Category Archives: 2014 Elections

It’s not easy…

Posted on by

…being a RINO.

Conservatives in Congress continue to give John Boehner and Mitch McConnell headaches. That makes me smile! It’s hardly been a month since the GOP took control of both houses of Congress. In the first week of the new Congress, more legislation has been passed that in the entire year of 2014 under Harry Reid. The ball has now passed to Obama. Will he sign or veto?

Unfortunately, most of the legislation passed has been non-consequential. The tough bills, changes in abortion funding and border security have been pulled in the face of conservative opposition who have problems with sections of both bills.

Trouble in GOP ranks kills votes on border and abortion bills

By S.A. Miller and Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Monday, January 26, 2015

Facing a rebellion in their own ranks, House Republican leaders scrapped their plans to vote this week on their first border security bill of the new Congress, blaming the weather for the delay but buying themselves time to try to stiffen the bill and make it more palatable to conservatives.

It’s the second bill in as many weeks that Republican leaders have had to pull after internal opposition. Last week the GOP scrapped a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, acting the night before the March for Life, after realizing that some female Republican House members had concerns.

The border bill had to be pulled after conservatives objected, saying it didn’t do enough to build the border fence or to step up enforcement against illegal immigrants in the interior of the U.S.

Rank-and-file Republicans said they’ve been assured the delay is temporary — a similar assurance was given to pro-lifers on their bill last week — and the border bill will be brought back once GOP leaders can add other get-tough provisions to it. They are looking to combine it with updated versions of interior enforcement bills that passed in the previous Congress.

“The idea was just to get the companion bill out here. That is the game plan,” said Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter, Georgia Republican. “It all depends on the progress in [the House] Judiciary [Committee] and them getting it done.”

The column continues here.

At least Boehner did the right thing and is giving conservatives an opportunity to modify both bills as they have demanded. But neither Boehner nor McConnell have gained any confidence from conservatives. Neither Boehner nor McConnell are viewed as having any fortitude to confront Obama and the democrats. The simmering rebellion in the ranks has not dissipated. It’s still there and appears to be growing.

Boehner-McConnell retreat in Obama amnesty fight panics conservatives

By S.A. Miller – The Washington Times – Sunday, January 25, 2015

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2015/01/25/boehnermcconnell_s878x789.jpg?bd854b5a5236db4fa381af0adc34957a3c20f6c9

The conservative core of the Republican Party has long been leery of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, who are viewed derisively as establishment stalwarts.

Conservatives saw it as raising a white flag when Republican congressional leaders pledged not to withhold funding for the Department of Homeland Security in the fight over President Obama’s deportation amnesty, stoking fears that for the next two years House Speaker John A. Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will consistently surrender.

For the Republican base, Mr. Obama’s unilateral move to grant legal status and work permits for up to 5 million illegal immigrants was an unlawful power grab that created a constitutional crisis.

If Republican leaders were not willing to use Congress’ power of the purse — the most potent weapon possessed by lawmakers to restrict a president — to stop a brazen unconstitutional act, conservatives reasoned, would the GOP-controlled Congress ever go to the mat to fight Mr. Obama?

The conservative core of the party has long been leery of Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell, who are viewed derisively as establishment stalwarts. The refusal of the leaders to threaten a government shutdown or even close a single agency to force Mr. Obama to revoke his immigration edicts seemed only to confirm the right wing’s worst suspicions.

“The anger I see from my audience at the Republican Party cannot become any more palpable,” nationally syndicated talk radio host Steve Deace said. “We have a president who looks for new and unique ways to shred the Constitution on an almost daily basis, and we have a Republican Party leadership that refuses to do anything about it.”

He said Republican incumbents should expect a backlash and primary challenges next year because of their weak attempt to stop the amnesty.

“People are this angry about it. They feel as if they are already not represented and essentially they have been betrayed by most of the people they just worked to elect in November,” said Mr. Deace. “That’s why people are angry at this, because they realize the people that are in charge of our party don’t believe in almost anything in our party platform. They don’t. They are just treacherous.”

Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell declined to use the power of the purse to try to stop deportation amnesty when they pushed through a spending bill in December that funded all of the government except Homeland Security for the remainder of the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30.

They promised a showdown over immigration before temporary funding for Homeland Security expires Feb. 27. But faced with a spate of terrorism in Europe and cyberattacks by North Korea, the Republican leaders also promised not to shut down Homeland Security and jeopardize the safety of Americans.

Meanwhile, Mr. McConnell and his team expressed doubts about getting the 60 votes in the Senate needed to approve the House-passed spending bill for Homeland Security that included policy riders blocking Mr. Obama’s immigration moves.

Spineless cowards. I have an idea! Let’s use Harry Reid’s rules. Let’s declare these bills as budget bills and pass them with a simple majority. It it worked for Harry, why not for Mitch?

We know why. Boehner and McConnell are more afraid of democrats than they are of us. That can be changed. We had the opportunity with the election of a new Speaker. Unfortunately, not enough Congressmen have spines and need to be replaced.

Facebook

A whiff of rebellion

Posted on by

I started the day off thinking it was Saturday. On occasion, retirees like myself have difficulty remembering what day it is. Why? Because more often than not, one day seems more like another. That is one reason why I’ve tried to maintain the same habits I had when I was working. I’m usually successful. Today, I was not.

***

John Boehner - D-OH

John Boehner – D-OH

Next week on January 6, 2015, the House will vote for the Speaker of the House publicly on the House floor. John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi are running. Conventional thought says Boehner is a shoo-in.

Perhaps, not.

The rushed passage of the CRomnibus funding bill upset…no, that is too mild a word, enraged GOP voters from one end of the country to another. It was viewed as a betrayal by Boehner and the GOP establishment leadership by preventing the GOP from using the power of the purse to control Obama, amnesty, et. a., and it was!

Next week, the House will choose a new Speaker. The winner will have to acquire a majority, not a plurality,  of the votes. There are 435 members in the US House of Representatives. That means, if all vote, the winner for Speaker must have 218 votes to be Speaker. If any Representative refuses to vote or votes, “present!”, the number of votes needed to win decreases.

Remember, it is not the candidate who gets the most votes that wins the Speakership, it is the one who receives the majority of the votes cast. There is a difference, a big difference in those two words: majority vs. plurality.

Eric Erickson is the guest host for Rush Limbaugh today. He reminded us that all it takes to remove Boehner as Speaker is for 29 ‘Pubs to vote for someone else—not Pelosi, not to not vote, just vote for ANY other ‘Pub and Boehner loses. They don’t even have to vote for the same ‘Pub, each could vote for a different Representative and if Boehner doesn’t get the majority of the votes cast, he’s out.

By various counts, the rebels need only four to six ‘Pub votes to block Boehner next week. Many other think they have a real chance of doing just that.

The Last Resort: Replace John Boehner

By Lester Jackson, January 2, 2015

Crominbus was the last straw. Conservatives are now absolutely livid at the RINO Establishment. Rarely, if ever, has such an unmistakable voter mandate been so brazenly nullified before the newly elected could even take office. Calls escalate to “end” the Republican Party because conservatives cannot change it. By contrast, Rush Limbaugh, while lamenting that “the losers in the last election [got] pretty much everything they want[ed],” nevertheless rejects the third party call: “taking over the Republican Party is better.”

Sarah Palin protests that what House Speaker John Boehner and 162 Republican “yahoos” did “stinks to high heaven,” for which Rep. Gohmert expects Boehner to be rewarded with Democrat votes for speaker. Palin declares open season on RINOs, including replacing Boehner. Conservatives find it especially galling — and intolerable — to have a Speaker who (a) shows utter contempt for the representatives whose election resulted in his ascension to power; and (b) does everything he can to subvert the wishes, interests and values of these representatives and their constituents.

It could take years replace or seize control of the Republican Party, by which time everything this country has stood for could be destroyed. However, there is a clearly viable short term strategy. Oust Boehner from the speakership — now!

If the 2014 and 2010 elections are to have any meaning at all, if all the work and promises made to elect Republican majorities in both houses of Congress are not to be completely nullified, replacing Boehner must be considered the top priority. (Although Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell deserves recognition for his zealous defense of freedom of speech, he too should be replaced because he is a RINO stooge, as Andrew McCarthy makes plain. However, due to different House and Senate procedures, what follows is confined to Boehner.)

The article is long, the meat of it is too long to quote here. Go to the website and finish reading it. It’s worth your time. There are other articles on this same subject, here, here, and here.
Facebook

Told ya so

Posted on by

During the runup to the general election last month, I wrote a number of blog post concerning the Kansas Senatorial race. Specifically, I took Greg Orman to task for being a democrat masquerading as an ‘independent.’ I said that he was a dem and would always be a dem. Orman never contradicted me, nor anyone else. In fact, he steadily refused to answer any questions on how he would vote as Senator or even which party he would join, or caucus, if elected.

I said he was a democrat and I was right. My opinion has been vindicated.

Yes, Dems did funnel money to ‘independent’ in Kansas Senate race

By Byron York | December 8, 2014 | 6:38 pm

Anyone who followed this year’s Senate race in Kansas — the one longtime GOP incumbent Pat Roberts appeared to be losing to Greg Orman, the businessman running as an independent — knows Orman and his supporters vigorously denied Roberts’ allegation that Orman was really a Democrat running to further the Democratic agenda.

“By word, by deed, by campaign contribution, this man is a liberal Democrat,” Roberts said of Orman during a debate in October. “A vote for Greg Orman is a vote to extend the Barack Obama/Harry Reid agenda.”

Not true, Orman answered. “The senator can say that over and over again, but it doesn’t make it so.”

What voters did not know was at that very moment, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid’s political action committee, the Senate Majority PAC, was preparing to pour more than a million dollars into the pro-Orman effort in Kansas. Reid was just waiting to make sure the donations came so late in the campaign that the public wouldn’t find out about them until after the election.

Note that a number of Kansas ‘moderates’, what real ‘Pubs call RINOs, supported Orman against Roberts.

***

I suppose this section of today’s blog could be titled, “Rampant Lawlessness.” Some information is coming to light about Obama’s Amnesty Executive Orders…there aren’t any, at least, not yet. Senator Jeff Sessions has been dogging Obama and discovered this bit of information.

Executive Amnesty Order? What Order?

Posted on December 8, 2014 by John Hinderaker

So much is happening on the immigration front that it is hard to keep up, but this story is worth at least a mention: it turns out that President Obama hasn’t issued an executive amnesty order after all:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading opponent of President Obama’s move to provide amnesty for up to 5 million illegal immigrants, expressed astonishment Monday and ridiculed the administration for not carrying out the action through an executive order.

In remarks made at the Washington office of the government-watchdog group Judicial Watch, Sessions said: “I guess they just whispered in the ear of (DHS Director) Jeh Johnson over at Homeland Security, ‘Just put out a memo. That way we don’t have to enforce the law.’”

The news that Obama had not signed an executive order to carry out the policy he announced to the nation in a televised address Nov. 20 was broken by WND Senior Staff Writer Jerome Corsi last week.

As a result of the president’s use of a memo instead of an official order, the senator observed: “We don’t even have a really significant, direct, legal direction that we can ascertain, precisely what the president is doing. It’s a stunning event in my view.”

It is indeed. The explanation, I assume, is that Obama thinks it will be harder to mount a legal challenge to his unconstitutional usurpation if there is no actual order that defines what he has done. There is no bottom to the depth of the Obama administration’s corruption.

Have we been lied to, again, by Obama, or is he taking his lawlessness to greater heights? That is a good question that I have no answer. Of course with this tactic it is DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson who is hanging in the breeze, not Obama.

Facebook

Monday’s Talking Points

Posted on by

Headlines on various news outlets this morning: 

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qOfRT7BPcaTlkwlu5HHtxQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM3NztweG9mZj01MDtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02NzA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/aed728e6332f562e660f6a7067001a15.jpg

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

Hagel Fired for Contradicting Obama over ISIS threat!

From FOX News…

OBAMA FINDS MIDTERM SCAPEGOAT IN HAGEL
In another strong sign of President Obama’s hard tack left in the wake of a midterm drubbing, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is heading for the exits. First reported by the NYT, the cashiering of the Pentagon boss comes after “the two men mutually agreed” that it was time for the only Republican in Obama’s cabinet to go. But given the fact that the White House was the one pushing out the story, it seems more likely that the president had grown tired of the ongoing pressure from Hagel and members of the top brass to take a more aggressive stance on national security threats abroad. The conflict went public back in August when Hagel openly contradicted White House talking points on the threat posed by Islamist militants in Iraq and Syria. While Obama succumbed to the pressure, Hagel’s ouster shows the president seeking to reassert control over his foundering foreign policy. — FOX Newsletter, November 24, 2014

Never let it be said that Obama lets anyone on his staff disagree with him. I wonder which hand-puppet will be chosen next for Sec’y of Defense?

***

Rand Paul has been the fair-haired boy of Libertarians and the Paulbot wing of the GOP. He has been viewed as an opponent of the GOP Washington establishment. When Ted Cruz and Mike Lee stood up in opposition to Harry Reid, and occasionally Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul stood in the background giving the impression of supporting Cruz and Lee but seldom actually doing so on the floor of the Senate.

I’ve never trusted Rand Paul. In my view, he is too much like his Dad—inconsistent, a bit unstable with a tin-foil hat firmly in place. My view, again, has been vindicated. The reports today have Rand Paul cozing up to Mitch McConnell, worming his way into the establishment and the Ruling Class.

Paul strengthens McConnell ties with fundraiser hire – National Review: “[Sen.] Rand Paul [R-Ky.] is bringing on [Sen.] Mitch McConnell’s [R-Ky.] national finance director, Laura Sequeira, to play a key fundraising role at his political-action committee ahead of an expected 2016 presidential campaign.”

[Flashback: “We’ve developed a very tight relationship, and I’m for him…I don’t think he’s made a final decision on that. But he’ll be able to count on me.” – Senate Majority Leader-elect Mitch McConnell in a post-election interview.] — FOX Newsletter, November 24, 2014.

McConnell, immediately following the election, betrayed the GOP by publicly stating the Senate would not use the only real weapons of Congress against a rogue President—impeachment and removal from office, and the power of the purse—defunding Obama’s acts of defiance to Congress and strictures of the Constitution. When asked what McConnell would do to oppose Obama, McConnell, in essence, said he’d rollover and do nothing. That allows Obama to continue his lawless edicts without opposition…and now Rand Paul will help McConnell to do…nothing.

***

I have been called, on occasion, a Grammar-Nazi. I accept that label. Why is grammar necessary, and spelling, too? Because correct grammar and spelling enhances communication and decreases confusion and misunderstanding.

It is a failing of education when schools no longer teach grammar, sentence structure and construction, spelling and writing. Not cursive hand-writing, although that should be taught, too, but writing as in Writing an Essay. Clear, concise writing, with proper sentence and paragraph structure, is fading. Others agree with me.

Descriptive versus Prescriptive: Another Left-Wing Scam

By Bruce Deitrick Price, November 24, 2014

Everywhere we look, we’ve got pompous professors telling us they don’t dare prescribe what’s right in language.  No, no, no, no.  It’s not their role.  Nor yours either, that’s for sure.  People can express themselves as they wish.  It’s America, the 21st century.  God forbid we should tell anybody how to do anything.“Weird Al” Yankovic put out a popular video called “Word Crimes.”  It’s gotten almost 20,000,000 views.  In effect, he says: “Hey, moron, do it the right way.”  He got everybody talking about correct grammar.  Boy, we needed that.  Thanks, Weird Al.

Naturally, all the primly pontificating nuisances crawled out of the woodwork to tell us: hey, stop all that prescribing!  You can only describe. 

And why?  Because when anthropologists go in the jungle to study a primitive culture, they must remember that the natives are the experts on their own language.  Great.  That’s fine and dandy.  But that has nothing to do with how we should deal with our own language. In our case, you ask the relevant experts (teachers, novelists, journalists), average the answers, and that’s probably a good guide.  But you certainly don’t listen to left-wing scam artists telling you that our experts are not allowed to speak, because anything they say would be prescriptive, and we don’t allow that when we go into the jungle on anthropological expeditions.  Doesn’t this sophistry almost make your head spin?

But look again, and it turns out there is a second sophistry on top of the first one.  These discussions about natives, experts, and ourselves casually presuppose that we are talking about adults.  But many times, without ever acknowledging it, the discussion shifts over to school and the teaching of children.  Isn’t it obvious that the freedom you might give to adults is not appropriately given to children?

In other words, when liberal sophisticates start discussing this issue, they always pose it in terms of freedom, creativity, self-expression, laissez-faire, do your own thing, and gather ye rosebuds while ye may.  Sure, if you insist, adults can wear clothes inside-out and stay drunk.  Let’s not waste time discussing it.  If you want to arrange your sentences backward and break every grammatical rule, go for it.

What we’re discussing now is what’s appropriate in the early grades at school.  Teaching is typically prescriptive, and that’s how it should be.  Schools should teach the right ways to do things.  (This approach has got to be far more efficient than what many public schools are now doing: teach no ways at all, or teach all the ways as if none is preferable.) 

Bottom line, what newspapers call Standard English should be taught first.  That seems to be what our left-wing professors are eager to stop.

So what are the pros and cons?  Do you let a child do anything the child wants?  Are you doing children a favor if you allow them to go out with dirty faces or raggedy clothes?  Isn’t it foolish to pretend that children live and learn in a vacuum?

It seems to be common sense and common decency to tell children what is typically done.  With regard to language, this might require explaining regional variations, work-related slang, and even class differences.  Most children can understand these ideas at a fairly young age.  They probably already speak a different way with their friends from how they do with their parents.

To pretend that all these nuances don’t exist is the opposite of teaching.  To pretend that everything is equally acceptable is a nasty sort of nihilism.

Question is, why are liberals so eager to drown children in permissiveness and relativism?  Who is being served?  Just recently reports came out about a Chicago school that was teaching anal sex to fifth-graders.  And this would be for whose benefit?  The children’s?  No, this is surely liberals trying to break down the last barriers.

Presumably we’re seeing that same worldview when schools refuse to teach grammar.  The point, always, is power – in this case, the power to make the rules.  That’s why the left always maneuvers to control language, semantics, and education.

The sophistry prohibiting prescriptive grammar is not about grammar at all.  It’s about the left being able to tell everybody else how to talk, and how to think.  (Note that the anti-prescriptive diktat is itself prescriptive.)

Liberals always want to play their ideological games, using kids as guinea pigs.  If you don’t tell the kids what the prevailing rules are, the kids will be left in an intellectual wasteland.  To excuse this, you have a whole Education Establishment boldly proclaiming that whatever little children say is just fine, whatever it is.  No rules, guessing, and invented spelling – that’s what elementary education is for many.

But how can they justify all this logically?  Well, some genius thought, why don’t we just bring back anthropological field work to our own society?  We’ll announce (and argue with great indignation) that professional authors, English professors, and smart citizens who have used the language expertly for a lifetime have absolutely no special standing.  They should shut up, lest they be guilty of the crime of prescription.  The left has gotten away with this fluff for 75 years.

Aren’t you tired of left-wing professors using lame sophistries to dumb down the schools and the society?  Here’s a plan: don’t accept lame sophistries.

Sophistry. That’s a word I’ve not seen for a long, long time. Truthfully, now, how many of you know what it means? Don’t know? Here’s the definition. If you and your children don’t know, it’s a good topic for teaching both of you.

soph·ist·ry
ˈsäfəstrē/
noun
noun: sophistry
  1. the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Facebook

They’re scared

Posted on by

The political future of democrats continues to slide. In Missouri, State Treasurer, Clint Zweiful, has announced he won’t run again for any office. Zweiful is term limited as Treasurer.

[Zweiful] told The Associated Press he considered running for U.S. Senate or lieutenant governor in 2016. But he said he opted against a campaign partly because he wants to continue to be involved with the activities of his two teenage daughters. — KY3 TV.

Staying home with the family is the usual political cop-out when a politico thinks he is toast.

But Zweiful isn’t the only democrat running scared. McCaskill is too. How to I know? I observe her actions before and after the last election.

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/11/13/claire_mccaskill_ap_629_956x519.jpg

Senator Claire McCaskill, D-MO

Before the election, an election that did not include McCaskill running for re-election, she was the dems fair-haired girl. Her prospects were good. She was rumored to be in the fast-lane as Missouri’s next democrat candidate for Governor or Eric Holder’s replacement as AG.

Then came the 2014 mid-terms elections. McCaskill did a 180º turn. The democrats were out. McCaskill started talking like a ‘Pub. She was against Harry Reid for Minority Leader, she was for passage of the Keystone XL pipeline. There were rumors, unsubstantiated so far, that she’d flip parties (gag!).

No, with the temperament growing in Missouri, McCaskill knows she’s toast when her term is up. Her plans for running for Missouri Governor dissipated with her criticism of Reid and other high-level dems in Washington. Her statements didn’t go well with the democrat establishment within the state. Those facts leave McCaskill with few options.

One democrat finally has gotten over his panic.  Mark Begich has tossed in the towel and has conceded his run for Alaska Senator to ‘Pub Dan Sullivan.

Alex DeMarban, November 17, 2014

After holding on to dwindling hope for days, Sen. Mark Begich on Monday conceded he had lost his U.S. Senate race to Republican Dan Sullivan.

With the concession coming nearly two weeks after the Nov. 4 general election and with few votes left to count, the statement was largely a formality.

The Associated Press called the race nearly a week ago. Soon after, Sullivan attended orientation meetings in D.C. to prepare to take office and voted for Republican leaders in the new Senate majority that takes power in January.

The democrat who is running most scared is Mary Landrieu. She’s so scared she’ll lose next month to ‘Pub Bill Cassidy, that she’s suddenly embraced the Keystone XL Pipeline. Landrieu hopes voters will forget that she was the Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and did nothing about the Keystone project…until she failed to win reelection.

The ‘Pub controlled House has aided her flip-flop by passing, again, a bill to allow the project. Landrieu has latched onto the Keystone pipeline as a last desperate attempt to gain some supporters. I doubt it will work. The last poll I saw, a week after the mid-term, had Landrieu down 16 points behind Cassidy and abandoned by her party.

The ‘Pubs won. Now they need to decide what to do with their success. Whatever it may be, we can be assured that Mitch McConnell will screw it up.

 

Facebook

Now what?

Posted on by

The elections are over. The ‘Pubs have won and many of the new ‘Pubs at the state, local and federal level are new conservatives who subscribe to the same values as that of the various Tea Party groups.

We won and everything that we want will happen, right? No, unfortunately, they won’t…at least not immediately. Missouri had some significant wins. The Missouri House now numbers 118 ‘Pubs including a former dem, almost a DINO, who flipped parties after being re-elected unopposed. The ‘Pubs also maintained their possession of the Missouri Senate increasing their veto-proof numbers from 24 to 25. That’s bad news for Jay Nixon’s last two years in office.

Nixon’s will have more problems going forward due to the passage of Missouri Amendment #10. That amendment restricts Nixon’s ability to withhold funds allocated and approved by the legislature—like funds for Education. Nixon’s excuse is the need to have a balanced budget, another state constitutional requirement. However, Nixon’s authority to withhold funds has been a club, punishing some at the expense of others while shifting funds to other, ‘more praise-worthy’ agencies. He withheld education funds while other dems and the NEA claimed that Education was underfunded. The truth was that Education was well funded but Nixon refused to release the money.

It became apparent that Nixon’s refusal to release funds was a political ploy when, after the election, he released some of the funds he had withheld. Nixon continues to use the excuse of insufficient revenues. However, Nixon’s projections conflicts with the projections made by the legislature as part of their due-diligence when they created the budget. Missouri’s revenues continually reach higher levels that Nixon’s projections. I would suggest Nixon fire his economic advisers and hire the ones used by the legislature.

Getting back to today’s topic, the ‘Pubs have won. Now what?

That is a good question. All too many think change can be made immediately, overnight. Well, that isn’t going to happen. Missouri is much more likely to enact more change than the ‘Pubs in Washington. The Missouri ‘Pubs have veto-proof majorities in both houses of the legislature. In Washington, only the House has a veto-proof majority. The Senate ‘Pubs only have a simple majority.

The bare truth is the the ‘Pub majority in Congress cannot override Obama’s veto. They can cut short Obama’s political appointments. Thanks to Harry Reid’s use of the Nuclear Option, the ‘Pubs don’t require a 60-vote majority for passage. (There is a push by the dems and some RINOs to reinstate that Nuclear Option. There is also a ground-swell of opposition to maintain Reid’s change. What was good for the dems should now be good for the ‘Pubs.)

Regardless, immediate change won’t happen. Obamacare won’t be repealed. Obama will veto any bill to repeal it and there aren’t enough votes to override Obama’s veto.

Mitch McConnell has already surrendered Congress’ primary weapon, the power of the purse. In an interview after Tuesday’s election, he was asked by a lib reporter if the ‘Pubs were going to shut down the government again. Instead of saying the Congress was going to send Obama a budget, the first in six years, if Obama vetos that budget, it would be him, not the ‘Pubs who would be shutting down the government. Instead, McConnell said he would cave in to Obama and the dems. If McConnell won’t use the power of the purse to carve off chunks of Obamacare, he concedes power to the liberals. The power of the purse is the only real power Congress has over the Executive…and Judicial branches.

So, what can be done? The voters won’t have any leverage now until 2016 and the RNC fought hard against their base to maintain their control of the party in this last election.

The first thing is to nominate a conservative for President, like Ted Cruz, and get him elected as President—WHILE MAINTAINING THE ‘PUB MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. Then, like Obama’s first two years in office, the ‘Pubs can pass and/or repeal bills and have a President in office who will sign them. Remember, it was a democrat controlled Congress and a democrat President that passed Obamacare, Dodd-Franks, and expanded the regulatory reach of government agencies. It will take the same degree of control to reverse those acts.

We have made progress in regaining control from the liberals. The ‘Pubs control more statehouses and governorships than ever before. 

We need to take control of Washington and keep that control while removing the built-up tyranny of federal agencies and federal judgeships across the country. We see every day acts of lawfare by liberals using federal judges to make changes the libs cannot make by legislative action. It is those judges who must be removed, one by one, to reverse the liberal corruption of our nation and culture.

As I said once before, “Rot begins at the head, recovery begins from the bottom.” With control of the state legislatures, we can make change via a Convention of States, if necessary, that will curtail progressivism and socialism before they become fatal. That is a last resort. In the mean time, let’s make all the change we can with the political power we have. If that means McConnell must go as Senate Majority Leader, let’s make it so.

Facebook

One week

Posted on by

We’re a week away from the election. In a number of states, including Missouri, people have already voted. In Missouri, it absentee voting. The other states have early voting, a scheme by democrats to make vote fraud easier.

Easier? How?

It’s simple. Most county clerks really don’t do a passable job. For them it’s best to just ease along, not making any waves. When people register to vote, they don’t cross check to see if the person is already registered with another name. For instance, I, like most Americans, that three names. Let’s make up one, John Thomas Roberts. Mr Roberts could be registered as John Roberts, Tom Roberts, John T. Roberts, J. Thomas Roberts at 123 Main Street. If the clerk mistypes the address, some of those entries could be at 123 Main Street, others at 124 Main Street—and everyone version would be registered as a real voters. Mr. Roberts could, therefore, vote four times—more if he voted early and then showed up at the polls as well. You see, most county clerks never cross-check, nor remove early voters from the poll registry. Mr. Roberts could, theoretically, vote eight times.

In areas in Kansas City, St. Louis, and other liberal bastions across the state, the local poll judges wouldn’t be able to stop them. In times past, some judges were blocked from the polls, or intimidated by thugs. Kansas City’s past history in the last decades has had both.

http://media.cleveland.com/plain_dealer_metro/photo/11647531-large.jpg

Polling station with paper ballots

Can we eliminate vote fraud? No, not completely. What we can do, however, is make vote fraud much more difficult. First, require voting by paper ballots. In my county, we mark our choices in black ink on the ballot and then it is scanned and read. Fool proof? No. If the ballot is improperly marked it could be misread. The scanner can have basic logic to reject ballots that have no votes, two votes for the same office, or marks outside of the selection box. But, if there is a question later on the vote count, those paper ballots are still available for a real person to check.

What else can be done? Photo Voter-ID, using a photo taken at the time of registration. Liberal claims to the contrary, if a photo ID is required to cash a check, there is no reason why a photo-ID can’t be required to vote. All claims to the contrary are just tactics by liberals to preserve their ability for vote fraud.

What else? Eliminate early voting. The democrat adage, “Vote early, vote often,” is real. Should we eliminate absentee voting? No, there are legitimate reasons for absentee voting. Citizens in the military, deployed  outside the country or based in other states, retain their right to vote and to have their votes counted. There are mechanisms in place for the military to vote. There are also legitimate reason why others, not in the military, cannot be present to vote at their polls. But, in those cases, the absentee voter should present and sign an affidavit attesting to their reason for not voting at their home polling station, such as travel or illness to name two.

Our Republic is based on the fundamental right of its citizens who meet the established requirements for a voter. That means that aliens, non-citizens, whether here legally or illegally, do NOT vote. The democrats want those illegal votes, it dilutes the votes of citizens and the democrats believe those illegal votes can be bought. The legality of voting is irrelevant to them. Voting is nothing more than a means for them to gain and retain power. If they thought they could get away with it, and if we don’t fight them, one day our right to vote and have it counted, will be no more.

This election appears to be leading to a ‘Pub victory in many areas of the country and in Missouri. Let’s work with our legislators, local and national, in the 2015 session to pass, and override vetos, for some real voter security—paper ballots, audits of the voting rolls and insuring they are clean, passing Photo-IDs for registration and voting, and putting some real teeth in penalties for vote fraud. In many instances, vote fraud is only a misdemeanor. Vote fraud should be a felony with a long prison term and heavy fines.

The United States is a republic, not a democracy nor a mobocracy. We must have the tools to insure it remains a republic. Else, we will have not a republic, not a democracy, but the rule of elites of a single party—just like the old USSR.

Facebook