news to her conspiracy-minded viewers, sparing her the humiliation.

And then we never heard the story of the Census worker again.

A media capable of turning tea partiers, Palin supporters and a random insurance scam into weeks of terror at right-wing violence are not going to let a few nuts waving Nazi flags at a “Unite the Right” rally pass without leaping at the opportunity to outlaw conservatism.

Based on the media’s 100-year history of fantasizing a burgeoning Nazi Party in America, the rest of us would like to wait for the facts on Charlottesville.

What Keeps the Swamp the Swamp


Commentary by Walker Wildmon | Assistant to the President of AFA.net

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 @ 2:38 PM
What Keeps the Swamp the Swamp

Note: The establishment in Washington, DC consists of both Republicans and Democrats. Those of both parties who are for maintaining the status quo are commonly referred to be a part of “the swamp” as President Trump calls it. What follows are different ways the status quo establishment keep the swamp at full capacity.

Republicans In Name Only

The problem with the Republican Party is not its platform or its principles. The problem is that many of those in Congress with an “R” beside their names aren’t true Republicans. One thing the election of President Trump has done is to expose those who are merely posing as Republicans. You can’t be an authentic conservative Republican and be for one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation passed solely by Democrats, Obamacare. Yet, we see Republicans who are in favor of keeping this horrible healthcare law.

Occasionally, politicians have a change of mind or heart about an issue and will vote their conviction even if it runs counter to the party line.  But it is not okay to use the Republican label to get elected only to vote like a Democrat once in office. This is exactly what some Republicans have done. They have rented out the Republican label while campaigning only to arrive in Washington and side with Democrats.

Forcing Trump’s hand

For years Congress has rushed through spending bills every few months. The negative effect of passing one massive spending bill every few months is the lack of vetting that takes place. What’s called an Omnibus or Continuing Resolution is what Congress passes to fund the government when they fail to go through the appropriations process. If Congress were to get back to regular order (passing twelve separate spending bills) it would possibly mean cuts in wasteful spending and Americans could hold their representatives more accountable for their votes. By Congressional leadership bringing up these jumbo spending bills, it puts representatives and the president in a bad position. There’s no room for negotiation and deliberation.

The swamp uses this last minute budget tactic to force the conservatives in Congress and the president to support a spending bill full of waste. Who determines whether Congress begins passing appropriation bills in a timely manner? House Speaker Paul Ryan. He controls the legislative agenda and he is responsible for Congress not going through the proper spending process.

If Congress were to get back to regular order then it could balance the budget each year and possibly have a surplus in tax revenue. A surplus would enable the government to use that money to pay off the national debt.

As it stands today, America is recklessly irresponsible with its finances and Congress is to blame. Voters send representatives to Congress to handle our tax dollars wisely but they continue to do the opposite. Not only does Congress spend our money on wasteful projects, it often sends our money to organizations who oppose basic American values.

The next budget is set to come up for debate in mid-September. Don’t expect Congress to send President Trump a responsible budget. This is why President Trump must be prepared to veto any bill that has wasteful spending included. The president must demand that his agenda be funded. A government shutdown might be necessary to get Congress to return to regular order.

Handcuffing yourself

As the Senate rules stand today, the body needs sixty votes in order to pass any legislation. There are 52 Republicans in the Senate. With politics as divided as they are today, we all know that no Democrat is going to side with President Trump on a border wall, tax reform, or health care. Democrats are known as obstructionists when it comes to productivity during a Republican Administration and majority. The only way for the Senate to pass meaningful legislation is for the Senate Majority Leader to rally his party together and change the rules to where only 51 votes, a simple majority, is necessary to pass legislation. This is the only way good legislation will become law under President Trump.                                                              

I’m beginning to wonder if the unwillingness to change the rule is to prevent meaningful legislation from passing in order to protect the swamp. You’d think that Republican Senators who campaigned on repealing Obamacare, pass tax reform, and building a border wall would be in favor of a simple majority to pass legislation. House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell hold a fair share of responsibility for what is going on in Washington. These two gentlemen do not share the same vision for America as President Trump (and those who voted him into office). Ryan and McConnell are satisfied with the status quo. President Trump wants to transform our country for good and the only folks standing in his way are lawmakers. Along with not sharing the president’s vision, the House Speaker and Senate Leader do not want to have to deal with the most pressing issues of our country.  Are Republican lawmakers hiding behind a Senate rule so they won’t have to deal with difficult issues and an obstructionist opposition? Establishment Republicans have placed handcuffs on themselves in order to keep the status quo.

MSNBC Accidentally Proves that the Democrat Party is Toast


Reported By Onan Coca | August 7, 2017

This Week’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Contract With Republicans”


Commentary by Ann Coulter

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/08/02/contract-with-republicans/

In 1994, after 40 years in the wilderness, Republicans swept both houses of Congress, running on Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” in which the GOP promised to hold votes on 10 popular policies in the first 100 days. They won, fulfilled the contract, and went on to control the House for more than a decade.

More recently, the country gave the GOP the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and the presidency in 2016. But we’re not seeing any difference. The GOP has become a ratchet, never reversing Democratic victories, but only confirming them with teeny-tiny alterations.

It’s time for the voters to issue a “Contract With Republicans.” Unless our elected representatives can complete these basic, simple tasks, we’re out. There will be no reason to care about the GOP, anymore.

Whether these objectives are accomplished by President Trump or a rhesus monkey, the Democrats, the Bull Moose Party or the U.S. Pirate Party — it will make no difference to us. We just need somebody to fulfill this contract in order to get our vote.

Here are our first three contract terms.

1) BUILD THE WALL

People said the chant, “Build the wall!” was mere shorthand for a whole slew of immigration policies, unified by the single idea of putting Americans’ interests if not “first,” then at least above the interests of complete strangers to whom we owe absolutely nothing.” It was called a term of art, meaning we want to stop sacrificing the welfare of our nation on the altar of liberal idiocy.

“Build the wall” was said to entail: a Muslim ban, deporting illegals, ending unconstitutional sanctuary cities, ending Obama’s unconstitutional “executive amnesty,” a dead-stop to the refugee scam and a massive reduction in legal immigration.

Yes, it means all that. But it also means: Build the wall.

If this is done only for reasons of conservative ideology, in recognition of the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation, entitled to protect its homeland, that’s fine with me.

But I note in passing that, if I were a progressive constantly virtue-signaling on transgenders and refugees, and occasionally pretending to care about African-Americans, the very last thing I’d want to see is the continuing dump of low-wage workers on the country, undermining black fathers’ ability to earn a living, to stay married and to pass down savings and a work ethic to their children.

The great civil rights hero Barbara Jordan understood that. The fact that our current low-rent liberals are unable to rise to her level is all the proof we need of their uselessness.

Moreover, in the future, we will once again have presidents with a taste for fascist executive orders, purporting to grant “amnesty” to illegal aliens. We will continue to have bought-and-paid-for legislators, pushing cheap labor in return for campaign donations. In the blink of an eye, they can undo every part of Trump’s America First agenda on immigration, just as Obama undid our victory in Iraq.

A wall is the only part of Trump’s immigration reforms that will not be instantly reversed by the next Barack Obama or George Bush. Allowing border patrol agents to do their jobs is a policy that lasts only as long as Trump is president. A wall is forever.

2) SUPREME COURT

Republicans need to stop having their victories written in wet sand. During the campaign, Trump vowed to impose a Muslim ban if elected; both political parties hysterically denounced him; he won the election; issued a highly modified, temporary travel restriction from a handful of majority Muslim countries; and … a handful of carefully selected federal court judges announced that, during the Trump administration, they would be implementing immigration policy.

That’s why President Trump must appoint, and the Senate confirm, brilliant conservative judges, preferably in their 30s and with good EKGs, so that they can keep issuing opinions well into their 90s.

As long as they are sufficiently vetted to ensure we’re getting no David Souters or Harriet Miers — vettings even MORE exhaustive than the alleged rectal probes given to the San Bernardino terrorists before admitting them to commit mass murder — Supreme Court justices can have nearly the same permanence as the wall.

3) STOP WASTING MONEY AND PRECIOUS LIVES ON POINTLESS WARS

The left is way ahead of us on this one, already hard at work turning the greatest military in the world into taxpayer-funded adventures in lesbianism and transgenderism. (Sorry, taxpayers! We gave your Social Security to mental-case penis-choppers.)

Every recent war has been counterproductive at best. At worst, they have been meat-grinders for our bravest young men. Imagine that some small portion of the trillions of dollars poured into the endless — and ongoing! — war in Afghanistan had been used to build a 100,000-seat soccer stadium in Baghdad. And then imagine that we built 100 more just like it, right next to one another.

If we had taken a satellite photo of all those stadiums filled to capacity, the caption would be: “Not one American life is worth all the lives pictured here.”

That’s not anti-Arab. I’m sure they would feel exactly the same. I would respond, “Yes, of course, you’re right to feel that way.”

If we’re ever attacked, we should be prepared to unload our full arsenal. But it’s not our job to create functioning democracies in primitive rape-based societies around the globe.

Apart from an attack on U.S. soil by a foreign country, we are going to live our lives, go to work, celebrate the Fourth of July, and never bother learning the difference in Sunni and Shia Arabs. Once a decade, when we fleetingly remember Yemen or Saudi Arabia, we will hope they’re doing well, then get back to our lives — surrounded by a wall and living in a constitutional democracy, where our greatest young men aren’t continually sacrificed in pointless wars.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by Chip Bok


Congressional NFL Brain Damage Study

URL of the original posting site: http://bokbluster.com/2017/07/29/brain-damage/

A recent study of deceased NFL players found that 99% suffered brain damage. We think Congress can do better.

brain damage

 

Pence To Limbaugh: ‘Disaster Of Obamacare’ Cannot Continue


Reported

Vice President Mike Pence appeared on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program Monday to address the status of the Republican health care bill in Congress, declaring that, “We simply cannot allow the disaster of Obamacare to continue.”

Limbaugh asked Pence about the challenge of passing legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“How in the world can it be this hard when it seemed easy when Obama was in the White House?” Limbaugh asked.

Pence contended that “it has to get done,” adding that Obamacare is “putting a tremendous burden on working families, on small businesses, on the American economy.”

“Every single promise that President Obama made to get Obamacare passed has been broken,” Pence said, later adding, “We’ve seen the cost of health insurance rise in every state across the country, in some cases 200 percent and more.”

Limbaugh challenged Pence to detail the obstacles preventing the passage of healthcare reform, noting that, “We’ve got 52 votes plus yours if necessary, if it comes down to that.”

Pence said that the challenges have to do with “the complexity of this disastrous policy launch,” referring to Obamacare. He claimed that the Republicans’ current heath care legislation “doesn’t do everything that we ultimately want to do. … The president’s committed to ultimately allowing Americans to buy health insurance across state lines, the way they buy life insurance, the way they buy car insurance.”

“Nobody’s talking about that. That’s a great point because nobody is talking about it,” Limbaugh said in response.

Still, the budget rules that the Republicans need follow to pass their legislation with just 51 votes do not allow them to make such a “substantive change in the law,” Pence said.

Despite that shortcoming, Pence said that “in this legislation … we accomplished enormous things,” citing the removal of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty to the government.

“The mandate goes away,” Pence said. “The tax increases go away. Medicaid goes back to the states for the purposes of reform. Health savings accounts are greatly expanded so that people can become consumers in their own health care choices.”

According to Pence, another obstacle impeding the passage of the legislation is the varied opinions of lawmakers.

“Every member of Congress has their own opinion, and this administration — as we did with the House of Representatives — is determined to work with each member to address their needs. But we are very close. If I had one message for your tens of millions of listeners around America, it is: ‘This is the moment; now is the time.’”

Limbaugh and Pence also discussed the possibility of a single-payer health care system.

“Obamacare was designed to implode, in part, so as to further the public’s acclimation for single payer.”

The vice president then referred to former congressman Barney Frank’s answer to a reporter’s question about single-payer health care in 2009.

“They said, ‘How come you’re not supporting single payer?’ He said, Obamacare is the quickest way to get to single payer.’”

Pence also referenced to the “heartbreaking story of 11-month-old Charlie Guard in England — whose single-payer system will not allow his parents to choose potentially life-saving treatment for him — as an example of what could occur in the United States.

When asked by Limbaugh if he would support a clean repeal of Obamacare with nothing to replace it, Pence replied, “We can’t … We simply cannot allow the disaster of Obamacare to continue. It is hurting families.”

“I believe that — with the strong support of the American people — with this president in the Oval Office, we’re going to get it done. We’re going repeal and replace Obamacare. But the time is now,” Pence said.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Paul Ryan Says Shooting Is an Attack on All of Us


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/paul-ryan-alexandria-shooting/

Advertisement – story continues below

Just hours after a gunman opened fire on congressional Republicans during a practice baseball game in Virginia on Wednesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan delivered an impassioned speech that called for unity despite partisan differences.

“We are all horrified by this dreadful attack on our friends and on our colleagues and those who serve and protect this Capitol,” Ryan said.

“We are united. We are united in our shock, we are united in our anguish. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us,” Ryan said, prompting the crowd to stand and applaud.

“You know, every day we come here to test and to challenge each other. We feel so deeply about the things that we fight for and the things that we believe in, at times our emotions can clearly get the best of us. We’re all imperfect,” Ryan said.

“But we do not shed our humanity when we enter this chamber. For all the noise and all the fury, we are one family,” the speaker said.

Ryan also mentioned a widely-shared photo of Democratic congressional baseball team members praying for Republicans, which embodied the unity Ryan spoke about.

Ryan also praised the efforts of the Capitol Police.

“It is clear to me, based on various eyewitness accounts, that without these two heroes, agent [David] Bailey and agent [Krystal] Griner, many lives would have been lost,” he said.

Watch Ryan’s comments below:

Paul Ryan Says Shooting Is an Attack on All of Us
This video was designed to autoplay so we’ve delayed loading it until you click here.

Ryan, who hasn’t been viewed very favorably by those on either side of the aisle, nevertheless silenced Americans with this poignant truth.

This shooting should serve as a wake up call to our nation that a house divided against itself cannot stand.” We can only hope and pray this attack isn’t a foreshadowing of more politically-motivated violence.

H/T WZ

Jihadis Ask, ‘Are You A Christian?’ Before Killing You. #Resist Asks, ‘Are You A Republican?’


Their hate looks pretty similar, doesn’t it? Jihadis ask if you’re a Christian before deciding to kill you. The Liberal murderer asked are they Republicans?

It’s widely reported that the Jackwagon Bernie supporter that shot up the Republican baseball practice asked whether they were Republican or Democrat before hunting them like the coward he was.

That story has a familiar ring to it…(Ok, one BESIDES the leftist Family Research Council shooter.)

This one.

Coptic Christians describe bus attack in Egypt: ‘Even the little children were targets’

Here are a couple of paragraphs:

After the militants boarded the bus, they asked survivors of the first round of gunfire to “either recite the Islamic shahada creed, live as practicing Muslims, or be killed,” said Nadia Shokry, 54, who was shot three times.

Defying their attackers, the passengers began to pray. “The more we prayed for Christ, the angrier they became and started shooting again and more violently,” Boshra said.

“We told them that we are Christians and we will die Christians,” Adly said as she clutched a cross that a monk had given her at the hospital.

The attackers targeted the male passengers and then began confiscating gold jewelry, money and mobile phones from the female survivors, before shooting at them, too, and running away.

“I begged my attacker to stop after he shot me the first three times. He told me to shut up or he would shoot me in the heart,” Shokry said. She watched as the militants killed her husband, Samuel, 53, her son Mina, 30, and her 18-month-old granddaughter, Maroska, the youngest victim of the attack.

Sound familiar?

For a group that keeps calling Trump supporters ‘Nazis’… which side is actually violent?

CLASH POLL: Who’s MORE Violent – Liberals OR Conservatives?


Published by ClashDaily.com | June 15, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2017/06/clash-poll-whos-violent-liberals-conservatives/

Is it really even CLOSE?

When Gabby Giffords was shot, they blamed Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. When Republican Whip Steve Scalise was one of several Republicans shot… they blamed Trump.

But that’s the Media (D)’s opinion. What about yours?

It’s because of violent language… they said.

Maybe the problem could be from the methodical dehumanizing of political opponents.

The dead guy is personally and SOLELY responsible for his actions.

But if people are going to complain about over-heated rhetoric and violence
? Look around.

Groups like Antifa and BAMN are not rhetorically violent but PHYSICALLY violent. Cheering when they trash the liberties of political rivals.

In the election, we saw people blaming Trump for violent protests. But it came to light that Bernie’s supporters and Hillary’s supporters, not Trump supporters were doing the attacking. It came to light that there was ORCHESTRATED violence on the part of Hillary’s surrogates, trying to implicate Trump.

We see ‘Antifa’ crowds hitting people over the head with skateboards.

We see University Profs hitting strangers over the head with bike locks.

We have makeshift grenades made out of wine bottles tossed into crowds.

We have seen Berkley BURN so that one political side would NOT be heard.

Here is a screen shot of some of the vultures cheering the shootings.

Let’s get a closer look at one in particular… and make her famous.

Her Twitter feed went dark… but not before we got a screen grab of it!

So let’s ask the question:

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


New York Times #1 Best Leaker

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/12/new-york-times-1-best-leaker/#Lt8sVEj8CQgCXcfX.99

News reports say it’s possible James Comey could sign 10 million dollar book deal. What should they title it?

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

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


GOP Pop Quiz

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/06/13/gop-pop-quiz/#8jTyw6lesd9f9VIs.99

Many feel that some Republicans have forgotten the reason people gave them Senate and House majorities.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

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

Violence And Intimidation Against Republicans Are Becoming The New Normal


Reported by Photo of Peter Hasson Peter Hasson | Associate Editor | 9:59 PM 05/14/2017

In one of the most recent incidents, police in Tennessee charged a woman with felony reckless endangerment on Thursday for allegedly trying to run Republican Congressman David Kustoff off the road after a town hall. The woman, Wendi Wright, was reportedly enraged over Kustoff’s support for the American Health Care Act and screamed at the congressman and his aide, striking his car windows and reaching inside the vehicle.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fweakleycountysheriffdept%2Fposts%2F723680541137636&width=500

The same day that Tennessee police charged Wright for reckless endangerment, police in North Dakota escorted an enraged man from another town hall after he became physical with Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer over his support for the GOP Obamacare replacement. “Will the rich benefit from, if the health care is destroyed, do the rich get a tax break? Yes or no?” the man shouted, before shoving cash down the congressman’s collar. “There you go, take it.”

CNN’s Poppy Harlow downplayed the incident, saying the man was “showing his disgust” with Cramer.

The day before that, a Huffington Post article that showed “how to really turn up the heat on elected officials” went viral. The author, Michaelangelo Signorile, called on protesters to harass Republicans at dinner, when they’re out shopping and even at home. Societal norms for the basic levels of decency one should afford political opponents, Signorile argued, no longer apply to liberals.

“It’s time to move beyond polite protests within specified boundaries. It’s time to escalate the expression of our outrage and our anger in a massive way,” he wrote. (RELATED: In Their Own Words: Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ Leaders Say They Want To Make America ‘Ungovernable’)

“Starting today and from here on, no elected official ― certainly those in the GOP defending and supporting Trump on a variety of issues, for example ― should be able to sit down for a nice, quiet lunch or dinner in a Washington, DC eatery or even in their own homes. They should be hounded by protestors everywhere, especially in public ― in restaurants, in shopping centers, in their districts, and yes, on the public property outside their homes and apartments, in Washington and back in their home states.”

Signorile’s article has already been shared more than 29,000 times.

Political violence has been increasingly common as left-wing organizations have whipped up mobs against Republicans and supporters of the president. (RELATED: Leaked Audio Reveals Anti-Trump Forces Manufacturing Hostile Town Hall)

A popular parade in Portland, Oregon last month was cancelled after threats of violence against one of the groups participating — a local Republican organization.

An email warning parade organizers promised 200 or more protesters would rush into the parade and drag the Republican marchers out, if that’s what it took to keep them from participating. “You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely,” the email warned. Portland has been a site for organized left-wing protests, which have often turned into violent riots. (RELATED: Leader Of Portland Anti-Trump Protests Charged With Sexually Abusing A Minor)

The threat was sent from an email address registered with RiseUp.Net, an organization that is open about “providing communication and computer resources to allies engaged in struggles against capitalism and other forms of oppression.”

The Oregon threat was credible in part because Berkeley, California has become a literal political battlefield on multiple occasions now, after far-left groups have resorted to violence to keep Pro-Trump speakers (or, in one case, free speech marchers who happened to be Trump supporters) from appearing in public.

Pro-Trump speaker Milo Yiannopoulos had his speech at the University of California-Berkeley cancelled after rioters set the campus ablaze in order to keep him from speaking. (RELATED: ‘INFERNO’ — Milo Speech Cancelled After Rioters Set Campus Ablaze [VIDEO])

Political commentator Ann Coulter, who staunchly supported Trump during his presidential campaign, had her speech at UC Berkeley cancelled after the protest groups vowed a repeat performance of the Milo riots. (RELATED: Documents Tie Berkeley Riot Organizers To Pro-Pedophilia Group NAMBLA)

A North Carolina GOP office was even firebombed a month before the election, and a building adjacent to it was spray painted with graffiti: “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else.”

Shortly before the election, a female high school student was attacked after declaring her support for Trump. A fellow female student took the girl’s glasses off and punched her in the face, saying, “Fuck you, you bitch.”

Olivia Corn, president of Cornell University’s College Republicans, said she was physically assaulted the night after Trump won the election. “Fuck you, racist bitch, you support a racist party,” her attacker reportedly said. Ironically, Corn said she was “not Donald Trump’s biggest fan,” and added that she “was saddened that I was not afforded the same respect that I offer others.”

A Maryland high school student wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat after the election was punched and kicked by students protesting Trump after he started arguing with them.

Similarly, police in Florida arrested a 17-year-old high school student after he punched a classmate for carrying a Trump sign at school.

“It definitely had a political motivation,” said Lt. Mike Bandish of the Palm Bay Police Department. “The boy was carrying a Trump sign and walked into the gym. The other boy punched him in the face.”

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

GOP Effort To Rescind Obama Regulation Fails After 3 Republican Senators Join Ranks With Democrats


URL of the original posting site: http://www.westernjournalism.com/gop-effort-rescind-obama-regulation-fails-3-republican-senators-join-ranks-democrats/

Three Senate Republicans joined ranks with Democrats on Wednesday to reject overturning an Obama-era regulation limiting methane emission from oil and gas drilling. Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., John McCain, R-Ariz., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, joined ranks with Senate Democrats, leaving only 49 votes in support of revoking the Bureau of Land Management rule, two votes shy of the 51 votes needed.

While Graham and Collins had previously made public their intention to vote against the measure, McCain’s came as a surprise.

Vice President Mike Pence had traveled to the Capitol in the event his vote was needed to break a tie vote in the Senate.

The Obama administration’s Methane and Waste Prevention Rule is primarily intended to reduce the waste of methane gasses released during oil and gas production.

“Between 2009 and 2015, oil and gas producers on public and Indian lands vented, flared and leaked about 462 billion cubic feet of natural gas. That’s enough gas to supply about 6.2 million households for a year,” states a fact sheet on the regulation.

Wasted natural gas amounts to $23 million annually in royalty revenue for the Federal government and States that share it, according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office report. In addition to cost saving, the regulation was also intended to help the environment. Methane, the primary component in natural gas, is about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide and accounts for nine percent of U.S. gas emissions.

Supporters of the regulation say the benefits of lowering waste during the natural gas production process is a win-win for both sides of the political aisle.

“This rule unites people who care about a traditional set of issues related to air quality, but also people who don’t want to see the American government waste resources and tax dollars,” said Chris Saeger of the Western Values Project.

However, opponents of the rule, such as the Independent Petroleum Association of America, say the regulation is outside the authority of the Bureau of Land Management and imposes “costly and duplicative” regulations on the producers of natural gas.

The IPAA says the best way to reduce waste during natural gas production is to increase pipeline capacities, not more government mandates.

“IPAA continues to educate Senate offices on the costly and duplicative burden that the [Bureau of Land Management] rule, which is essentially an air quality rule and is outside the congressionally given authority of the BLM, places on U.S. independent producers’ businesses,” said Neal Kirby, the spokesperson for IPAA.

Senate Republicans had hoped to revoke the methane rule under the Congressional Review Act, which prevents the government from making a similar rule in the future that is “substantially the same” as the one it overturned.

“I think we can replace it with a better reg, rather than a CRA,” Graham said in March of the resolution.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Uta, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said Graham’s reasoning for voting against the methane rule change was ignorant.

“Sen. Graham doesn’t live in the West, and doesn’t understand these issues, clearly,” Bishop said.

Following the failure of the legislative branch to repeal the Obama regulation, President Trump’s Interior Department still has the option to repeal the methane rule through an exhaustive rulemaking process.

Meet Three GOP Lawmakers Eager to Derail Trump Agenda. Self-described moderate Republicans pose significant threat to White House priorities


Reported by Jim Stinson | Updated 08 May 2017 at 10:58 AM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/meet-three-gop-lawmakers-eager-to-derail-trump-agenda/

The surprisingly thin margin by which the House passed the first step in repealing Obamacare shows there are many Republicans on Capitol Hill who did not learn the lessons of the 2016 election. The House vote was 217-213, with 23 Republicans joining 193 Democrats in voting “no” — to keep Obamacare alive.

These Republicans are often described as “moderates,” but in truth they are usually just ambitious politicians hoping to protect their jobs. How else could you explain why so many Republicans who had promised to repeal Obamacare over the course of the last seven years did not vote to do so? Nervous Republicans are usually afraid of the spin from the Democrats and their media allies. But why?

“There is no way Republicans are going to be punished for doing what they said they were going to do,” said Alex Conant, a GOP consultant for Marco Rubio, speaking on Fox News on Friday.

Many of these squishy Capitol Hill Republicans pose a threat to other key aspects of President Donald Trump’s agenda. The building of a border wall, reform to refugee and immigration programs, and tax reform could all be watered down or blocked if enough Republicans go weak-kneed.

Here are three GOP congressional moderates that stand out:

Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas)

Hurd is trying to lead the pack of Republicans opposed to Trump’s agenda. Democrats and media are beating a path to his door to assist him.

On Friday, Politico Magazine wrote a long piece on Hurd, portraying him as “the future of the GOP.” The one problem? He may not win his next election. Hurd represents the one district in Texas, out of 36, that is competitive between the two parties. And it voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The district, in southwest Texas, is rural and includes 820 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Hurd doesn’t support Trump’s border wall, however, even though scores of illegal aliens pour across this very border every month.

Hurd, like most self-styled moderates hoping to win re-election, likes to nuzzle with the Democrats. Hurd and Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) famously took a bipartisan road trip back to Washington in mid-March. Not long after the trip, O’Rourke said he would run against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Hurd let himself get used by Democrats — and it likely won’t be the last time.

Yet it was Hurd’s unflinching refusal to vote for repeal that will perhaps deflate his hopes for re-election. It’s hard to win re-election in a swing year if your base abandons you; turnout in the midterms is key.

Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.)

Lance losing in 2018 wouldn’t be a great loss for the GOP. Lance has a dismal 64 rating from the American Conservative Union (ACU), and only a 68 (out of a possible 100) lifetime rating — not terrible for a Northeastern Republican, but not great either. Lance is known for voting regularly to keep government programs fat and happy. He is also a big supporter of unions, voting against repeal of regulations that raise costs and benefit unions.

The ACU got so fed up with Lance in 2012 that it endorsed his opponent in the Republican primary. Lance could be the most likely Republican House incumbent to draw a well-funded GOP challenger in 2018.

Lance has also been especially aggressive in dissing Trump.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)

Murkowski is a moderate Republican senator under pressure now that Obamacare has passed. It’s showing. Murkowski snapped at CNN reporter Manu Raju on Friday as he pressed her to specify whether she supported the repeal legislation passed in the House.

“Will you please be respectful?” Murkowski said.

Murkowski has a 54 rating from the ACU. As an incumbent, she famously lost her Republican primary in 2010 but won the general election as a write-in. She won her 2016 race more easily.

The pressure now is understandable. There are only 52 Republicans in the Senate, out of 100. The GOP can only lose two of them in repeal.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) commands much more power and influence of his smaller, more manageable caucus in the Senate than House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) does in the House. If McConnell wants a repeal bill, he will likely get at least 50 votes for it.

New Double Standard on Leaks in Trump Era. Democrats wanted massive investigation of classified disclosure in 2003, downplay concern in 2017


Authored by Jim Stinson | Updated 22 Mar 2017 at 11:58 AM

URL of the original posting site: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-double-standard-on-leaks-in-trump-era/

Washington, D.C. has reversed its thinking on the seriousness of federal government leaks with President Donald Trump in the White House. Leaks of classified federal information are now treated as not a big deal — so long as they are damaging to Trump. Damaging leaks of classified information seem to be the preferred way to pry information from Trump, a Republican, no matter the slippery slope that federal workers head down when they unleash the documents.

A transcript of the president’s call to a foreign leader? No problem. Unmasking the name of an American citizen as he spoke to the Russian ambassador? That sounds fine to many. So long as it zings Trump.

In the previous decade, Democrats demanded prosecution of leakers of classified information, and with gusto.

In fact, the last time the Republicans held the White House, the Democrats and media built a witch hunt around a journalist’s news column. The goal was to embarrass the administration of President George W. Bush.

The Plame Affair

On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak revealed that an Iraq War critic, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had traveled to Africa in February 2002 to look into claims Iraq was buying yellowcake uranium from Niger.

It was a complicated tale of the buildup to the war, but Novak got into trouble for this sentence: “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate.”

David Corn, a left-wing journalist now with Mother Jones, insisted the law had been broken in the leak to Novak. The political drumbeat began, the CIA asked for action, and in September 2003, President Bush and his attorney general named a prosecutor. The investigation took two long years. As the indictment came, liberals could barely contain their glee. Some hoped for Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to be “frog-marched” to court.

And Lawrence O’Donnell, now with MSNBC, made an infamous whiff of a prediction: “[A]t least three high-level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators.”

But no one was indicted for the leak itself. Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was indicted for misleading federal investigators in 2007. Perhaps realizing the political nature of the case, President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence.

New Standards in 2017: Fast-forward to February 2017.

Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, resigned on Feb. 13 because it was disclosed in leaks that he spoke with the Russian ambassador in late December. Flynn had told Vice President Mike Pence that he did not mention sanctions on Russia. The leaks were detailed enough to prove that wrong. The amount of effort that went into the leak was prodigious, according to a Republican staffer on Capitol Hill who works in intelligence.

The leaker would have not only have to have access to the transcripts of the Russian ambassador, but power to “unmask” Flynn, who would have been initially protected by U.S. law.

The seriousness of the leaks involving Flynn helped build tremendous disappointment on Monday, when FBI Director James Comey, acting oddly as usual, said he could not even confirm an investigation into the leaks.

A former intelligence operative told LifeZette that the leaks of Flynn’s name show possible political intent, from the start of the intel gathering all the way through. The former intel operative says he wonders who at the FBI or the National Security Agency received emails or calls from the National Security Council or the White House about the Flynn meeting. The former intel operative says normally, any intelligence professional, especially a manager, would recognize that the collection of Flynn’s data, even in the incidental fashion as they followed the Russian ambassador, would be so laced with political danger to their agency that they would “run away” from it. Or they would notify the relevant oversight committees at Congress, to protect everyone concerned.

Instead, the information got leaked to the media, to damage Flynn.

What if the shoe had been on the other foot?

What if, the former intel operative wondered, the Bush administration’s National Security Council had received incidental collection on the Obama campaign in late 2008, and not informed the congressional oversight committees?

There would be hell to pay, he said.

So what is the media doing in 2017? They are asking for more leaks of classified documents. Some newspapers have even set up anonymous online “dropboxes.” And the Democrats? They are nowhere to be seen on the issue.

The Ann Coulter Letter: The Silence of the Lambs Congress


waving flagCommentary by  Ann Coulter  

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/02/15/the-silence-of-the-lambs-congress/

Let’s compare what President Trump has accomplished since the inauguration (with that enormous crowd!) with what congressional Republicans have done.

In the past three weeks, Trump has: staffed the White House, sent a dozen Cabinet nominees to the Senate, browbeat Boeing into cutting its price on a government contract, harangued American CEOs into keeping their plants in the United States, imposed a terrorist travel ban, met with foreign leaders and nominated a Supreme Court justice, among many other things.

(And still our hero finds time to torment the media with his tweets.)

What have congressional Republicans been doing? Scrapbooking?

More than 90 percent of congressional Republicans kept their jobs after the 2016 election, so you can cross “staffing an entire branch of government” off the list. Only the Senate confirms nominees, which they’ve been doing at a snail’s pace, so they’ve got loads of free time — and the House has no excuse at all.

Where’s the Obamacare repeal? Where are the hearings featuring middle-class Americans with no health insurance because it was made illegal by Obamacare?

The House passed six Obamacare repeals when Obama was president and there was no chance of them being signed into law. Back then, Republicans were full of vim and vigor! But the moment Trump became president, the repeals came to a screeching halt. After the inauguration (gigantic!), House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put out a plan for repealing Obamacare … in 200 days. They actually gave their legislative agenda this inspiring title: “The Two Hundred Day Plan.”

TWO HUNDRED DAYS!kick-em-out-of-office

What was in the last six Obamacare repeals? If we looked, would we find “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” carefully typed out 1 million times? Seriously, what does Paul Ryan’s day look like?

This is the Silence of the Lambs Congress. They’re utterly silent, emerging from the House gym or their three-hour lunches only to scream to the press about Trump.

To the delight of the media, these frightened little lambs are appalled by nearly everything Trump does. They’ve been especially throaty about Trump’s temporary travel ban from seven terrorist nations — as designated by the Obama administration (and by everybody else who hasn’t been in a deep freeze in a Finnish crevasse for the past decade).truth-about-pause

Just like the six Obamacare repeals, a refugee ban was already written and passed by one house of Congress. Then suddenly: the Silence of the Lambs. McConnell and Ryan are hiding under their desks, as Trump is being attacked from every side.

Way, way back, 15 long months ago, congressional Republicans didn’t have a problem with a total ban on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Not for a mere three months like Trump’s order — but permanently, unless the director of the FBI, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence personally certified that a particular refugee posed no danger to the U.S.

That bill passed the House with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority, including 47 Democrats. Then it went to the Senate to die.

But when President Trump imposed a comparatively mild three-month ban on immigrants from Syria, Iraq and five other terrorist nations, the same Republicans who had voted for a limitless ban on refugees whiled away their days calling reporters to denounce Trump.

A little more than a year ago, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, bragged in a press release that he had introduced the House’s refugee ban, calling it a bill that would “protect Americans from ISIS.” But when it came to Trump’s three-month pause, McCaul told the Post that Trump’s order “went too far.” I guess that ISIS problem just sort of faded away. (Or maybe we should check with Mrs. McCaul, inasmuch as it’s her family money that makes Rep. McCaul one of the richest members of Congress.)

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., who voted for the House’s permanent refugee ban, demanded that Trump immediately rescind his travel ban, babbling on about the “many, many nuances of immigration policy” — which he must have learned about on one of his congressional jaunts to a Las Vegas casino.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said that Trump’s order “overreaches and undermines our constitutional system.” Evidently, he was suddenly struck by the realization that it’s “not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality,” despite having voted to ban refugees on the basis of nationality just 15 months earlier. (I’m OK with this, provided the Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis are sent to live on Justin’s street after being told about his support for gay marriage.)

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., both rushed to The Washington Post with this refreshingly original point: NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! Why, thank you, senators! Where would the GOP be without you?

The Post also quoted spokesmen — spokesmen! — for Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rob Portman of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina complaining about not having been briefed on Trump’s order. The senators themselves were far too busy to talk to the press because they were — wait, what were they doing again? Words With Friends? Decoupage?

Since the election, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has been mostly occupied polishing his anti-Trump quotations to get a pat on the head from an admiring media. He complained about Trump’s order, saying it was “poorly implemented” and that he had to find out about it from reporters. (I wonder why.)kick-em-out-of-office

This is the moment we’ve been waiting for our entire lives, but Republicans in Congress refuse to do the people’s will. Their sole, driving obsession is to see Trump fail.

I am not presently calling for these useless, narcissistic, Trump-bashing Republicans to be defeated in their re-election bids, but they’re on my Watch List. To be cleared, they can start by getting off the phone with The Washington Post and passing one of those six Obamacare repeal bills.

amen

Harvard University Professor Claims That 20 Republican ‘Faithless Electors’ Are Considering Voting Against Trump


waving flagAuthored by Michael Snyder

URL of the original posting site: http://freedomoutpost.com/harvard-university-professor-claims-that-20-republican-faithless-electors-are-considering-voting-against-trump/

If what a Harvard University constitutional law professor is claiming is true, the plot to steal the Electoral College vote from Donald Trump is far more serious than most people thought. Larry Lessig briefly pursued the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, but these days he is using his position as a Harvard law professor to try to stop Donald Trump. His new organization is called “Electors Trust”, and it has been acting as a central hub for the campaign to deny Trump the 270 votes that he needs to become the next president. If this effort is to be successful, anti-Trump forces need to flip 37 of Trump’s votes, and Lessig says that so far 20 Republican electors are considering voting against Trump. Of course there are many that are skeptical of his claims, but why would a Harvard constitutional law professor lie about something like this?

If Lessig is telling the truth, the Trump team should be deeply alarmed. It would be a grave mistake to simply assume that this Electoral College vote will be a formality, and we will find out on Monday what happens.

And without a doubt Lessig is in a position to know what is going on, because according to Politico his organization has been serving “as a clearinghouse for electors to privately communicate their intentions”…

Larry Lessig, a Harvard University constitutional law professor who made a brief run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, claimed Tuesday that 20 Republican members of the Electoral College are considering voting against Donald Trump, a figure that would put anti-Trump activists more than halfway toward stalling Trump’s election.

Lessig’s anti-Trump group, “Electors Trust,” has been offering pro bono legal counsel to Republican presidential electors considering ditching Trump and has been acting as a clearinghouse for electors to privately communicate their intentions.

If they only had a handful of votes, I really doubt that Lessig would put his reputation on the line by going public like this. But now that they are more than halfway to their goal, he is probably hoping that a last minute publicity push will put them over the top. If the rest of the Republican electors are made aware that many Trump voters are already willing to flip, that may encourage others to join the cause

“Obviously, whether an elector ultimately votes his or her conscience will depend in part upon whether there are enough doing the same. We now believe there are more than half the number needed to change the result seriously considering making that vote,” Lessig said.

Personally, I don’t think that it is going to work.

But I am alarmed enough about this effort that this is the third article that I have written about it this week alone.

On Wednesday, we also learned that U.S. officials are now claiming that Russian President Vladimir Putin was “personally involved” in the effort to interfere with the presidential election. The following was reported by NBC News

U.S. intelligence officials now believe with “a high level of confidence” that Russian President Vladimir Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.

This revelation comes on the heels of a letter that was signed by 40 members of the Electoral College asking Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for a briefing on Russian interference in the election…

Forty members of the Electoral College on Tuesday signed a letter demanding an intelligence briefing on Russian interference in the election ahead of their Dec. 19 vote.

Ten electors originally signed the letter when it was published Monday, and 30 more have since added their names.

The open letter — led by Christine Pelosi, the daughter of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) — urged Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to give a detailed briefing on President-elect Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

Needless to say, there are many out there that are hoping to make as much as possible of this “Russian interference” angle in hopes that it will influence the votes of some electors.

To many on the left, it makes perfect sense to try to deny Trump the presidency even though he won the election fair and square. Here is a typical example of their reasoning

Yet, at least outside of political fiction, there has probably never been a better election for electors to go against what their states’ voters wanted. Recent revelations by the Central Intelligence Agency that Russia actively engaged in this very close election to advantage Trump, and that Russia maintains leverage over him with unreleased information, call into question the legitimacy of a Trump presidency. Add to that Trump’s erratic and destructive behavior over the past month, the fact that nearly three million more voters preferred his opponent to him, his work to undermine relations with China, the fact that he considers his own uninformed opinions about international security superior to the evaluations of the nation’s intelligence agencies, and the near certainty that he’d be in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause on the day he is sworn in, and you really don’t get a more appropriate opportunity for Republican electors to rethink their states’ choice.

To those that supported Trump this is utter lunacy, but this is actually what many on the left are thinking.

Fortunately, at this point it appears that they are going to come up short. Even though Lessig claims that 20 Republican electors are considering abandoning Trump, the vast majority are solidly behind him

Virtually all Republican electors reached by The Hill said they will vote enthusiastically for Trump.

“I’m voting how the people of Florida have told me to vote,” said Brian Ballard, a Florida elector who raised money for Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio during the GOP primary. “I don’t know anyone who isn’t. I appreciate people using First Amendment rights to reach out and try to convince me otherwise, but I’m obligated to support Trump because he won Florida.’

“Also, I love the guy and want him to be president.”

So hopefully the vote next Monday will go as planned.

There hasn’t been more than a single “faithless elector” in any presidential election since 1832, and even though it is likely that we will see some this time, it would take something extraordinary for the anti-Trump forces to come up with the 37 votes that they need to push Trump under 270 votes and throw the election into the House of Representatives.

I don’t believe that they will be successful, but we have already seen during this election season that we should expect the unexpected.

About the Author Michael Snyder

Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the University of Florida law school and he worked as an attorney in the heart of Washington D.C. for a number of years. Today, Michael is best known for his work as the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog. Michael and his wife, Meranda, believe that a great awakening is coming and are working hard to help bring renewal to America. Michael is also the author of the book The Beginning Of The End

In the Market for Fetal Body Parts, a Baby’s Brain Sells for $3,340


waving flagReported by Kelsey Harkness / / April 20, 2016

The U.S. House Select Panel on Infant Lives releases detailed transactions on the sale and purchase of fetal tissue from aborted babies. (Photo: Kelsey Lucas/Visualsey/The Daily Signal)

Republicans on the special House panel investigating the transfer of fetal tissue from aborted babies will present evidence in a hearing today that breaks down the price per body part. With release of this evidence, Republicans say, they have enough documentation to show that several abortion clinics and middleman procurement businesses may have violated federal law.

“It is just horrifying,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., who leads the House’s investigation of the fetal tissue industry, told The Daily Signal. “They are putting a dollar value on these organs from these children—unborn children that have been aborted. It is just beyond belief.”how many body parts

According to Republicans involved in the investigation, a researcher paid a middleman procurement company $3,340 for a fetal brain, $595 for a “baby skull matched to upper and lower limbs,” and $890 for “upper and lower limbs with hands and feet.”

Middleman procurement businesses are companies that obtain tissue and other body parts from aborted babies and provide them to institutions or other organizations for research. Under federal law, the transportation of fetal tissue is based on a nonprofit model.

160419_abortion-2_v4

The committee’s documents, which will be used today in a House hearing on the pricing of fetal tissue, include payments made from a middleman procurement company to an abortion clinic on a monthly basis. Those dollar amounts range from $6,010 to $11,365.

160419_abortion-1_v4

Over the span of a year, one research institution paid a middleman company $42,535 to obtain 38 fetal brains, 12 fetal hearts, three fetal upper/lower limbs, five fetal livers, and 12 fetal pancreases, according to the select House panel’s documents.

160419_abortion-3_v4

The Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, as it is formally known, was created on Oct. 7, 2015, when the House passed a resolution calling for a full and complete investigation regarding the medical practices of abortion service providers and the business practices of the procurement organizations that sell fetal tissue.

In the most recent documents being released, the panel did not publicly identify companies or individuals involved in the transactions “out of an abundance of caution,” Blackburn told The Daily Signal in a phone interview prior to the hearing.

Because the documents were highly redacted, The Daily Signal was unable to independently confirm the prices of each body part.

However, the panel announced earlier this year that it was issuing subpoenas to companies and organizations that refused to cooperate with the investigation. Those groups included StemExpress, Ganogen, Biomedical Research Institute of America, the University of New Mexico, and Southwestern Women’s Options.

Democrats on the select panel have called the investigation a “witch hunt” by Blackburn and other Republicans who oppose abortion.

As The Daily Signal has previously reported, Democrats have condemned the panel’s investigators for requesting the names of doctors, medical students, researchers, and others involved in the abortion and fetal tissue procurement industries, arguing that obtaining those names could make the panel complicit in physical assaults or murders of these people.”Leftist Propagandist

But with the imminent release of the next round of evidence, Blackburn said she is hopeful Democrats “will recognize that we are taking every possible precaution and doing our best to fulfill the requirement that Congress has made of us.”

The 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act prohibits profiting from the sale of any fetal tissue. However, it is legal to provide and accept payment to cover reasonable costs for “transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”hate God

Among documents uncovered in the investigation is an image of a procurement company marketing itself to abortion clinics as “financially profitable.” The name of that company also was redacted.

Source: U.S. House Select Investigative Panel

Source: U.S. House Select Investigative Panel

I knew youQuestions about whether abortion clinics and middleman procurement companies profit from transactions involving body parts and other fetal tissue from aborted babies were raised after a series of videos published last year. The hidden-camera videos showed officials at Planned Parenthood affiliates discussing the buying and selling of fetal tissue with a middleman company, StemExpress.

Cate Dyer, founder of StemExpress, told The New York Times in July that her company “obtained fetal tissue in accordance with the rules made by ethics boards at the institutions buying it.”Leftist Propagandist

In that article, Dyer also was quoted as saying the process of obtaining fetal cells is “hard,” “expensive,” and takes “millions of dollars of equipment.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America consistently has denied any wrongdoing and was cleared in multiple state investigations. In October, after facing questions about its fetal tissue donation practices, Planned Parenthood announced it would no longer accept any reimbursement as part of its tissue donation program.how many body parts

During today’s hearing, called “The Pricing of Fetal Tissue,” Republicans were expected to call Brian Patrick Lennon, a former assistant U.S. attorney from Michigan, to testify as a witness.

In his written testimony, released in advance, Lennon argues that based on the evidence, an “ethical federal prosecutor could establish probable cause that both the abortion clinics and the procurement business violated the [federal] statute (42 U.S.C. § 289g-2), aided and abetted one another in violating the statute (18 U.S.C. § 2), and likely conspired together to violate the statute (18 U.S.C. § 371).”Why isit legal

Republicans also were scheduled to hear testimony from Michael Norton, a former U.S. attorney for the state of Colorado; Catherine Glenn Foster, associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and CEO and general counsel at Sound Legal; and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., who is pro-life, among others.

Democrats were slated to bring in Fay Clayton, a lawyer who formerly represented the Anatomical Gift Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that provided donated tissue to medical researchers.

In her prepared statement, Clayton criticizes Republicans for “using [the panel’s] subpoena power to compel testimony from health care providers and medical researchers” and for failing to subpoena David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, the pro-life group behind the string of undercover videos targeting Planned Parenthood.

“The fact that the select panel has been using its subpoena power to compel testimony from health care providers and medical researchers—who have better things to do with their time than Mr. Daleiden does—suggests the panel is not genuinely interested in public policy at all,” Clayton says in the written statement.Leftist Propagandist

Democrats also were set to hear from Robert Raben, president and founder of the Raben Group, a progressive policy group, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., a pro-choice lawmaker.

Witnesses likely will be asked to respond to Blackburn and other panel members who, the chairman said, “believe that it is more than likely that payments to the abortion clinics and to the procurement businesses have exceeded reasonable cost.”

I AM A PERSON with Poem Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

New Politically INCORRECT Memes


waving flag teenagesr if illegal Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

 

From My Email INBOX


 

waving flagWhen God just ‘let’s things happen’

Written by John Smith
Seems that every time the nation experiences a another tragic event, the question is always asked, “Why does God let things like this happen?”

Perhaps He has been left with no other action that will get a mankind, bent on ignoring Him, to be brought again to their attention.  One could suppose that the further God is intentionally removed, or unintentionally disregarded – dismissed – from the conscious mind and spiritual conscience of man, that He is forced to allow more and more ‘jarring’ events to bring the mind back to cognizance.

I suggest that the next time – and there will be next time – instead of asking, “Why does God allow …?”, we should begin to ask, “For what purpose has God allowed …?”

Another question being asked, at present, is why there seems to be so little civility in a supposedly advanced society such as ours, here in the United States.  Could it be that God has come to a point of exasperation – that He has simply said, “if that is what the mind of the people accept, then, so be it”.

In my lifetime, I have never seen or heard of the forbearance of such dishonest, dishonorable, crass, classless, ignorant, men and women as are being found acceptable candidates for the highest office in the nation.  Have we – sadly – fallen to the place where a prideful, selfish, dishonest, classless, crass, profane and vulgar society has become the tolerable norm to us.

Many are the historically tragic(?) ends, when a nation falls prey to some man’s call to the pursuit of ‘national greatness’.  As I recall, The United States of America has never sought ‘greatness’, as an end, (pun intended), nor has it ever sought the leadership of one who espouses to intentionally lead the nation to ‘greatness’, then, or now.  But today, we have one who is, apparently acceptable, who deigns to lead the country to greatness, “again”.  Have we forgotten that the halls of history are strewn with the carcasses of so many imperialist, and there enthusiastic minions, seeking national greatness.  Meanwhile, God says that it is “righteousness” that “exalteth a nation”.

Perhaps we, as a nation and a society, should be asking three questions, of God, “How have we arrived at this place in our history?”  “Why have we arrived at this condition in our history?”, and, “For what purpose are we being subjected to these choices?”

How far we have strayed from the humble path that made ‘US’ a great nation.

Die true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

Commentary: GOP v. Trump: It’s like they’re stupid or something


Commentary March 3, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/03/03/gop-v-trump-its-like-theyre-stupid-or-something

GOP v. Trump: It’s like they’re stupid or something (Image via thegeekwhisperer.com)

Romney?  Really?

Sure enough, a tone-deaf GOP establishment (sorry to be banal and use that expression, but it’s accurate enough) deployed Mitt Romney to lob its big volley at Donald Trump after his strong performance on Super Tuesday.  The speech was predictable: a grave-sounding indictment of Trump, delivered with Romney’s characteristically earnest but cheerful demeanor.

Whom did the GOP establishment think it was appealing to with the Romney speech?  That’s a serious question.  Who was the target audience?

If it was aimed at the people who support Trump today, Romney is not the guy to deliver the message.  Those people think Romney and candidates like him have been the Republican Party’s chief problem for the last 30 years.  They think Romney’s the reason we got four more years of Obama in 2012.

If the speech was aimed at convincing the undecided, it was the dumbest speech ever made for that purpose.  It was all about attacking Trump – and on a pretty personal level.  That’s not how you persuade the undecided.

Attacking personalities palls on everyone rather quickly.  It’s a drive-by tactic.  It looks really disproportionate to stage a big, solemn oratorical event just to dump on Trump.

That point leads to the larger one: why have this speech at all?  What does the GOP brand buy itself by attacking Trump, in this stately, strained manner?

If the answer is “more cred with the mainstream punditry and the Washington-centric political class,” well, God help the GOP.  It’s too stupid to live.

Moving on.  Between 30% and 50% of GOP voters, depending on state, have gone for one of Ted  (TX – R) or Marco Rubio (FL – R), but it’s hard to see how the Romney speech could have been aimed at them.  Those voters have (a) decided, and (b) decided not to vote for Trump in the primaries.  Is there something else they’re supposed to do after this speech?

Maybe the speech was intended as the opening salvo in an asymmetrical campaign by the GOP establishment to “broker” the convention in Cleveland.  Like, a signal flare that they’re going to fight this Trump dude, or something along those lines.  If so, it’s a poorly crafted demonstration.  Not only doesn’t it scare anybody, it just makes the Trump divisions more determined.

Even more important, it exposes the GOP establishment further.  It shows the establishment’s hand, and generates opposition to its anti-consensual intentions unnecessarily.  It’s quite likely that every trial balloon about a brokered convention drives more voters to Trump, out of frustration with the GOP leadership’s highhandedness.

That’s the problem with the establishment’s approach: all it does by coming back again and again at Trump is make him stronger.  It’s like the GOP’s top echelon is sending one contender after another at the mythical Antaeus, and every time they throw him to earth, he gains strength.

Of course, if the GOP establishment wants everybody talking about Trump, listening to Trump, listening to other people talk about Trump, focusing on Trump, and waiting to see what Trump will do or say next, then it is doing everything right.

Sending forth Marco Rubio to turn his campaign into an anti-Trump stand-up routine sure worked out, didn’t it?  Maybe it got him a big second-place finish in Virginia.  (Maybe.  Virginia was going to have a high incidence of Rubio voters anyway, because it’s a purple state now.)

But the main thing average, lower-information voters remember about Rubio at this point is a male-appendage joke targeting Trump, and something snarky he said about Trump selling watches.  If you asked those voters what Rubio would do about the bad economy, gun rights, or national security, they couldn’t tell you.

On the other hand, they can tell you Trump wants to build a wall at the southern border.  And now, thanks to the MSM, they can tell you that Trump has disavowed the KKK quite thoroughly – probably more times in the last week than 90% of career politicians in their political lives, and he’s on video doing it.  By the peculiar standard of “disavowing the KKK on national TV,” who out there looks better than Donald Trump?

No matter what they throw at him, it turns into grist for his mill.  It’s like watching the Coyote tilt fruitlessly at the Roadrunner, and end up over and over being punched through the edge of a cliff by a falling anvil.

It’s more melancholy than funny to watch, although it has its moments. Perhaps the most poignant moment in recent politics was Romney’s invocation today of the Reagan “Time for Choosing” speech. (Transcription from CNN; link above.)

“I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country,” Romney said in Utah at the Hinckley Institute of Politics Forum.

The Reagan speech resounds in conservative hearts as a watershed in their, and their country’s, political fortunes, and for good reason.  But the truth is, there’s no one who sees Romney and the GOP establishment as the trustees of that legacy.  And that would be because they merely deploy Reagan’s words and tone – in this case, for a cheap and ineffectual purpose.

What did Romney pull the Reagan big gun for?  Not to inspire his listeners.  To attack Trump.  Here’s the rest of his passage:

“His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.”

So, by portentous analogy, Donald Trump is a threat to America on a par with Soviet international Communism.  We’re staring into the abyss of a thousand years of darkness, because of Donald Trump.  Or something.

The implication here is really over the top, as Jeff Dunetz correctly pointed out (on a related theme) yesterday.  And that’s an important exit point.  When it comes to being over the top, the GOP establishment is up against the master.  It’s out of its league.  It can’t win on this battlefield.

I doubt it’s going to learn much between now and Cleveland.  Sarah Palin, whatever her faults, understands much better what’s going on in the Republican electorate.  And there’s a reason for that.  It’s because she sees things from the perspective of the ordinary, middle-class people who are bearing the entire burden of the 20th century’s old consensus: bloated, intrusive government, a government that despises the people and sucks them dry.

Start with respecting that, GOP leaders.  No one who doesn’t have a heart, first, for the people and their liberty is going to prosper in trying to wrest the GOP nomination from Trump.  You can take that to the bank, with my signature on it.

J.E. DyerJ.E. Dyer

J.E. Dyer is a retired Naval Intelligence officer who lives in Southern California, blogging as The Optimistic Conservative for domestic tranquility and world peace. Her articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s Contentions, Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard.

 

 

true battle Die In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Branco Past Blast Cartoon – Republicide


waving flagMonday, February 29, 2016

Republicide – Where republicans, in trying to appease their donors, the leftist media, and illegal immigrants, while ignoring their base, is total suicide.

Republicide

Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2013.

Best of Branco cartoon book <——- ORDER HERE!!!

no more rinos stupid Die Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Commentary by Rush Limbaugh: “What You Talkin’ ‘Bout, Tillis? Republicans Begin to Fold on Scalia’s Replacement After Just Two Days!”


 February 17, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/17/what_you_talkin_bout_tillis_republicans_begin_to_fold_on_scalia_s_replacement_after_just_two_days

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, the situation Obama out there blasting the Republicans for threatening to block his Supreme Court nominee? He says it goes against the Constitution.  I can’t go through a day without just blowing up and at the same time laughing at it. You talk about hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of Obama, Chuck Schumer, all these guys on Supreme Court nominees? It’s blatant, in your face.  They know it’s not gonna come back and bite them.
They know the hypocrisy charge, even if it sticks, is never gonna harm them.  But with Obama saying opposing his nominee goes against the Constitution — which, of course, it doesn’t. But the real question is: Why should Obama be so concerned about what the Constitution says about appointing someone to the Supreme Court when he doesn’t want whoever he appoints to follow the Constitution anyway?

He’s gonna find somebody who’s gonna rewrite the Constitution.  That’s his criteria.  He’s gonna find somebody who will make law from the bench, like John Roberts has been doing, not somebody who’s gonna interpret the Constitution.  So what does he care what the Constitution says?  As far as that is concerned, he doesn’t care what the Constitution says anyway when it comes to things that he wants.  Ever heard of executive orders? Executive actions?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, I remember. It was shortly after we learned of the death of Justice Scalia, it didn’t take but minutes for the politics of his replacement discussion to get going. And Mitch McConnell put out this statement, said that the president should not make an appointment and should not have the right, opportunity, whatever, in a lame duck year like this. And I had a lot of people on Saturday, “See what Mitch did, man, that was great, Mitch came out there, Mitch really hammered them.” On the golf course Sunday, a friend, “Did you see what Mitch did, Mitch really hammered them.” I said, “Wait a minute, Mitch didn’t hammer anybody. Mitch said ‘should.’ He didn’t say ‘would not’; he said ‘should not.’ There’s wiggle room there.”

“No, no, Rush, you’re –” both my friends on Saturday and Sunday on the golf course, “You’re misinterpreting this. I’m not reading it the way you are, Rush.” You see, folks, in my world I’m never right. In my personal world I am never right. It’s a badge of honor to show me to be wrong. My life is a perpetual never ending competition. My personal life. I’m telling these guys, “You are replacing your intelligence with hope. You hope that Mitch is gonna hammer ’em. You hope the Republicans are gonna hang in there. But what is the experience we’ve got over the last seven years?” Well, it didn’t take long.

We now have Chuck Grassley (paraphrased), “Whoa, I’m rethinking this. Maybe we will conduct hearings.” And then Mel Tillis… (Nope, I take it back. That’s the country singer.) Thom Tillis, North Carolina. (paraphrased) “Oh, I think we don’t want to look like obstructionists.” And there it is, folks! There it is! (paraphrased) “We don’t want to look like obstructionists.” That’s translated: “We have to cross the aisle on this. We have to show the people we can help make Washington work.

“It will harm us if we are the agents of gridlock, and the government is not working.” So when Tillis said, “We can’t appear to be obstructionist,” that means this firm, “There’s no way” lasted about a day. And now we’re to the possibility of hearings. And now it’s all, “If Obama nominates a moderate…” Even Obama said he’s not gonna nominate a moderate! Somebody in the Drive-Bys went and asked Obama, “The Republicans say they might be willing to work with you if you no time a moderate.”

“Moderate?” He laughed. “I don’t know what that means! I’m gonna nominate somebody qualified.” Translation: “I’m gonna find the nearest socialist I can and I’m gonna ram it down their throats. Get your popcorn ready. Moderate? Are you kidding me? I don’t do moderate!” But here are the Republicans. So I just… I tried to warn everybody not to confuse your hope with what you think you heard. I even got into an argument with Snerdley! He thinks that Mitch McConnell…

large“He was dead serious! This is different, Rush. It’s the Supreme Court.”

“Different? What’s different about it?” I asked him the question: “What does Mitch McConnell want more than anything in the world?”

And Snerdley got it. “He wants to stay majority leader.” That’s true, and whatever has to happen to make that happen, bank on it. I can run through a scenario where they conduct hearings and an Obama nominee gets confirmed before the election. I can run through the scenario. You want me to run through the scenario before the program ends? I can go… (interruption) Yeah, part of you wants me to do it; the other part of you doesn’t want to hear it, right? (interruption) All right. ‘Cause you’re… (interruption) All right. So we’ve got that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Die stupid Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Three Reasons Not to Trust Republicans’ Failure Theater on Justice Scalia Replacement


waving flagby Ben Shapiro, 16 Feb 2016

In March 2010, McConnell and then-House Speaker John Boehner wrote an op-ed about Obamacare, stating, “Taxpayers can expect Republicans to stand up for them and do whatever is necessary to prevent Democrats from forcing such an unpopular, unaffordable bill through Congress.” Of course, once that bill was passed and Republicans gained power, both Boehner and McConnell fully funded it.

In October 2014, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus told Breitbart News:

“We will do everything we can to make sure [executive amnesty] doesn’t happen – defunding, going to court, injunction, you name it. It’s wrong. It’s illegal. And for so many reasons, and just the basic fabric of the country, we can’t allow it to happen, and we won’t let it happen.”Bull

At the same time, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said, “Because we don’t have the Senate, we don’t have the power of the purse. We’d like to exercise that more effectively, and if we can get the Senate, we can do that.” That, of course, did not happen. The Republicans, instead, fully funded Obama’s executive amnesty last year.no more rinos

In November 2015, in the aftermath of release of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood executives bargaining over the sale of baby body parts, McConnell stated, “We’re confident that the Obamacare repeal bill … will contain a defund of Planned Parenthood.” When push came to shove, of course, McConnell refused to include a Planned Parenthood funding cut in a spending bill, stating it would be “an exercise in futility.” Planned Parenthood continues to be funded.stupid

So, do we trust Mitch McConnell and company when they say that they will stop President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee?OH HELL NO

The stakes could not be higher here, and McConnell has not earned our trust. Look, instead, for McConnell to engage in play fighting: shouting loudly from the rooftops that Obama’s nominees will be stalled, and then caving in when Obama begins to shut down the government to force the issue.

Here are three factors that will precipitate the kabuki theater:

Obama’s Choice of Nominee.

President Obama is likely to nominate a minority who has already been approved by Republicans in the Senate for a separate position. Today, Tom Goldstein, who runs SCOTUSblog, says that Obama will likely pick polarizing Attorney General Loretta Lynch, stating, “The fact that Lynch was vetted so recently for attorney general also makes it practical for the president to nominate her in relatively short order.” Lynch passed through the Senate 56-43 in her confirmation, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), among others, praised her. Obama will run his usual game plan, meanwhile: he’ll suggest that Republican opposition is based on her race and his own.

The Republicans’ 2016 Plans.

Many Republicans are fond of promising they’ll stop Obama’s agenda, but like good little Democrats, run for the hills the moment government funding comes under fire. The good news: because Republicans already caved to Obama and passed a massive omnibus package that carries a fully-funded government through the 2016 election, Obama won’t have a lot of leverage here. The bad news: Republicans can always find some leverage to give Obama, particularly if McConnell feels that the hold-up is reflecting badly on Senate Republicans. Plus, Republicans will have to ensure that they never allow a recess to prevent Obama from making a recess appointment.

The Election.

McConnell and company have already set an end-date for their kabuki theater protest: the election. What happens, however, if Hillary Clinton is elected? Do they then allow her to appoint a leftist to the Court, forever shifting the balance of the Court and putting a stake through the heart of the Constitution?OH HELL NO

All of this means that conservatives must continue to place heavy pressure on their senators not to cave here or in the future. That will be a rough road. But any Republican who does cave should face the threat of immediate primary. This isn’t about a reversible government policy implemented by the left. This is about the appointment of a lifetime leftist to a position of ultimate power. It simply can’t be allowed to happen.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagPast Blast Cartoon – About Last Night

GOP Amnesty – GOP can be such huge suckers when compromising with democrats.

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

Cruz accuses McConnell of working for Dems


waving flagBy  Susan Ferrechio (@susanferrechio) 10/29/2015

Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican presidential candidate, conducted a 90-minute takedown late Thursday of his own Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who he characterized by name as a weak leader unwilling to fight for conservative causes. Cruz, a Tea Party conservative, frequently bucks Senate GOP leaders and has on at least one other occasion criticized McConnell in a Senate floor speech.

But late Thursday, he took on McConnell with renewed antipathy, using pie charts to demonstrate that the Kentucky no more rinosRepublican has bolstered the Democratic agenda rather than conservative goals during his ten-month tenure. “Why is a Republican majority leader fighting to accomplish the priorities of the Democratic minority?” Cruz asked.

Cruz criticized a broad budget and debt limit deal the Senate is scheduled to vote on early Friday, arguing that the accord gave President Obama and Democrats all that they wanted, with nothing in return for Republicans seeking to rein in spending and shrink the debt.

Many conservatives have waved off as insignificant a provision in the bill that aims to cut the cost of the nearly insolvent Social Security Disability Insurance program with heightened fraud scrutiny.

The legislation increases spending by $80 billion over two years, breaking budget caps. It also suspends the nation’s $18.1 trillion borrowing limit until March 2017.

“This means that Republican majorities in both parties will be extracting nothing significant from President Obama,” Cruz said in opposition to the bill. “This deal means that Republican leadership will have fully surrendered.”AMEN

Cruz’s drubbing didn’t stop with the budget.

Using pie charts, Cruz made the case that McConnell has helped to pass legislation opposed by the majority of Senate Republicans but supported by the majority of Democrats.

Climate change legislation and an amendment to revive the Export-Import were among the measures brought to the floor despite opposition from a majority of Republicans, Cruz noted. The provisions passed with mostly Democratic support.

Cruz said McConnell should employ an old GOP House rule to bring to the floor only legislation that has a majority of Republican Senators backing it. He said the established congressional leaders aren’t looking out for ordinary Americans but rather big corporations, who cut them checks for them at D.C. cocktail parties and reward them later with million-dollar jobs.

Cruz also targeted now former Speaker John Boehner, who retires Friday. Boehner wrote much of the budget deal Cruz opposes. “The lame duck speaker, on his way out, will no doubt land in a plush easy chair, in the Washington D.C. cartel, and will soon be making millions of dollars, living off the cartel,” Cruz said. GOPNoSpineCartoon

Cruz said Americans are onto the scheme and are tired of Republicans making promises on the campaign trail, only to shy away from big fights once elected. “That frustration is driving every day, the growing rage from the American people,” Cruz said.AMEN

McConnell has traditionally chosen to avoid responding to Cruz’s attacks and has discouraged other GOP lawmakers from defending him on the Senate floor. Most Senate Republicans support McConnell and have privately and publicly accused Cruz of using floor diatribes to raise campaign cash from the conservative base and support for his presidential bid. 

Jim Manley, a former top aide to Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Cruz had taken an unprecedented step in attacking McConnell Thursday night. “I have never, EVER, seen anything like it,” Manley said on Twitter. “McConnell should not dignify with a response, but wow.”

Delusional Mental Illness Gibberish In God We Trust freedom combo 2

What the Tea Party Has Achieved


waving flagPosted by Stephen Moore / / October 13, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/13/what-the-tea-party-has-achieved/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRouuKzOZKXonjHpfsX74%2BokW6S2hYkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTcBnNrHYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3NLtQN191pRhLiDA%3D%3D

Tea party members on the East Front of the U.S. Capitol hold up signs and flags during a rally.(Photo: Douglas Graham/Roll Call/ Newscom/ Edited: Daily Signal)

Remember the much thQLU2UA1Tmaligned Tea Party movement? These were the patriotic Americans—millions of them—who took to the streets and the town halls across America and revolted against President Bush’s corporate bailouts, President Obama’s stimulus spending blowout and Obamacare, and the Federal Reserve’s policy of tossing trillions of dollars out of helicopter windows (figuratively).

Good news: They helped change and maybe even slightly fix America. The latest budget deficit numbers for the fiscal year just ended find that the deficit has fallen by $1 trillion since Obama’s tragic first term. The deficit is still near half a trillion, but the hole is a lot smaller than it was before the Tea Party spontaneous combustion happened back in 2009.

This was a movement about saving America from itself. Tea Party members are homemakers, veterans, small listbusiness owners, retirees, college students, and blue-collar workers. They generally don’t want anything from government. At the 9-12 rally in Washington a few years ago, an activist from Florida explained to me what his goal was: “All we want from government is less of it.” They wanted a lot less of it from a president and a Congress who kept dispensing trillions more.

The media portrayed the Tea Party as a spoiled three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum. The left pilloried these patriots, offensively calling them “Tea Baggers” and racists and crazies.

But who was crazy? In two years, 2009 and 2010, Barack Obama and his accomplices then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and then-Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., managed to borrow about $2.5 trillion. These fiscal three stooges called this volcano of debt a stimulus to the economy. It didn’t work, and the unemployment rate was higher than it would have been without the borrowing blitz—by their own admission.

The Tea Party, more than any other political organization, sprang into action, with the single-minded purpose of forcing an end to this spending orgy. Spending has fallen over a three-year period from 2011-2014 for the first time since Joe DiMaggio roamed center field for the New York Yankees.

This is all the more impressive because government spending for Obamacare is soaring. This means that every dollar don_t_tread_on_me_hebathat has been spent on this new entitlement program has been offset by a dollar of cuts elsewhere.

It’s also worth giving credit to retiring House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. It was Boehner who forced Obama to accept tight spending caps as part of the fiscal cliff budget deal. This was one of the best deals taxpayers have seen in a long time. Boehner refused to accept Obama’s tax hike proposals, which could have plunged the economy back in to recession.

The budget numbers of the U.S. government are, of course, still dire. The debt has toppled $18 trillion, and soon we will bump up against another debt ceiling, with the spending lobby demanding an increase in the congressional credit card. But at least we are not Greece or Detroit: we are off fiscal life support for the time being.

Alas, we may need the Tea Party to take to the streets again. Republicans are set to negotiate a budget deal with the White House that could bust through budget caps and spend an extra $75 billion, which will reverse hard-earned progress.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., the House Budget Committee chairman and a consistent fiscal superstar for taxpayers, is defendfighting to keep the spending tides from crashing over the budget act ceilings, but he’s outnumbered even inside his own party. In Washington, the urge to play Santa Claus is still truly bipartisan.

Let’s hope the history books get the Tea Party chapter right. These weren’t a bunch of angry white males organized by the Koch brothers to protect industry. This was and still is a save-America crusade as impactful as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the anti-tax activism of the 1970s. They arrived just in time, and America still needs them.

 

 

 

 

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Ann Coulter Letter: “Donald Trump: The Only People Who Like Him Are The Voters”


waving flagAuthored by  Ann Coulter  | 

Donald Trump: The Only People Who Like Him Are The Voters

Trump speaks at GOP dinner Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday spoke to the Arkansas Republican party’s Reagan-Rockefeller dinner. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Most Republicans running for president have only one idea: Be like Reagan!

Unfortunately, they seem to remember nothing about Reagan apart from the media-created caricature of a slightly addled old man who somehow mesmerized an imbecilic public with his sunny optimism.

Jeb! goes around saying, “I believe we’re on the verge of the greatest time to be alive.”

Marco Rubio answered a question in the first debate about God and veterans, saying: “Well, first, let me say I think God has blessed us. He has blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. … And I believe God has blessed our country. This country has been extraordinarily blessed. And we have honored that blessing. And that’s why God has continued to bless us.”

John Kasich responded to a question at the New Hampshire presidential forum about why he was running, saying: “Well, Jack, look, we’re all — we — I’ve received blessings. Most of us here have been very, very blessed, and when you get that way, you have to figure out what your purpose is in life to make the world a little better place.”

They all sound like Barney, the purple dinosaur, singing, “I love you, you love me!”

The other problem with the Be Reagan strategy is: It’s not 1980 anymore. Reagan’s election is as far away today as the defeat of Hitler was then.

Gov. Scott Walker’s answer to whether he’d invade Iraq, knowing “what you know today,” was: “I’d point out that in the overall issue of foreign policy, I’d say in my lifetime, the most impressive president when it came to foreign policy was a governor from California.”

What does that even mean? Is he going to invade Grenada, fund the Contras and put missiles in Western Europe? Back in 1996, when Bob Dole said, “I’m willing to be another Ronald Reagan, if that’s what you want,” at least people laughed.

When Moammar Gadhafi was under siege in 2011, Rick Santorum said: “Ronald Reagan bombed Libya. If you want to be Reaganesque, the path is clear.”

On the other hand, in the quarter century since Reagan bombed Libya, Bush invaded Iraq, prompting Gadhafi to end his WMD program, invite in U.N. weapons inspectors, and pay the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims $8 million apiece.

Nonetheless, “bomb Libya” is exactly what our feckless commander in chief did. Obama sent American troops to participate in the NATO bombing of Libya — which helped oust Gadhafi, which led to Islamic lunatics running the country, which led to the murder of four Americans, including our ambassador, in 2012, and the refugees flooding Europe today.

Formulaic applications of Reagan’s policies from the 1980s don’t always work the same way they did in the 1980s. (Similarly, Duran Duran’s new single was kind of a dud.) I used “What Would Reagan Do?” as a joke back in 2005; these guys think it’s an actual governing philosophy.

When Reagan was running (three and a half decades ago), there was a real fight in the Republican Party over abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, guns and foreign policy. Reagan had to face down elements in his own party to be pro-life, anti-ERA, pro-gun and to pursue an aggressive anti-Soviet foreign policy.

Reagan won. It’s over. The ERA is gone. The Soviet Union is gone. The GOP is unquestionably the party of life and the Second Amendment. (If only fetuses could get their hands on a gun!)

Ever since the hero of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, couldn’t get out of the starting gate in his presidential bid because he was pro-abortion and anti-gun, no serious Republican candidate is ever going to waver on those two issues again.

So why did Marco Rubio find it necessary to stress that he opposed abortion even in cases of rape and incest at the first GOP presidential debate? Did he not live through that whole Todd Akin thing, like the rest of us?

Today, the fight in the Republican Party isn’t over abortion, guns or the Sandinistas; the dividing line is immigration. Will we continue to be the United States, or will we become another failed Latin American state?

On this, it’s Donald Trump (and the people) vs. everyone else.

Trump announced his presidential campaign by talking about Mexican rapists. Immigration is the only policy paper he’s put out so far — and he’s been crushing the polls. He got his one sustained standing ovation from 20,000 cheering fans in Dallas Monday night when he talked about stopping illegal immigration.

But James B. Stewart gasses on in The New York Times about Trump’s “name­calling, personal attacks and one-liners that have vaulted him to the top of the polls.” In the entire article, Stewart never mentions immigration.

Perhaps some minority of people will vote for Trump because of his personality. But I notice that it’s his position on immigration that gets thousands of people leaping to their feet.

The media will talk about anything but Trump’s specific, detailed policies on immigration — all while claiming he doesn’t have any “policy details.” The very fact that the entire media — including most of the conservative commentariat — obdurately refuse to acknowledge the popularity of Trump’s immigration plans is exactly why Trump is exploding in the polls.

Trump isn’t trying to imitate anyone. He’s leading on the seminal issue of our time while the rest of the field practices looking optimistic in front of the mirror.

95b119e45c50cbea1e7a4fbfa33415f3 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

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagFriends

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagDealing From Behind

Obama has lost it! Says Iranians chanting ‘death to America’ share ‘common cause’ with GOP


 

waving flagAugust 5, 2015 | by

obamairan0805&amp;amp;lt;img class=”alignleft wp-image-233838″ src=”http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/obamairan0805.jpg&#8221; alt=”obamairan0805″ width=”320″ height=”167″ /&amp;gt;Comparing American politicians to Muslim mobs screaming “death to America” is an insult like no other in American politics – and President Obama hurled it Wednesday right at Republicans opposed to his nuclear deal with Iran.

Before a crowd of cheering sycophants at American University in Washington, Obama was patronizing before he became insulting. But the insult came.

“I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously,” he said, as though he was talking to third-graders.

“But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts, or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hard-liners chant ‘death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe.”

And that’s when the hammer fell.

“In fact, it’s those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hard-liners chanting ‘death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.”

You have to see it to believe it.

&amp;amp;lt;iframe src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/FjY_GkhqJsk&#8221; width=”560″ height=”315″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=”allowfullscreen”&amp;gt;obama

Indenification of ObamaSocial media was disgusted by the outburst.

t01 t02 t03

CORRECTION: This post originally stated the location of Obama’s speech incorrectly.

freedom combo 2

Exclusive: Trump threatens third-party run


waving flagBy Kevin Cirilli and Bob Cusack – 07/23/15

See-Trump-Told-You-2b
NEW YORK — Donald Trump says the chances that he will launch a third-party White House run will “absolutely” increase if the Republican National Committee is unfair to him during the 2016 primary season. “The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,” the business mogul told The Hill in a 40-minute interview from his Manhattan office at Trump Tower on Wednesday. “The RNC has been, I think, very foolish.”

Pressed on whether he would run as a third-party candidate if he fails to clinch the GOP nomination, Trump said that “so many people want me to, if I don’t win.” “I’ll have to see how I’m being treated by the Republicans,” Trump said. “Absolutely, if they’re not fair, that would be a factor.”

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus called Trump earlier this month asking him to tone down his controversial rhetoric. More recently, the RNC rebuked him for saying that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is not a war hero. Trump didn’t apologize but has since said that the 2008 Republican presidential nominee is a war hero.

Trump told The Hill that the GOP establishment in Washington dislikes him because he’s not part of the political class. “I’m not in the gang. I’m not in the group where the group does whatever it’s supposed to do,” he said. “I want to do what’s right for the country — not what’s good for special interest groups that contribute, not what’s good for the lobbyists and the donors.”

The real estate magnate has upended the Republican presidential primary, with recent national polls showing that he is leading the 16-candidate field. Many in the party’s establishment, pointing to his inflammatory comments about Mexican immigrants and McCain, say that Trump is badly hurting the GOP brand. Yet he is connecting with a significant chunk of GOP voters. And despite criticism from party leaders and other presidential candidates, Trump appears fueled by controversy.

His office, which has a stunning view of Central Park, is filled with family photos, golf trophies and sports paraphernalia. At various times during the interview, Trump pointed out that he isn’t a politician. But the reality TV personality has politician-like skills, answering questions he wants to answer and driving the conversation to where he wants to take it. Trump doesn’t shy away from eye contact, and while prone to complaining about reporters, he is comfortable in his own skin. 

 The 69-year-old, of course, is no stranger to the media, and on Wednesday he complimented his questioners while also urging them — on more than one occasion — “to be fair.” 

 He insisted that his remarks about McCain and immigration have not and will not hurt him, and pointed to several recent polls to make his point. 

Not surprisingly, Trump is a big fan of polls now.

At one point, he whipped out a survey that he had inside his suit pocket, and later he called on an aide to print out the latest poll numbers showing him leading former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R). “I’m surprised that I’m this high,” he said. 

Unlike former Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) four years ago, Trump is not predicting victory. He won’t utter the former Speaker’s famous “I’m going to be the nominee” statement, saying that would be “presumptuous.” He attributes his rise to being frank with voters. “I’m not surrounded by all sorts of pollsters and PR people,” Trump said. “I speak the truth. Our country is in big trouble, and I know how to turn it around.” “Competence” and “leadership” are what voters are looking for, he says.

 While some of his Republican rivals, such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, must do well in Iowa, and others Iowa State Lineare looking to New Hampshire, including Bush, Trump doesn’t see his path to victory as state-specific. And he was tight-lipped on how he’s preparing for the Aug. 6 Fox News debate, which will only allow for the top 10 candidates by poll standing to appear on the stage. “I’ve got a lot of knowledge having to do with government. For the debates, I’ll work on that,” he said. “As far as the debate is concerned, these politicians debate every night. That’s all they do is talk. I don’t do that. I do other things. I’m a job creator.”

 He said he’d appoint judges to the Supreme Court with a “conservative bent,” praising Justice Samuel Alito and criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts. “Jeb Bush was the one that pushed Roberts through his brother, and Roberts gave us ObamaCare,” Trump said. “Roberts was a terrible choice. We wouldn’t be talking about ObamaCare right now if we didn’t have Roberts.”

He spoke favorably of setting term limits in Congress without offering specifics and didn’t rule out endorsing congressional candidates in 2016. Trump did not show his hand on whether he might endorse a primary challenger to McCain, who has one such competitor in his Arizona race. 

Trump said he agreed with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in opposing President Obama’s trade policy.

“You know the funniest thing about Bernie Sanders? The one thing we agree on is trade,” the billionaire said with a smile. “He knows the country is ripped off. And I know the country is being ripped off. The difference is that I can do something about it and he can’t. He’ll never be able to negotiate with China.”

 Trump said that despite his tough talk about China, he’d be able to have a working relationship with its leaders. To accentuate his point, Trump brought The Hill six floors down to note that the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China rents space in his building. “They just renewed their lease and you know why? They love Trump,” he said. 

He said that Sanders is a sort of “duplicate” of liberal favorite Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who he said has pushed Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for 2016, to the left.Constancy

“She’s had a huge impact on Clinton,” Trump said. “Hillary is going way left, and I sort of laugh because I know Hillary very well. … The interesting part about Hillary is that her donors are all the hedge fund guys and the business guys and the real estate guys. And they’re all saying, ‘Do you think she means it?’ And I say, ‘Of course she doesn’t mean it — you know her.’ ”

Trump has long said he loves his job of striking deals and making money. But now that job is on hold as he attempts to become the 45th president. Trump says he’s enjoying running for commander in chief, though he knows it’s early in the game.  “It’s very hard for a very successful person to run for political office — especially for president,” he said, after asking for business cards. “I get that now more than anything.”

freedom combo 2

Dems come to defense of Planned Parenthood


waving flagBy Sarah Ferris07/15/15

Congressional Democrats are coming to the defense of Planned Parenthood as Republicans launch investigations into the group’s use of fetal tissue from abortions. Multiple Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday dismissed a secretly recorded viral video that shows a Planned Parenthood executive detailing how the livers, lungs and hearts of fetuses are preserved during abortions for medical research. “It’s got a Benghazi feel to it, for me,” centrist Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) said. “They’ve been attacking Planned Parenthood for years,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another prominent abortion rights supporter. “They’ve been calling for investigations for years.”Dismissive

Still, the footage, which was recorded by anti-abortion advocates posing as fetal tissue buyers from a research company, is putting Democrats in an uncomfortable spot. While Democrats have for years defended Planned Parenthood against GOP attacks, the graphic discussion about “fetal parts” in the video has energized conservative groups that say the reality of abortion is deliberately obscured by the media.

The remarks from Planned Parenthood’s chief medical director surfaced Tuesday in a nearly nine-minute video that was created by a new group, the Center for Medical Progress. Planned Parenthood, which receives federal funding that cannot be used for abortions, has acknowledged that the video does feature its top medical officer but says the footage is heavily edited and “grossly mischaracterizes” the organization’s practice of donating fetal tissue to research.Bull

At least one anti-abortion Democrat, Rep. Dan Lipinski (Ill.), said he supports the GOP for its planned investigations. Lipinski denounced the video in a press conference with several House Republicans on Wednesday and said he believes more of his colleagues in the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus will follow. “I’m hopeful that some of the pro-choice Democrats also come out in support of the investigation to find out what’s going on at these clinics,” he told The Hill. “I think everyone should be concerned about it, no matter what your position is on abortion.”

Some Democrats, like Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.), the co-chairwoman of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, have been cautious in their response to the video. In a statement to The Hill, she expressed support for Planned Parenthood, though it fell far short of a sweeping defense. “Planned Parenthood has spoken clearly on the specific circumstances surrounding this video, and I will let their experts explain for themselves. Circumstances of this video aside, people need to understand the important research that specific tissue types contribute to,” she wrote in a statement.What did you say 06.jpg

The video, which is nearing 1.5 million views online, reverberated across Capitol Hill and the campaign trail on Wednesday. Less than 24 hours after it surfaced, lawmakers in the House had opened a pair of congressional investigations. Dozens of Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), have condemned the claims in the video as “inhumane” and “grotesque.”

GOP presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Ky.), are also raising the issue’s national profile. The remarks by Planned Parenthood’s medical director in the video are shockingly candid.

While sipping wine in a Los Angeles restaurant, she describes “crushing” the fetus in a way that preserves its organs for researchers. She also describes the growing demand for liver, lungs and “intact” hearts.

Democrats have said there’s no evidence that the group is violating federal laws from her remarks, though none of them told The Hill they had seen the video. “Planned Parenthood is actually allowed, is my understanding, for scientific research, to use fetal tissue, and that is not illegal,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus who said she had spoken to Planned Parenthood leadership. When asked about Republicans’ planned investigations into Planned Parenthood, Schakowsky said she wanted an investigation into the Center for Medical Progress, which she called “a phony company.”

The issue of abortion has already caused trouble for members of Congress in both parties this year, from a bipartisan Senate bill to fight human trafficking to a House bill banning late-term abortions that drew objections over its language on rape.

Earlier this week, House leaders pulled a bipartisan bill from Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) that would have created a commemorative coin to help raise money for breast cancer research because some of that funding would have gone to Planned Parenthood. The bill was ultimately passed Wednesday with broad support from both parties. But Maloney hinted that the delay was, in part, because of the Planned Parenthood video. Asked if she thought the outrage over the video fueled sudden opposition to her bill, Maloney responded, “Yes. It is an unusual coincidence, shall we say.” 

Cristina Marcos contributed.

Party of Deciet and lies freedom combo 2

President 2016: Clinton’s big CNN interview


by David FreddosoJul 12, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativeintel.com/2015/07/12/the-briefing-vol-iii-issue-21

Constancy

Hillary Clinton: Clinton’s big CNN interview — her first as a candidate — demonstrates why her campaign House071015- Clinton-CNN (House Only)has gone to such great lengths to keep her away from interviewers. A defensive Clinton blamed Republicans for most of the problems she created for herself.

She made many untrue statements in the process — for example, that she was not required to turn over her work emails, that there were no rules or regulations against her keeping them private and withholding them for so long, and (although one might quibble that it’s a question of opinion) that voters trust her.What did you say 05.jpg

This isn’t the place to dissect these, or her claim that she was not under subpoena (it depends on what the definition of “was” is), but it’s important to note the continuity of Clinton style. The maze of Clinton investigations and allegations became so complex in the late 1990s that it became all too easy for Team Clinton to muddy the waters with factually false statements.

In a similar way, Hillary and her team seem to think that all she has to do under media pressure is state that everything she did to separate her work product from as secretary of State was both legal and ethical (even if it wasn’t), and keep stating it. One potential problem with this is that the Clintons do not control the White House anymore and lack the institutional levers that contributed so much to Bill Clinton’s popularity. After all, he was president and Republicans were trying to remove him from the office. This time, in contrast, Hillary is a private citizen with a large bank account from monetizing government service. Voters (as the polls suggest) already smell a rat, and it’s still only July 2015.Breakfast-Of-600-LI

It is unclear whether Clinton’s scandals as known to date can truly sink her in a general election.  A lot will depend on the quality of the Republican nominee and whether the mainstream media is willing to continue pursuing these issues in depth as the campaign progresses.

But every time you see or hear about a huge Bernie Sanders event, bear in mind that fear of the potential for Clinton implosion is motivating some of his support. Among those who do not believe Clinton is an honest person, a small but significant share are liberals who will vote for her in November 2016 no matter what. It is not a hopeful sign, but it might not be fatal either.Clinton Democrat Party freedom combo 2

Dem: Rejecting Iran deal would be ‘absolute blow’ to presidential legitimacy


waving flagBy Ben Kamisar07/16/15

Suicide-USA-NRD-600Sen. Chris Murphy is warning that a congressional rejection of the Iran nuclear deal would be an “absolute blow” to presidential legitimacy on the world stage for years to come. “This would be an absolute blow to the legitimacy of this president, and of any president to negotiate a diplomatic agreement,” the Connecticut Democrat said Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”What did you say 02

This is an exceptional moment where you have the United States, our European partners, Russia and China all agreeing on a path forward, and if the United States Congress was to override that, I don’t know how any president in the future can ever sit across our allies and adversaries and negotiate a deal.”Keys taken

Murphy chided Republicans for a “casualness of opposition” given the consequences, and questioned whether the party believes in diplomacy. “Republicans in Congress just simply don’t believe in the legitimacy of diplomacy as a tool in the toolkit of the American president,” he said. “They do zero oversight on our war we are fighting right now against ISIS, military engagement in the Middle East, but they do oodles of oversight on a diplomatic agreement with Iran.”Picture1

muslim-obamaLawmakers are just beginning what’s likely to be a polarized debate over the controversial nuclear deal. Congress has the power to reject the deal, but that would have to overcome a presidential veto, meaning two-thirds of Congress would have to band together against it.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) on the same show pushed back against the idea that Republicans don’t support diplomacy, arguing that the terms simply amounted to a bad deal. He noted that the deal allows for a delay before monitors are able to access potentially secret nuclear sites, and expressed concerns about agreeing to lift arms and ballistic missile embargoes down the road if Iran follows the agreement. “This is a country that terrorizes the region already and we are going to make it easier for them to do that by lifting the sanctions and giving them tens of billions of dollars, in addition to now having access to the arms that would enable them to do that,” he said. Thune added that he’s approaching the deal with a “high level of skepticism” and said that his party isn’t against diplomacy, only weak diplomacy. “It’s got to be strong diplomacy and strong leadership. But that opportunity may have been lost, that window might have closed,” he said. “The next president is going to have to manage nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, and that’s essentially going to be the legacy of what this deal is.”

 

 

Symbolism over substance freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagErasing History

SHARE THIS: Here’s The Dirty Details of the Democrats’ Horribly Racist Legacy


waving flagPosted on July 13, 2015

Here are the facts about the history of racism and the Democrat party that you won’t hear from the mainstream media.

donkey

cropped-ignorance.png Party of Deciet and lies freedom combo 2

 

‘Fed up’ conservatives plot revenge against Boehner


waving flagBy Susan Ferrechio | June 23, 2015

Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Monday in a radio interview that many conservatives were “fed up” with the string of punishment meted out to members who don’t vote in line with the Republican leadership on key legislation.

The latest punishment was handed down to Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., for voting against an important procedural resolution to advance “Fast Track” trade legislation the GOP is eager to pass. Meadows last week was stripped of his chairmanship of the House Oversight Government Operations subcommittee. “So, Mark Meadows, a good man, a good friend, and what they did to him is exactly wrong, and there are a number of us who are fed up with it,” Jordan said on the Laura Ingraham show. “And we are looking for ways that we can say, hey, we are going to stay with Mark and be as helpful as we possibly can.”

It’s not clear what the frustrated group could do to thwart Boehner, but some are kicking around the idea of trying to slow the work of the House. Freedom Caucus members say that while they number a little more than three dozen, there are an additional 20 conservatives who could potentially vote along with them if they decided to take a stand against the leadership by making it difficult to pass legislation. Republicans control 246 votes, and on legislation that lacks Democratic support, the leadership can only afford to lose 29 Republicans.

Anger at the leadership has been brewing for many months, as the GOP retribution against disobedient conservatives appears to have escalated;

  • Just last week, Reps. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Steve Pearce of New Mexico, and Trent Franks of Arizona, lost their posts on the Republican whip team for voting along with Meadows against advancing the trade legislation.
  • Earlier this year, Republican leaders booted Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent, both of Florida, from the powerful Rules Committee after they voted against John Boehner for a third term as speaker.
  • In the last Congress, Reps. Justin Amash, R-Mich., Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., Walter Jones, R-N.C., and David Schweikert, R-Ariz., were tossed from committees after voting against the leadership.
  • Meadows told the Washington Examiner the move to strip him of his subcommittee chairmanship was made by Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, but came at the direction of Boehner, R-Ohio.Reality 2

“I think it was an action meant to try to humiliate or intimate me, but I wear it as a badge of honor, standing firm for freedom for the American people,” Meadows told the Examiner.

Republican leadership aides say the GOP is not striking back in a punitive manner, but places a high value on loyalty from the members and gives top posts to those who don’t buck the Speaker on certain measures, such as resolutions to advance legislation for debate. Lawmakers who are being punished say the leadership is trying to force them to vote against what they believe is best for their constituents, who have flooded their offices with calls and emails in opposition to the trade legislation. Meadows and other Republicans opposed to the trade bill believe the trade bill would cede too much power to the executive branch and would facilitate trade deals that would cause U.S. job losses.

“There is no honor in bowing to a bully,” Meadows told the Examiner. “There is only fighting the good fight and whether you win or lose, I am willing to do my best to represent the people who elected me.”

freedom combo 2

While Your Attention Was Diverted to Charleston, House Passed Unconstitutional TPA


waving flagPosted by 5 hours ago

Imperial President ObamaI admit that there are always things that seem to be used in order to cover up other things that are being done. Last week the House shot down the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, but passed the Trade Promotion Authority (both are unconstitutional). With the coverage of the Charleston Church shooting in South Carolina, the House advanced the TPA again, and this time it passed.

In a 218-208 vote (previous vote was 219-211), with 28 Democrats and 50 Republicans voting in favor of the bill, the House advanced the fast track bill which would illegally delegate authority to the Executive Branch to work out trade agreements. As I’ve pointed out before, trade agreements involve tariffs (taxes). As such, those must originate in the House of Representatives.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…

This is not a treaty, it’s a trade agreement. Too many people are confusing the TPA with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a treaty. I do believe confusion is exactly what is being perpetrated on the American people at this point in order to advance the agenda.B2A_FvyCMAE14px

The Hill reports:

The House on Thursday took the first step toward resuscitating the White House’s trade agenda by passing legislation granting President Obama fast-track authority.

The bill now goes to the Senate, where the White House and GOP leaders are seeking to strike a deal with pro-trade Democrats.muslim-obama

The Senate is now expected to vote on the legislation, but that is presumed to pass since they have already passed before. This is a vote to re-establish America’s credibility,” said Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI).Reality 2

Previously, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) attempted to justify such actions by saying that the TPA wouldn’t give Obama more authority and chastening others that said such legislation would undermine the law. But it does, in fact, do that. Furthermore, if this is passed through the Senate and the TPP is approved, there is no doubt that American jobs will be lost, which is, in part, why the TAA was also attempting to be pushed through.

All of this is setting America up for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There is no question about that. RT reports:

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) is a vocal critic of the deal because of a provision called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). The provision would mediate disputes between foreign investors and a government, which Warren believes will inhibit regulation and pose a threat to American sovereignty.

ISDS is designed to address the problem of uneven national economic policies in an interconnected global economy. Foreign investors have to deal with the risk of having their investments seized if and when a new government comes to power and decides to nationalize the businesses of foreign industries. While this isn’t a risk in a stable company with a strong judicial system like the United States, it is a genuine risk in other countries without such stability. ISDS is an arbitration process that uses sanctions to put pressure on governments who have unfairly seized property.

That means that ISDS would allow foreign investors to make complaints against the United States, which is a point that many take issue with. Warren argues that the agreement could “tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations.”kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204Many opponents of the TPP worry that multinational corporations could argue that environmental, financial and minimum wage regulations could qualify for a dispute under ISDS, potentially costing the United States expensive damages.

Sorry conservatives, but Republicans are once again selling us out right along with many Democrats. They are selling out American jobs, sovereignty and most of all they are not following the rules of the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend. The push is on now to see if Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) will take to the Senate floor and provide a filibuster for this unconstitutional legislation.

freedom combo 2

Three ways GOP could save trade bill


waving flagBy Scott Wong and Mike Lillis – 06/15/15

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/245071-three-ways-gop-could-save-obama-trade-bill

GOP leaders have no good options as they scramble to resuscitate a trade package that is critical to President Obama’s economic agenda. Congressional Republicans and Obama suffered a jarring defeat on Friday, when trade opponents voted down a workers’ aid bill in a bid to scuttle a larger Senate-passed package that would pave the way for a sweeping trade pact with Japan, Vietnam and nine other Pacific Rim nations. The opposition came from Republicans, who widely reject the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program on ideological grounds, and from Democrats who saw taking down TAA, a program they’ve long championed, as their best chance to sink an accompanying bill allowing trade promotion authority (TPA), also known as fast-track.

Although the House passed the TPA bill the same day, the rule governing the process requires approval of the TAA bill before fast-track can reach the president’s desk. Monday saw a flurry of phone calls and meetings between party leaders, including one between Obama and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). GOP leaders huddled Monday in Boehner’s office but they didn’t settle on a path forward. By Monday night, the Speaker’s office announced that the House would buy more time, voting on a rule Tuesday that would give the chamber until July 30 to take another vote on TAA.

But earlier in the day, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had warned: “The longer something like this sits out there, the harder it is to bring it back.”

Here are three possible scenarios that could play out in the coming days and weeks: 

VOTE ON TAA AGAIN

What might be the easiest of several options is still a heavy lift for backers of the president’s trade agenda.

As GOP leaders have suggested, the House could soon vote again on the workers aid program — a vote that, if successful, would send the fast-track legislation to Obama’s desk. The challenge is that, following Friday’s 126-302 vote against TAA, Obama and Boehner need more than 90 lawmakers to switch their votes from no to yes. And after bucking the president and voting to derail his trade package on Friday, there are few political upsides for Democrats to reverse course now. Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), a pro-trade Democrat, said Monday that he’s pushing the idea of sweetening TAA to provide Democrats more incentive to get on board — something along the lines of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) recent proposal to include a highway funding bill alongside trade legislation.

“I think we could get a few more Republicans, but the question is: How do you get more Democrats over here?” Cuellar said.

While it’s highly improbable Democratic rebels would switch their TAA votes en masse, there are a handful who expressed a willingness to reconsider their votes the second time around. Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas), who like Obama is a Chicago Democrat, initially told his colleagues during a closed-door caucus meeting last week he would vote for the aid bill and against fast-track. But when the vote was called Friday, he reneged and voted against both.

His spokesman said Gutiérrez “wanted to make clear that he opposed TPA.”

On the GOP side, leadership aides have said they don’t expect to add many more Republicans to their TAA tally. They’ve topped out at around 93 GOP yes votes, and Democrats must vote for TAA if they don’t want the multibillion-dollar program to expire in September, aides said. But one GOP lawmaker predicted there were dozens of other Republicans prepared to switch their votes to yes if there was movement on the Democratic side of the aisle. “I think that there are probably 30 to 40 Republicans that would change their vote from no to yes, and so they are trying to get another 30 to 40 Democrats from no to yes so that they can move it forward,” the GOP lawmaker said Monday.Reality 2

Lawmakers watching Friday’s failed TAA roll call on the electronic vote board said there was a group of Republicans who waited until the last second to cast their vote, suggesting they might be open to supporting the aid legislation. They included North Carolina Reps. Richard Hudson and George Holding, GOP sources said, though a Hudson aide denied he would flip his vote. Another possible yes vote is conservative Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), who had been whipping support for the fast-track bill but voted no on TAA. “People like that could potentially switch,” the GOP lawmaker said. 

VOTE ON ENTIRE SENATE TRADE PACKAGE

The Senate-passed trade bill, which combined TAA and TPA, was cobbled together to attract enough bipartisan support to defeat a Democratic filibuster. It just squeaked by, with 62 senators — including 14 Democrats — voting in favor.

House GOP leaders decided to split the package into separate votes, hoping there would be enough Democratic support to move the TAA piece, while Republicans would do the heavy lifting on TPA. That strategy collapsed when Democrats, behind Pelosi, killed TAA. If TAA fails a second time, GOP leaders might decide to push the Senate package as a whole. Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.), another pro-trade Democrat, predicted Monday that they have the votes to pass it, though it would be a nail-biter due to opposition on both sides of the aisle.

“I don’t think there’s some magic formula that President Obama can put on the table and make all of the Democratic concerns about TPA disappear. And I don’t think there’s some magic formula that John Boehner can put on the table to make all of the Republican concerns about TAA disappear,” Connolly said. “I don’t think there are any easy options here.”

A House Democratic leadership aide said Monday that there wouldn’t likely be any significant Democratic defections, making the whip counting easier for Republicans whipping the vote. “Any Democrat who is already on the record supporting TPA has a very clear, vested interest in seeing it pass,” said the aide, whose boss supports Obama’s trade agenda. Liberalism a mental disorder 2

VOTE ON A STAND-ALONE TPA BILL

A third option: The House could vote again on just the fast-track bill and either send it to the Senate or try to merge it with the Senate-passed package.

But both of those scenarios have their challenges. Because a stand-alone TPA bill would not be tied to a workers’ aid provision, aides believe the legislation would lose support from the 14 Senate Democrats who helped pass it last time. The absence of the TAA legislation would also erode support in the White House. Cuellar said he’s been in several conversations with administration officials since Friday’s vote, and they’ve vowed not to back any trade package that excludes the additional help for workers displaced by trade deals. “They personally told me they’re not going to deal without TAA,” he said.

But McCarthy, in a briefing with reporters Monday, didn’t rule out that option.

Cristina Marcos and Jordan Fabian contributed to this report, which was updated at 8:18 a.m. on June 16.Picture3 freedom combo 2

EPA Chief: Just Trust Us On Climate Science


waving flagPosted by Photo of Michael Bastasch Michael Bastasch, 06/03/2015

Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, speaks at the Center for American Progress // (REUTERS/Gary Cameron)

Liberalism a mental disorder 2Americans are just going to have to trust the EPA’s 44 years of experience dealing with environmental issues when it comes to figuring out ways to cope with man-made global warming, says the agency’s chief. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told Big Think in an interview that while there are limits to how much the federal government can do for issues like global warming, the public needs to trust how the EPA translates the “complicated” science into real-life actions.

“Well I think we all have to recognize the strengths and limitations of government action,” McCarthy said. “But here’s what I think we can do at the federal level more effectively. We can speak to the science because it’s complicated and we do a lot of research and we do a lot of translation of the science into what it means for people so that the decisions can be made on the basis of real science and on the basis of a real technical understanding.”Picture5

“That’s how it has worked in EPA’s career for 44 years at EPA is we’ve listened to the science and the law and we have let solutions take off in the marketplace which is where the cheapest, most effective always win,” McCarthy said. “That’s why EPA can move environmental standards forward so effectively and grow jobs at the same time.”more evidence

The EPA is on the verge of finalizing rules limiting CO2 emissions from power plants as part of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. Republicans and industrial lobbies have opposed the rules, saying they will be costly and do nothing to stem warming. McCarthy, however, has continually argued the EPA’s so-called “Clean Power Planwill send a signal to the world the U.S. is serious about dealing with global warming and spur innovation in green technology.EPA Tyranny

“Now what you really want to do at the national level is send long-term signals,” McCarthy said. “And those signals go to people in markets because the best thing EPA and other regulatory agencies need to do is set standards based on what we think the science tells us, the law tells us and what’s achievable.”

“It’s like being in a race and the federal government, you know, says what direction to run and they shoot the starting gun, but the ones in the race become the businesses, the entrepreneurs, the people who are driving new technologies,” she said.Bull

freedom combo 2

 

Today’s Politically INCORRECTCartoon


The Wrong Track


Tag Cloud