Category Archives: Congressional Power Plays

Hello, World!

Posted on by

The world did not come to an end this morning. To quote Gomer Pyle, “Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!”

I should not be surprised some people were so gullible to swallow this end of the world prophecy. It just proves that idiots aren’t limited to and don’t work only in Washington, DC.

***

Boehnor’s “Plan B” flopped. It was withdrawn unexpectantly last night when House ‘Pub leaders realized they didn’t have enough votes for passage. According to some sources, Boehner is in danger of losing his Speakership. To counter these reports, Boehner and his surrogates are touring the media outlets this morning denying the danger. It makes you wonder if there was no danger, why is Boehner, et. al., going to so much trouble denying it?

***

Amid reports and rumors of the bad old days of the assault weapons ban, Wal-Mart sold out of their stock of AR type rifles and their magazines in a several mid-western states including Kansas. Another well-known supplier of firearm components exhausted their supply of magazines as well.

Brownells, the world’s largest supplier of firearms, has reportedly sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in just seventy-two hours. — CNS News.

It’s enough to make me consider getting a second AR. Perhaps a M4 style this time.

Irony of Gun ControlGovernor Cuomo of New York says the state is “considering” gun confiscation and more gun control. The libs may think they could do that in New York, although I think they’ll have strong resistance in the northern and western portions of the state. It wouldn’t fly anywhere else outside of the Rust Belt and the Left Coast. There’s a reason why Molon Labe is well known throughout the country.

The libs continue to forget that SCOTUS has declared the 2nd Amendment is a personal right. That ruling also blocks any confiscation scheme the libs may devise. You can’t have a right if the state removes the tools of that right from the people.

On the other hand, the dems and liberal groups don’t let a small thing like the Constitution stand in the way of their plans to seize more and more power at the expense of our liberty.

Facebook

Milestones in History

Posted on by

A couple of political icons died this week. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) died on Monday of this week. Judge Robert Bork died early yesterday, Wednesday.

Daniel Inouye has held elected office from Hawaii since the islands became a state in 1959.

As a teenager, Daniel Inouye saw the Japanese bombers over Pearl Harbor and was one of the Japanese-Americans who volunteered for the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the most decorated Army unit in history.

He lost an arm in combat in Italy in April 1945, less than a month before Germany surrendered, and in the army hospital met Bob Dole, whose arm was shattered the same month.

Inouye was elected Hawaii’s first congressman when it was admitted to the Union in 1959, becoming the first Japanese-American member of Congress. He won his Senate seat in 1962 and died 17 days short of serving 50 years. — Washington Examiner.

Judge Robert Bork gained notoriety during his political rape when he was nominated to the US Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1987.

President Ronald Regan nominated Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. In a 58-to-42 vote, the Senate rejected his nomination — it was by one of the widest margins in U.S. history. 

Republicans have long said his defeat was a completely partisan move and have said Bork was one of the greatest conservative figures in history. — Fox News.

While Inouye and Bork came from opposite ends of the political spectrum, no one can deny their personal integrity—a quality not found in most politicians today…especially those who migrate to Washington, DC.

***

The dems and other leftists are screaming for a return of the “Assault” weapons ban and to “large capacity clips” as well. In other words, a return to the bad old days of Clinton when insanity led the political mainstream and we almost lost our 2nd Amendment rights. There has been a lot of progress in the last decade affirming those rights but the Supreme Court left gaping holes in it by declaring “reasonable” regulations were acceptable…and never defined what “acceptable” meant.

It should be noted that Connecticut has an existing Assault weapons ban in force. One more stringent than the Clinton-era ban. The Bushmaster rifle found at the Newtown school was purchased legally and was a legal configuration under that Connecticut law.

The left wants us to emulate the UK and Australia. First by banning semi-automatic weapons. The definition includes the large majority of handguns as well as self-loading rifles and shotguns and later, perhaps banning almost all firearms as has happened in the UK.

One example of semi-automatic gun control is Australia. Their plan included a buy-back program as well as banning the ownership and possession of the offending weapons. While a buy-back program will remove some weapons from civilian hands, an outright banning on owning and the possessing existing semi-automatic weapons would NOT go well with the vast majority of Americans.  Molon Labe is a concept not foreign to the gun-owning segment of Americans.

More likely we’ll see a permanent return of a Clinton-era ban. One without an expiration date. The libs learned that lesson well. And with the ban will come more growth of militarized police and further entrenchment of the police state.

If you’ve ever thought of owning a weapon. Buy it now. Buy and stockpile ammo now. I have no confidence the ‘Pubs in Washington will fight this new gun ban law. The ‘Pub establishment has proven they are no better than the dems.

Facebook

Plan B?

Posted on by

The news is filled with warnings and portents of the government running off the fiscal cliff. When you ask members of Congress the consequences, no one knows. Nor, does any seem to particularly care if it makes the other side look bad.

The dems want more—more taxes, more spending, more power, more debt. The ‘Pubs want…? I’m not sure what the establishment wants. We continue to see beltway insiders scream, “give the democrats what they want! Then we can blame them when it all fails!” It’s beginning to appear the real goal is to score points against the other side all the while the ones who are harmed are the taxpayers.

The Republican party is supposed to be for smaller government, lower taxes, less spending. John Boehner is for anything that will make him look good in the media…or at least less bad. He could not care less how his actions impact the taxpayers as long as he gets his portion of face time in the media and can blame someone else for his failures.

Pundits say the ‘Pubs should follow Plan B. Apparently Plan B is to give Obama what he wants.

If you believe that the best way to get a deal you want is to always negotiate from strength, then Republicans may just finally be coming to an adequate negotiating strategy on the fiscal cliff.  The New York Times reports that Republican leaders are considering giving President Obama what he wants on higher tax rates now while leaving the fight over entitlement spending till Obama needs to come to them for a debt limit hike early next year. —The Washington Examiner

Like the clashes over increasing the debt earlier this year, Boehner and McConnell are content to kick the can, once again, down the road. Anything as long as they don’t need to make a stand.

According to media sources, if the ‘Pubs follow Plan B, all they would be doing is to postpone any difficult decisions until we, once again, reach the debt limit. THEN! Then they would make Obama toe the line. It seems to me the last time Boehner and McConnell were in that position, we ended up with Sequestration. Never forget, Sequestration was McConnell’s brain-child. He mentioned it in a press conference and the dems jumped all over it.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Boehner caved on Obama’s demand to be allowed to raise the debt limit without Congressional authorization. When we have spineless, non-leaders in Congress, they will do anything rather than taking a stand for taxpayers. Why not? Taxpayers aren’t members of the Ruling Class. Taxpayers are there to be bled while Congress spends…more…and more…and more…without restraint.

One act the ‘Pubs “could” take to help stem this fiscal tide is to remove Boehner and McConnell from their power positions. I’ve suggested to a number of Congressmen that Paul Ryan would make an excellent Speaker of the House. Boehner should be reduced to the Chairman of the House Sanitary Committee. Perhaps then he can wallow in his favorite muck.

I urge you to call your Representatives and demand they vote against John Boehner for Speaker. We need a Speaker who is a leader and is willing to go head-to-head against Obama and the dems. Boehner has neither of those abilities.

Facebook

Friday Follies for November 30, 2012

Posted on by

Obama’s minions have been in “secret” talks with the GOP congressional leadership on how to divert our approach to the fiscal cliff. What the White House wanted and what they offered in return made McConnell laugh out loud.

Obama wanted more taxes, no commitment to any spending cuts (unless it was to the military), and authority to raise the debt limit at will—no Congressional approval required! Quoting Dave Ramsey, that would be giving a drunk a drink.

White House ‘Cliff’ Offer to Boehner a ‘Break from Reality’

By Billy House, Updated: November 30, 2012 | 8:00 a.m

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Thursday rejected a White House plan to avert the so-called fiscal cliff at year’s end that would generate nearly $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the next decade and require Republicans to allow Congress to relinquish its control over the nation’s statutory borrowing limits. 

“A complete break from reality,” is how the plan, delivered to Boehner and other congressional leaders by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at their Capitol offices, was described by a congressional Republican aide familiar with what was proposed. President Obama’s liaison to Congress, Rob Nabors, also was at the meetings.

Yes, your read that first paragraph correctly. Obama wants congress to give him complete authority to spend and borrow without regard to the debt limit—in short, there would be no debt limit other than what our creditors were willing to give us. It would be a fiscal disaster.

We need to keep the pressure on McConnell and Boehner to reject Obama’s offers. Obama will never cut spending regardless of any agreements. He has done that many times before. Obama lies. Democrats lie. They will never honor any agreement except when it is what they want.

The real danger is that McConnell and Boehner will revert to their normal spinelessness and roll over again. We must make the establishment GOP more afraid of us than they are of the dems.

***

Speaking of the fiscal cliff, more and more analysts and pundits are saying, “Do nothing.” According to them, the fiscal cliff is a myth created by the 2011 Budget Control Act. Boehner and McConnell sold the GOP a bill of mythical goods and allowed Obama and the dems to defraud the country. That act was limited to only discretionary spending—35% of the national budget while doing nothing to the big entitlement ticket items.

The GOP establishment is really afraid of being accused of shutting down the government if they don’t cave once again. Get real! The media and the dems will make those accusations anyway! Expect the demagoguery.

The government has been shutdown before and the world didn’t end. A year or so ago a blizzard hit the east coast including Washington. Most of the rank and file government employees were told to stay home. Only the “essential” workers had to report to work. That makes it easy where to cut. Cut those who didn’t have to go in to work, keep those who did have to report for work.

Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel discussed the GOP’s media fears in their column today.

Everyone in Washington fears the fiscal cliff. The White House has no interest in going over. Democrats understand they’ll never have more power than they do now. Delaying a budget deal until after January means getting less of what they want.

Republican leaders, meanwhile, live in fear of another 1995 government shutdown. When two sides fail to reach a deal, the media blame Republicans. That’s the lesson Republicans learned 17 years ago. They shudder imagining the headlines if negotiations were to break down next month: “Norquist-controlled GOP forces America off cliff.” Nothing terrifies them more than that. They’ll do anything to avoid it, as Obama knows well. (Hence his advantage.) — The Daily Caller.

Krauthammer urged the ‘Pubs to stand their ground as well.

Krauthammer urged Republicans to take the short-term hit on the fiscal cliff, and said eventually Obama would be held accountable for the consequences. — The Daily Caller.

Krauthammer declared that Obama’s demands were worse than those given to Lee at Appomattox and Lee had just lost a war.

“It’s not just a bad deal — this is really an insulting deal,” Krauthammer said. “What Geithner offered, what you showed on the screen, Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox, and he lost the Civil War. The Democrats won by three percent of the vote, and they did not hold the House. Republicans won the House. So this is not exactly unconditional surrender, but that is what the administration is asking of the Republicans.”

“This idea — there are not only no cuts in this, there’s an increase in spending with a new stimulus,” Krauthammer continued. “I mean, this is almost unheard of. I mean, what do they expect? They obviously expect the Republicans will cave on everything. I think the Republicans ought to simply walk away. The president is the president. He’s the leader. They are demanding that the Republicans explain all the cuts that they want to make.” — The Daily Caller.

Yes, some business sectors would take a hit. Some government contractors would take a hit. The GOP would be blamed, again, for shutting down the government. But if that is what it takes to get ALL government spending on the cutting table, so be it. It is time to get our governmental house in order and we know the dems won’t do it.

***

Continuing on today’s theme, I’ll leave you with this parting thought from Michael Ramirez.The Fiscal Cliff

Facebook

OK People! Listen up!

Posted on by

We are less than two months from the election and what do I hear? Romney is gonna lose. Akin is gonna lose. The ‘Pub establishment, FOX, and the MSM says we’re gonna lose. Everywhere I turn it’s the same.

We’re all losers!!!

That’s exactly what the dems and libs want you to think.

Well, lissen up! It’s time to stop the temper-tantrums. It’s time to pull up your big-boy pants and grow up. I know Ron Paul didn’t get the ‘Pub nomination. No, it wasn’t stolen from him. He wasn’t even close to being in the running.  His aim was to influence the party platform and he was successful.

I also know that Romney is the nominated candidate. Yes, he’s a Mormon. I’m tired of all the bigotry—from our own side, claiming they won’t vote for a Mormon.  Even faintly veiled bigotry is still bigotry. I don’t agree with Mormon doctrine. But even with our disagreements, Mormonism is miles better than the atheism and humanistic socialism preached by Obama and the dems.

I belong to a number of Facebook and e-mail groups. I constantly read about how someone isn’t going to vote for Romney because he isn’t conservative enough. I suspect some of you aren’t conservative enough to suit me either. So what are you going to do? Vote for some third-party candidate? Not vote? Leave the President box unchecked?

If you think a third-party is the answer for President, you’re about a decade too late.  There’s been several attempts at a 3rd-party run for President from George Wallace in 1968 through John Anderson and Ross Perot. Every single one of them failed.  For a 3rd-party to be successful it has to build from the bottom up—win local elections, county elections, state elections and when your 3rd party has won and controlled several states, then have your perfect candidate run for President.

A decade of infrastructure building may be insufficient. It may take longer. Until that time, you’ll lose and just waste our time and resources.

Do you hate the ‘Pub establishment so much you’d rather have Obama elected for another four years than vote for Romney? Would you allow Obama to win a second term just to spite the ‘Pub establishment? Because electing Obama for another tern is exactly what will happen if you don’t vote for Romney. And if Obgama wins you’ll blame the ‘Pub establishment, Mormons, RINOs, everyone and everything except yourself—you who didn’t vote for Romney.

Let’s be clear here. No, Romney isn’t all that we’d like. Neither is Paul Ryan. He’s screwed up some congressional votes too. No one, certainly not Romney nor Ryan, is perfect.

The point is to remove Obama. Send him back to his $2.5million dollar mansion in crime-ridden Chicago. Let him be an activist among the gangs and druglords. He should feel at home. Vote for ABO, Anyone But Obama if you find Romney so distasteful.

I don’t care if you hate the ‘Pubs because they’re not conservative enough to suit you. Do you hate them enough to put Obama back in the White House? If so, then you’re no conservative and we can do without you. If you are that unbalanced, you’d not be an asset for conservatism anyway.

We have fifty-six days left if I’ve counted correctly. Get to work! When the pollsters call, answer and tell them the truth. Show how badly Obama really fares. An if you still hate the ‘Pub establishment, send a big donation to Todd Akin and poke a finger in Karl Rove‘s and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus‘ eye.  You’ll feel better for donating and you’ll help remove Obama from OUR White House.

Facebook

Tick…tick…tick…

Posted on by
Firing on Ft. Sumter, 1861
If any of you are history buffs, you may have noticed similarities between actions in congress over the last couple of years and those preceding the Secession of the Southern States in1860-1861.  In the years prior to the civil war, Congress passed a number of bills, over the objections of the South. Some concerned the creation of Free/Slave states, others concerned tariffs on imports needed by the south.

Those tariffs were intended to force the South to buy goods from the Northern States instead of from Europe.  It also impacted the price of cotton, tobacco and agricultural products sold by the South to Europe.

Each action alienated the South. Congressional politics and rule gaming reduced the perceived power of the southern states.  It’s arguable whether the South actually lost political power—but they believed they did and that finally lead to secession.

The democrat congressional leaders are doing the same today—changing the rules of Congress to impede the ‘Pubs and conservatives and to maintain the dwindling power of the democrats.

When the ‘Pubs had control of the Senate prior to 2006, the democrats used every political trick and rule to impede the Bush Administration at every front.  Many urged the ‘Pubs to exercise the “Nuclear Option.”

Nuclear option

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In U.S. politics, the “nuclear option” (or “constitutional option”) allows the United States Senate to reinterpret a procedural rule by invoking the argument that the Constitution requires that the will of the majority be effective on specific Senate duties and procedures. This option allows a simple majority to override the rules of the Senate and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic. In contrast, the cloture rule requires a supermajority of 60 votes (out of 100) to end a filibuster. The new interpretation becomes effective, both for the immediate circumstance and as a precedent, if it is upheld by a majority vote.
Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the nuclear option is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion by Vice President Richard Nixon and was endorsed by the Senate in a series of votes in 1975, some of which were reconsidered shortly thereafter.[1] Senator Trent Lott[2][3] Proponents since have referred to it as the constitutional option.[4][5][6] (R-Miss.) first called the option “nuclear” in March 2003.
The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when then-Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by PresidentGeorge W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances.
Frist chose not to exercise this option.  Once it was, it could, in return, be used against the ‘Pubs.  The result was that it was now necessary to have at least 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. Many of us would prefer the Senate pass nothing than pass bad bills designed to punish portions of the country and/or the private sector.
Harry Reid exercised the Nuclear Option yesterday to prevent Mitch McConnell from forcing a vote on Obama’s “jobs” bill. A bill that many Senate democrats vowed to vote AGAINST. McConnell was about to add an amendment that would include Obama’s bill in the Chinese Currency bill.  If that happened, the Chinese bill would fail.  Reid couldn’t have that.

Dems change rules; Senate in chaos

By MANU RAJU & SCOTT WONG | 10/6/11 9:44 PM EDT
The Senate descended into procedural chaos Thursday night as Democrats forced a change in Senate rules and shut down a GOP effort to bog down a Chinese currency bill with a series of unrelated amendments.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s move to suddenly overhaul a key Senate rule without warning infuriated Republicans and put an already bitterly divided chamber on edge as senators from both sides of the aisle traded angry accusations over whether the fight would fundamentally limit the rights of the minority party.

By a 51-48 vote, the Senate voted along party lines to change the precedent and limit how amendments can be considered once a filibuster is defeated. Under normal procedure, the Senate has 30 hours of debate after 60 senators agree to end a filibuster. Amendments can be considered during those 30 hours if each side agrees by unanimous consent to schedule a vote — or if a senator moves to waive the rules, which would then require the support of 67 senators in order to succeed.
But under the new procedure, senators can no longer move to waive the rules once a filibuster is defeated — a battle that threatens to further inflame partisan tensions and stymie legislative action at a time when frustration with Congress is at an all-time high.
… 
“We are fundamentally turning the Senate into the House,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), pacing on the floor, with his voice rising, referring to the other body’s rules that can limit floor debate.
“The rules of the Senate will be effectively changed to lock out the minority party even more.”
Democrats rejected the concerns, saying that efforts to waive the rules are similar to the stall tactics Republicans have employed time and again. A motion to suspend the rules has not succeeded since 1941, they noted, meaning that such efforts typically amount to political messaging more than anything else. And nothing would preclude them from offering amendments agreed to by both parties before or after a filibuster is defeated.

And while all this is going on Anarchists, socialists, and bubble-headed students in operation “Occupy Wall Street,” want the government to forgive ALL debts and punish “evil” corporations.  These idiots are backed by the Unions, George Soros through a number of front organizations, and democrats politicians including Nancy Pelosi.


How stupid these people are.  Especially the Unions.  If debts were forgiven as they claim to want, it would destroy the economy—and all the stock supported Union pensions too.  Talk about cutting your throat to spite your face!

When you step back and look at the historical similarities, you have to wonder.  Have we just seen the first shots fired at a modern Fort Sumter?