The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tenth Commandment
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Ted Cruz for President 2016
Sarah Palin for Disappointment of the Year
Donate to TBD
NOTICE
New visitors should read my "about" and my "comment policy" pages. It should help clear any confusion regarding your first-time or subsequent comments.
In the United States, Justice is supposed to be BLIND. It should be in Ideal Cases that the Courts deliver a fair and just trial to be judged by a Judge, or a Jury of the defendant’s peers. The Justice Department for its symbol has the scales of justice to be equal and blind. Or as Sgt. Friday would say, just the facts, ma’am, just the facts. As said, in all trials this is the ideal, but we know “things happen” and if severe enough, a mistrial happens. This is a statue representing Blind Justice:
However, our present Department of Injustice has forgotten this. It started its tenure in 2009 by dismissing a guilty plea by persons obstructing the voting process. We see the myriad of scandals with NSA, IRS, and others. Most of this is being done by Omission, than Commission. Or, don’t say anything and it may disappear. But with the George Zimmerman trial Withholder’s Department of Injustice has sunk to another new low in that they campaigned and spent TAX DOLLARS to vilify the Defendant, Zimmerman. See below. This is how Justice Feels now. In Shame.
Newly Released Documents Detail the Department of Justice’s Role in Organizing Trayvon Martin Protests
DOJ deployed obscure section to play role in Florida protests.
July 10, 2013 – 9:29 am
Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents proving that the Department of Justice played a major behind-the-scenes role in organizing protests against George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February 2012.
Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012. According to the documents JW received, a little-known DOJ unit called the Community Relations Service deployed to Sanford, FL, to organize and manage rallies against Zimmerman.
Among JW’s findings:
March 25 – 27, 2012, CRS spent $674.14 upon being “deployed to Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
March 25 – 28, 2012, CRS spent $1,142.84 “in Sanford, FL to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.”
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent $892.55 in Sanford, FL “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida.”
March 30 – April 1, 2012, CRS spent an additional $751.60 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”
April 3 – 12, 2012, CRS spent $1,307.40 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance, conciliation, and onsite mediation during demonstrations planned in Sanford.”
April 11-12, 2012, CRS spent $552.35 in Sanford, FL “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.” – expenses for employees to travel, eat, sleep?
JW says the documents it obtained reveal that CRS is not engaging in its stated mission of conducting “impartial mediation practices and conflict resolution,” but instead engaged on the side of the anti-Zimmerman protesters.
Not News: Food Stamp Participation Jumped by Over 600,000 in September; Last Pre-Election Number Revised Up
By Tom Blumer | December 07, 2012 | 23:57
The U.S. Department of Agriculture released its latest report on food stamp program participation through September today. I received the email alerting me to the release at 5:17 p.m., so it seems reasonable to believe that USDA and the Barack Obama administration wanted the new data to get as little attention as possible (as will be seen later, it’s currently getting none). If so, they have two probable reasons for wishing to minimize its impact.
The first and more obvious of the two is that the food stamp rolls increased by over 607,000 in September to 47.71 million, yet another all-time record. That’s awful enough, but here’s the real kicker: the participation figure for July, the last month of data available before Election Day, was revised up by over 150,000, changing that month’s reported increase from 11,600 to just under 166,000. As will be seen after the jump, no other month’s data was revised except August, where the changes were infinitesimal
This is SICKENING. The Discraced House at 1600 PA Ave., NW, Washington, DC DID NOTHING to save and fight for our fellow citizens and Americanns. Anybody who votes for Obama after reading or hearing this, is BLIND!!!
Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?
Posted on October 26, 2012 byCowboy Byte
Charles Woods, the father Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).
When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that you’re son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”
Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”
And it could very well back-fire on him — in the short term, and the long term.
In an all-out effort to prevent the Senate Republicans from forcing a vote on Barack Obama’s “jobs” bill, Harry Reid has pulled out all the stops, including using the “nuclear” option. In a move that upset over 100 years of precedent and changed the rules on the fly without consulting Republicans, Harry Reid and 50 other Democrats decided to change the rules and not permit an amendment after a cloture vote, after the Senate Parliamentarian had declared Republicans had that right. And the amendment the Republicans wanted to offer was Barack Obama’s “jobs” bill that Barack Obama has been constantly demanding “pass this now”. That’s right, Democrat Harry Reid is refusing to allow Democrat Barack Obama’s “jobs” bill to even be voted on.
As Allahpundit said:
Apparently, to spare The One the humiliation of having members of his own party vote no on the PassThisBillRightAway Act of 2011, Reid freaked out and nuked the GOP’s right to offer amendments entirely. That’s how much of a fiasco O’s jobs plan is right now: Simply to avoid having to vote on it, longstanding Senate rules are being rewritten on the fly by … his own party.
But when you detonate a nuclear device in your own kitchen, you have to expect the resultant fallout. Ed Morrissey quotes The Hill:
Senate Republicans vow they will retaliate for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to unilaterally change the Senate’s rules Thursday without prior warning or negotiation.
Republican aides say their bosses will now be even more reluctant to allow the Senate to conduct routine business by unanimous consent, forcing Reid to gather 60 votes for even the most mundane matters.
“Reid fired a major salvo and it’s hard to imagine a return shot won’t be fired. Maybe over the weekend they’ll come up with something and try to make it less worse than it already is,” said a Senate GOP leadership aide. …
Triggering what has come to be known as the chamber’s “nuclear option,” Reid overturned Senate precedent that allowed Republicans to force votes to proceed to non-germane amendments. He did so by voting with 50 of his Democratic colleagues to overturn a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian.
The controversial procedural tactic hasn’t been used in years. In a chamber where it requires the consent of all 100 senators to dispense with the reading of a bill, changing the rules unilaterally is considered bad form.
Harry Reid (D – NV) is trying to prevent the fallout by having a little get-together to discuss things and smooth things over. But Republicans likely won’t buy it this time around. You see, Harry Reid made Republicans an offer at the beginning of the year, which Republicans accepted. Then Harry Reid acted like a Democrat.
When Ronald Reagan approved the Democrats’ tax increases, it was based on Democrat promises of cutting 3 dollars in spending for 1 dollar in tax increases. The Democrats broke that promise immediately. Ed Morrissey notes:
At the beginning of the year, Reid and McConnell worked out an agreement to allow Republicans to offer limited amounts of amendments while Republicans promised to stop filibusters on motions to proceed (as opposed to motions to close debate and vote) unless the bill in question was very controversial. All year long, though, Reid has aggressively filled the amendment “trees” to keep Republican amendments from being considered, which had already angered the GOP caucus. After dropping this bombshell on them with no warning and no negotiation, Republicans aren’t going to be in a mood to attend Reid’s venting session or trust him to keep his word at all.
So Harry Reid went Democrat and broke his promise, what’s new? And he thinks he can prevent nuclear fallout from his nuclear blast by making even more promises he knows he’ll be going Democrat and breaking? Expect the Senate to get even more bogged down now than it was before. And come 2013 when Republicans are once again in the majority, expect the Reid precedent to be remembered and used, much to the dismay of Harry Reid and the Democrats who set that precedent.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – KY) tried to bring up Barack Obama’s Democrat slush fund (but let’s call it a “jobs” bill) for a Senate vote yesterday, but Harry Reid (D – NV) refused to allow it. That’s right, the “jobs” bill that Barack Obama has said “pass it now”, “vote on it now” is being blocked by DEMOCRAT Senator Harry Reid while Obama is out on the campaign trail castigating Republicans.
In a lively spat on the Senate floor Tuesday, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) attempted call up President Obama’s jobs plan for an immediate vote in the upper chamber.
However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who supports the legislation, blocked the vote.
Reid used a procedural maneuver called “filling the tree,” which allows the majority leader to say a piece of legislation has had all of its possibilities for amendments.
McConnell had tried to offer the president’s job package as an amendment to the China currency legislation, which was being debated in chamber. By “filling the tree,” Reid blocked that move.
Harry Reid has used that “filling the tree” procedural move an unprecedented percentage of the time over the past three years to prevent Republicans from offering amendments to Bills being debated in the Senate, effectively shutting Republicans out of the Bill-creating process. The reason DEMOCRAT Harry Reid refuses to allow Barack Obama’s “jobs” bill to come up for a vote is because he knows with 53 Senators on his side of the aisle, he cannot get 50 votes for it. He most likely cannot get even 46 out of his 53 Senators to vote for the albatross. And Barack Obama needs this piece of campaign propaganda if he wants any chance of winning in 2012, but the Democrat Senators cannot afford to vote on the “jobs” bill if they want any chance of winning in 2012.
The same reason Harry Reid (D – NV) refuses to allow a vote on Obama’s “jobs” bill as Obama presented is the very same reason Harry Reid (D – NV) has refused to even attempt a Federal Budget since April, 2009: he cannot afford to have any Democrats on record because that will cause Democrats to lose elections. It really is that simple.
Charade? What charade? How is calling for a vote on a bill the president has been demanding Congress vote on right away a charade? Could it be Harry Reid was worried that the Democrats don’t have the votes to pass it?
But that didn’t stop Obama from calling out Eric Cantor in a campaign speech by name, and telling people to demand passage of a bill that he knows is dead in the water. The only thing he left out was to contact any Democrats.
…
This is getting so old.
I have to disagree with The Lonely Conservative here. It’s not getting old. It’s long past the chunky green milk stage now.
Reid’s doing some heel dragging because he knows he doesn’t have the votes — or possibly the intentional delay is subtle payback for 20 minutes on hold. [referencing Obama’s keeping Senate Democrats waiting on the phone for 20 minutes (elevator music?).]
Meanwhile, President Obama has given up on “pass this jobs bill now” and is settling for “pass it this month.” Next up: “Easter-ish would be good too…”
Perhaps [Obama] should have saved his censure for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The Senate Majority Leader today refused to allow Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring the president’s jobs bill up for a vote.
The way Reid did it was a little wonky. McConnell planned to add the AJA as an amendment to the China currency bill currently under consideration in the Senate. “I wanted to disabuse [Obama] of the notion that somehow we’re unwilling to vote on his proposal,” McConnell said. But Reid “filled the tree,” taking advantage of his right of first recognition and adding so many amendments to the bill that McConnell was unable to tack the AJA to it, too. Reid then even went so far as to accuse McConnell of “obstruction” and engaging in “a political stunt.”
Yes. Senator Harry Reid (D – NV) refuses to allow the Republicans to add Barack Obama’s (D – Prez) “jobs” bill as an amendment to another bill being debated while simultaneously accusing Republicans of “obstruction” when Obama wants to “pass the bill now” and is accusing Republicans of refusing to vote on it. That’s what you call a “pants on fire” lie out of Senator Harry Reid (D – NV).
The whole “jobs” bill is a campaign propaganda stunt. Barack Obama knows it. Harry Reid knows it. House Democrats know it. All the Republicans know it. And now it’s fodder for Republicans to use against Senate Democrats because the Senate Democrats have refused to go on record for or against it, just as they have refused to go on record with a Federal Budget since April, 2009.
I previously reported on the voting public’s positions on various issues and their stance opposing Democrat positions. A plurality (44 percent) are fiscal Conservatives while a small minority (11 percent) are fiscal Liberals. 2/3 want the border controlled before dealing with any other possible illegal immigrant solutions. The numbers regarding educating illegal immigrants gets more glaring, with 4 out of 5 saying they don’t want illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition rates. Over 7 in 10 Hispanic voters in “battleground” states approve of Voter ID. The majority of voters favor repealing ObamaCare, 20 points above those who don’t want it repealed. All of these issues have the Democrat party on the wrong side of the voting public.
But there’s more, as the late-night infomercials say. The next batch of polling numbers are again opposing Democrat party positions.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 60% favor the death penalty, while 28% oppose it. Another 12% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
This is little changed from surveys dating back to November 2009, with support for capital punishment running from 61% to 63%.
Over 2/3 of men and a majority of women support the Death Penalty. Over 3/4 of Republicans and 6 in 10 independents support the Death Penalty. And the Democrat base is evenly divided on the issue. While a bare majority of blacks oppose the Death Penalty, a clear majority of Whites and non-black minorities support the Death Penalty. So as an issue, the Democrat party leadership is on the wrong side.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 56% are in favor of a balanced budget amendment while 22% are opposed and another 22% are undecided.
…
Most Republicans (68%) and voters not affiliated with either party (54%) support a balanced budget amendment. So do a plurality of Democrats (46%).
The vast majority of voters support term limits for Congress, something the Ruling Class of both parties opposes.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of Likely U.S. Voters favor establishing term limits for all members of Congress. Just 14% oppose setting such limits, and 15% are undecided about them.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Likely U.S. Voters think free market competition is more likely than government subsidies and regulation to help the United States develop alternative sources of energy. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 27% believe government subsidies and regulations are the better way to go. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
But then 71% of voters say private sector companies and investors are better than government officials when it comes to determining the long-term benefits and potential of new technologies. Sixty-four percent (64%) think it’s likely that if a private company which cannot find investors gets funding from the government, that money will be wasted.
If private investors aren’t willing to put money into a company, only 17% of voters think the federal government should provide loan guarantees or loans to help keep such a company in business. Fifty-nine percent (59%) say the government should not provide money for an alternative energy company after private investors refuse to invest in it. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.
More voters say being “pro-gun” is good and “union supported” is bad than say the reverse. 6 in 10 Americans believe if the Government raises taxes to reduce the deficit, it will only cause more Government spending (which means the public isn’t buying the Democrat party’s “the Republicans don’t want to raise taxes so they’re not serious about the debt” false dichotomy fallacy), while the majority believe if the Government agrees to cut spending, no spending will actually be cut (which means the public knows the Government’s history).
On practically every issue, the Democrat party stands in opposition to the will of the public. On practically every issue, the Democrat party stands in opposition to the will of independent voters. Is it any wonder a Democrat poll showed Democrats in a worse position in 60 Republican-held “battleground” districts now than in 2010, when Democrats were swept out of office? Is it any wonder Democrats are losing the independent vote?
Democrats are pinning their hopes on making a comeback after their disastrous 2010 election results, and they have selected 60 Republican-held “battleground” districts to try to make that change. Well, they can HOPE for CHANGE in the results all they want. According to a Democrat pollster, things look even worse now than they did in 2010. From National Journal comes the news.
One of the Democratic party’s leading pollsters released a survey of 60 Republican-held battleground districts today painting an ominous picture for Congressional Democrats in 2012. The poll shows Democratic House candidates faring worse than they did in the 2010 midterms, being dragged down by an unpopular president who would lose to both Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
Pollster Stan Greenberg released the poll with some sugary spin for Democrats, downplaying the results by arguing that the president’s jobs plan will improve the party’s fortunes.
But the numbers – at least right now — are troubling for Democrats, and echoed some of the takeaways from the GOP special election upset in New York City last week. Instead of an overall anti-incumbent sentiment impacting members of both parties, voters are taking more of their anger out on Democrats. When voters were asked whether they’re supporting the Republican incumbent or a Democratic candidate, 50 percent preferred the Republican and just 41 percent backed the Democrat.
Voters in these districts said they were more supportive of Republicans than they were during the 2010 midterms, when 48 percent said they backed the Republican candidate and 42 percent said they backed the Democrat. (Republicans won 55 percent of the overall vote in these 60 battleground districts, while Democrats took 43 percent.) In 2010, Republicans netted 63 House seats – their best showing since 1948.
So, according to a Democrat pollster, the voters are two percent more likely to vote for a Republican and one percent less likely to vote for a Democrat now than in 2010, the year of the TEA Party-lead Republican tsunami. No, the Democrats will have to forget about trying to win back seats and start to figure out how to save what Democrat seats they have, because 2012 is lining up to be another year of across-the-board Republican gains, led by the TEA Party/Conservative grass-roots wave.
Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., fears that these midterm elections are going to go the way of the 1994 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the House after a failed health care reform effort.
“They just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”
(What’s with the pink highlighting, ABC?) Yes, that was the difference, alright. The 2010 elections were an even greater landslide than the 1994 elections. And it continues to be the difference. After the 1994 elections, President Clinton commandeered multiple Republican agenda items as his own. After the 2010 elections, President Obama threw a hissy fit and doubled down on his ad hominem and straw-man attacks while maintaining the Leftist agenda. So, the difference between 1996 and 2012 is you Democrats have Obama.
The news coming out of Virginia is definitely bad for Democrats, as Ed Morrissey points out.
In 2008, Barack Obama sailed to victory over John McCain in Virginia by six points in the normally Republican state, promising “hope and change.” According to a new poll from Roanoke College in Virginia, Obama certainly brought change. The incumbent President trails both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, and can only muster 33% support against a generic Republican — twenty points below his popular-vote percentage in 2008[.]
…
The really bad news? Roanoke polled adults, not registered or likely voters. Democrats tend to do much better in polls that don’t screen for registration, which means that a more predictive sample would undoubtedly have produced even less pleasant results for Obama.
Chances are very strong that Virginia is lost to Obama, as Virginians will vote the ABO (anyone but Obama) line in 2012. As Ed Morrissey said, expect Democrats to only put in enough money in Virginia to attempt to protect down-ticket incumbent Democrats.
New York City this year put a Republican in a seat held by Democrats since the 1920s as the Republican candidate tied the Democrat candidate directly to Obama. Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District, a “battleground” district Democrats hoped to capture, saw the Republican demolish the Democrat by 20 points as, once again, the Republican tied the Democrat directly to Obama.
As Democrats are looking at 2012 being a much worse outcome than 1996, there is another correlation, and that is between 2012 and 1980. There are many similarities: a bad economy that is not improving, a lot of ugliness going on in the Middle East that the President isn’t fit to handle, a very unpopular President, a Conservative grass-roots distaste for the Establishment Republicans, the Establishment Republicans fighting hard against a Conservative Republican candidate. But there are differences as well. In 1980, Republicans still had the shadow of Watergate hanging over them. In 2012, Democrats have more than just a shadow of Fast and Furious, Solyndra, LightSquared. It has even gotten to the point that many incumbent Democrats do not want to be photographed with Obama, because they cannot afford to be tied to Obama if they want to win reelection.
No, Democrats, the difference between Clinton and Obama is Obama never learned and is still rhetorically mauling the public. And the public doesn’t like being mauled.
The Democrats and the mainstream media (one and the same) have pushed this meme that Voter ID is raaaaacist and Republicans and Conservatives are raaaaacist in pushing it. The Democrats and mainstream media push the idea that Voter ID is an attempt to prevent minorities from voting. So, let’s find out how minorities feel about it, shall we? In particular, the Hispanic minority. How do Hispanics feel about Voter ID? Well, they are in very strong support of Voter ID.
As part of a broad survey of Hispanic attitudes on a variety of political issues, the poll, conducted for the conservative group Resurgent Republic, asked a sample of 1,200 voters the following question: “As you may have heard, many states are considering laws that would require registered voters to present photo identification, such as a driver’s license, in order to cast their vote. Do you support or oppose those laws?”
In Florida, 88 percent of those surveyed said they support the laws, while just ten percent oppose them. In Colorado 71 percent support the law, while 26 percent oppose, and in New Mexico, 73 percent support the law, while 25 percent oppose. In general, Hispanic voters in Colorado and New Mexico are more liberal than those in Florida. But strong majorities in all three states favor photo ID laws.
The overwhelming support for photo ID contrasts sharply with the intense opposition to such laws in the Justice Department, the Democratic party, and the civil rights establishment. In June, Democratic National Committee chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called voter ID laws the work of Republicans “who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally — and very transparently — block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic.”
Debbie Wasserman Schultz will get nowhere among the independent voters with that “Jim Crow” garbage, and even less traction among the people who know who set up the Jim Crow Laws, but that is not her intent. Her intent is to continue the Liberal Lie.
As Mackubin T Owens wrote for the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University in 2002 (prominently linked in my sidebar):
The Democratic Party’s war against African-Americans continued after the Civil War (which many Democrats in fact opposed, often working actively to undercut the Union war effort). Democrats, both north and south fought the attempt to implement the equality for African-Americans gained at such a high cost. This opposition was often violent. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan operated as the de facto terrorist arm of the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction.
Democrats defeated Reconstruction in the end and on its ruins created Jim Crow. Democratic liberalism did not extend to issue of race. Woodrow Wilson was the quintessential “liberal racist,” a species of Democrat that later included the likes of William Fulbright of Arkansas, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Albert Gore, father of Al, of Tennessee.
So no, it is not Republicans who created and maintained Jim Crow laws, but rather Democrats who did so. That is historical record that no Democrat wants the general public to know about. But moron Debbie Whatsername Schmuck’s rant. “and literally — and very transparently — block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic.” What is Voter ID designed to do? Block felons who don’t have voting rights, illegal aliens, people who used ACORN voter registration fraud tactics to register multiple times under multiple names and multiple addresses, dead people, pets, under-age people from fraudulently casting their illegal votes. So yes, that is a class of people who vote almost exclusively Democrat.
But Voter ID has nothing to do with “race” or ethnicity, and even the overwhelming majority of Hispanic voters know that. Voter ID has everything with the purity and authenticity and legitimacy of the vote. Actually, I want slimeballs like Debbie to continue spreading the Leftist lies among the Hispanic community because the Hispanic community as a whole knows the truth. And the Leftist lies will shove more Hispanic voters into voting Republican, where their moral positions naturally place them anyway.
That’s right, folks, the Leftist slush fund and class warfare pandering bill Obama introduced and is touting is getting blasted by Senate Democrats who don’t have to worry about the 2012 elections. Let me say that again. Senate Democrats who don’t have to worry about getting their electorate to vote for them are saying “no” to Barack Obama.
Ed Morrissey quotes Pollutico (and since I don’t link to Pollutico, you’ll have to follow the link to the Hot Air story to find the Pollutico link):
As he demands Congress quickly approve his ambitious proposal aimed at reviving the sagging economy, many Democrats on Capitol Hill appear far from sold that the president has the right antidote to spur major job growth and turn around their party’s political fortunes.
“Terrible,” Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told POLITICO when asked about the president’s ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. “We shouldn’t increase taxes on ordinary income. … There are other ways to get there.”
“That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu from the energy-producing Louisiana, referring to Obama’s elimination of oil and gas subsidies. “Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”
“I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), discussing proposals to slash the debt by $4 trillion by overhauling entitlement programs and raising revenue through tax reforms. “That’s better than everything else the president is talking about — combined.”
And those are just the moderates in the party. Some liberals also have concerns.
Let’s be perfectly clear, shall we? Barack Obama never expected his “jobs” bill to ever get through the Republican-controlled House. In fact, Obama depended on it not getting through the House, so he could continue to blame the “obstructionist” Republicans for his abysmal failure. But a funny thing happened on the way to his deceitful campaign propaganda. Sane Democrats stood up to loudly reject his radical Leftist agenda.
This bodes well for Republicans and the US for the 2012 elections and the direction of the nation. But it also bodes well long-term.
Like a song sung simultaneously with two opposing sets of lyrics, Obama’s agenda and speeches and actions, when combined with the TEA Party movement’s agenda and actions, makes for beautiful music. Obama’s complete radicalization is being rejected even by Democrats and the Ruling Class Republicans’ spineless ever leftward shifting “go along, get along” garbage is being rejected by We the People. And the nation begins to recover and heal.
Contrary to the Democrat leadership and the mainstream media (same thing), the Republicans have not been shifting ever rightward since Reagan. Rather, it’s the Democrat Party that has been radicalizing since the JFK days. This is not your daddy’s Democrat Party. It is something completely alien, something completely radicalized.
Reagan moved the Republicans to the right, closer to where they should’ve been and once were. But then came George H W Bush, who rejected the Conservative Reagan Republican Caucus (while simultaneously coat-tailing it into the White House). Reagan’s shifting of the Republican Party to the right and the powerful electoral victories pushed the Democrat Party to the left as conservative Democrats migrated to the Republican Party. But as the elder Bush and the Statist Republicans worked to retake control of the Republican Party and shift it leftward again, the Republicans lost strength in Congress and lost the White House. And the Democrats continued their leftward shift.
Bill Clinton’s overreach caused the Republican wave of 1994 as once again the Republican Party shifted to the right, but not as far to the right as during Reagan. And many moderate Democrats switched over to the Republican Party. The combination of historic electoral losses and sizable numbers of defections caused the Democrat Party to lurch leftward. But the Ruling Class Republicans refused to take advantage.
George W Bush, with major help from Karl Rove, worked tirelessly to dismantle the remnants of the Reagan Republican Caucus as, once again, the Republican Party jumped to the left to fill in the void left by the leftward-lurching Democrats. And George W Bush cost the Republicans many seats in Congress during his tenure as a result. As ever consistent, the Democrat leadership continued its radicalization of the Democrat Party.
Enter 2008, with the most radical Leftist to ever win a major party nomination becoming President. And the radicalization of the Congress accelerated to new extremes. Suddenly, the people stood up and shouted “NO MORE!!” But the radical Leftists Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Charles Schumer, Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the Democrat leadership refused to listen to the people. Many of the radical Leftist Democrat leadership even mocked the people.
And 2010 happened, with the most sweeping rejection of Democrats at the polls since the 1930s. Unlike the 1994 Republican wave, where Bill Clinton changed course and co-opted Republican agenda items for himself, Barack Obama and the radicalized Democrat leadership continued on in its radical Left agenda. So, unlike 1996, where the people thought the Democrats were sane, the build-up to 2012 is seeing continued decay in the Democrat Party and continued outcry from the people and a continued growth in Conservatism in the US.
What do I see for the 2012 election? I see further big gains for Conservatives and Republicans. I see a further weakening of the Ruling Class Republicans within the Republican Caucus. I see a much further radicalization of the Democrat leadership as even more left of center Democrats lose elections, leaving, for the most part, only the most radical of Leftist Democrats in office. And I see the US healing from the wounds caused by the radical Left.
But beyond 2012 is the real question. As the NY-9 special election showed, where Bob Turner’s campaign was directed at sending Barack Obama a message, a great many Democrat voters are beginning to see their Democrat Party radicalized and are beginning to reject it. The question, after 2012, is will the Democrat everyman retake control of the party from the radicals running it into the ground, or will the Democrat Party become ever further radicalized into Socialism and thus relegated to a permanent minority party as the Republicans were for over 50 years of the 20th century? I would like to think the saner Democrats would wrest control of their party away from the radicals in charge now. But time will tell.
Regardless, Obama/Reid/Pelosi have done a great service to the country. They have awakened the country to the extreme radicalization of the Democrat party and the extreme radical agenda being pushed down the people’s throats in direct opposition to the people’s wishes. They have also awakened the country to the destruction caused by the Ruling Class Republicans. Sometimes, a body needs a good swift Gibbs head-slap to realize the dangers of current events, and that’s exactly what Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz have done.
Our lovely liberal legislators just can’t seem to stop. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) this weekend informed the world just where she thinks Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Tea Party “tyrants” and Vice President Joe Biden’s Tea Party “terrorists” belong:
Rep. Maxine Waters continued to make waves during the summer recess, telling a town hall meeting that “the tea party can go straight to hell.”
“This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned — the tea party can go straight to hell,” Waters said, according to Los Angeles television station KABC.
The remarks came at a “Kitchen Table Summit” in Inglewood Saturday night attended by more than a thousand people. Waters’ comments came on the heels of questions about unemployment and the economy.
Her remarks followed a week in which her name figured prominently in discussion, first as she expressed outrage that President Obama’s jobs tour did not specifically target the black community, which has disproportionately suffered from the unemployment problem, and then as Rep. Allen West referred to her as a “boss” or “overseer” on the “plantation” of the Democratic Party.
This is the same Maxine Waters who has very serious ethics problems. Recall, she got herself caught in a major scandal. She pushed to send a large chunk of tax-payer dollars to rescue a badly mismanaged and failed bank that her husband was heavily invested in. As far as I am concerned, that is criminal, unAmerican, unethical, a direct violation of her Oath of Office, influence peddling to benefit her financial status, and more.
But if you disagree with Maxine Waters, you’re uncivil, racist, terrorist, hostage-taker. And besides, you can go to Hell. If you want Maxine Waters investigated, you’re uncivil, racist, terrorist, hostage-taker. And besides, you can go to Hell. If you want Maxine Waters punished to the full extent of the Law, you’re uncivil, racist, terrorist, hostage-taker. And besides, you can go to Hell.
Liberals want to shut their opponents up. Liberals want their opponents silenced. I want Maxine Waters to keep talking. Because she does much damage to the Liberal brand and the Democrat Party. Her district may be safe. She may never have to fear being voted out of office. But the rest of the country can hear her, and they’re more sane. And her outrageousness will spill over onto the rest of the Democrat Party, making saner districts that much harder for Democrats to win.
Earlier, Ed Morrissey wrote an article suggesting it might be better for Democrat election hopes if Obama were to choose not to run. With the economy sinking and Obama’s poll numbers sinking, even in deep-blue states, having Obama at the top of the ticket could drag down the down-ticket Democrats with him as he loses his re-election bid. There’s even an outside chance that Republicans could win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate due to Obama’s being at the top of the ticket. Add Maxine Waters’ outrageous words and Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s outrageous words, and Democrats in saner districts and states across the country could be dragged further down.
So yes Maxine, Debbie, Barack, please keep spouting your spewage. And you can go straight to Hell, you racist, uncivil, terrorist, hostage-takers.
This graphical mis-truth has another major flaw. While showing 8 years of “domestic and defense spending” for President Bush, the White House propaganda bar shows no spending whatsoever for the Obama administration.
Lastly, the farm bill was passed in 2008 by a Democrat congress over George Bush’s VETO. That spending should fall on Pelosi and Reid, not Bush. The farm bill was $300 billion so almost that entire part of the chart does not belong to Bush.
Integrity is a thing of the past as far as the Democrat leadership is concerned. They don’t need no stinkin’ integrity!
Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat, Iowa, uses demagoguery, falsehoods, smears, defamation of character, false alternative fallacy, and all manner of other foul attacks for political gain. Real Clear Politics has the video. (HT Hot Air headlines)
Tom Harkin’s deceitful false alternative fallacy: Refusal to raise the debt ceiling means willingness to let the US default on its debts.
The truth: If the US debt ceiling is not raised, a couple hundred billion dollars a month will continue to roll in to the Federal coffers; more than enough to pay the interest on the debt, Social Security checks, military payroll and more. If the country defaults, the Obama Administration would be directly responsible as it would be the Obama Administration which refused to properly prioritize expenditures. The Republicans who refused to raise the debt ceiling would be blameless for a US default.
Tom Harkin’s flat-out lie: The Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate of the previous 8 years is responsible for most of the debt.
Truth 1: The Democrats held the House of Representatives for the final 2 of George W Bush’s 8 years while the Democrats held the Senate for the first and last 2 of George W Bush’s 8 years, thus the Republicans only held all three for 4 of George W Bush’s 8 years while the Democrats held both Houses of Congress for the final two and one House of Congress for the first two.
Truth 2: During George W Bush’s 8 years in office, the total debt climbed less than 6 trillion dollars. Since the current debt is over 14 trillion dollars, George W Bush did not preside over “most of the debt”. During the four years the Republicans held both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, the total debt climbed 2.2 trillion dollars. That means the debt climbed faster the four years Democrats held a portion or all of Congress than the four years Republicans held all of Congress.
Truth 3: The deficit has never been as great as it was under the Democrat Obama-Reid-Pelosi Administration. The new Republican House of Representatives passed a Budget that would cut the deficit but the Democrat Reid Senate has refused to pass a Budget for over 800 days, despite federal Law mandating one. And Democrat President Obama sent a “Budget” which was so unserious, so deficit-rich that the Democrat-controlled Senate voted it down 97-0.
The deficit spending more than doubled when the Democrats took over Congress and nearly doubled again as Obama took over the Presidency, so for Tom Harkin (Democrat, Iowa) to make his claims, he had to lie through his teeth. And the only people who will believe his spewage are those who are ignorant of the facts or those who are fanatically invested in his agenda.
Budgets are generally finalized in the calendar year prior to the fiscal year for which they are written, but not always. For example, the Democrat Congress refused to write a Budget for FY2009 until Democrat Obama took his seat as President, and then pumped up the (deficit) volume.
Hey, Tom Harkin. Who is the more “cult fringe,” to use your term? Those who believe your lies or those who have the facts? I’d suggest to you that you learn to speak the Truth before you Dishonor yourself further, but you won’t listen anyway. After all, you have the game of politics to win. To heck with the little people.
The year was 2006. The President was George W Bush. The debt ceiling was being approached. And every Democrat Senator voted against raising the debt ceiling.
Let’s see.
Joe Biden
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Harry Reid
Barbara Boxer
Chuck Schumer
And the rest of the Democrats
I guess they all wanted the US to default on its debt. I guess they all wanted senior citizens to lose their Social Security checks. I guess they all wanted Medicare and Medicaid recipients to lose their healthcare.
To hear the Democrats talk now, that’s exactly what the Democrats wanted to do back in 2006.
804 days. More than two years. That’s how long it’s been since the last time the US Senate passed a Federal Budget. The Democrat Congress last passed a Budget in early 2009 for the remainder of FY2009. The previous Congress — with Democrat majorities on both sides — refused to pass a FY2009 Budget while George W Bush was still in office, waiting until Barack Obama was seated before working on and passing the massively bloated Budget. The Democrats didn’t pass a FY2010 Budget, which would’ve ended in late 2010, and didn’t even try to pass a FY2011 Budget, which began prior to the 2010 elections. While the Republican House of Representatives did indeed pass a FY2011 Budget this year, Harry Reid (D – NV) stated very clearly that he wasn’t even interested in entertaining a Budget this year.
Harry Reid and the Senate Democrat leadership placed an Appropriations bill before the Senate. The Democrats placed an Appropriations bill before the Senate but haven’t even discussed a Budget. It is a violation of Federal Law to consider an Appropriations bill without first passing a Budget. That means Harry Reid and the Senate Democrat leadership violated Federal Law. They broke the Law. They acted illegally.
In direct violation of Federal Law, Harry Reid and the Senate Democrat leadership placed a military appropriations bill before the Senate, knowing full well the Republicans were threatening to force the Democrats to obey the Law, and knowing full well the military appropriations bill had heavy Republican support. And the Republicans acted in accordance with the Law, something the Democrats are incapable of doing. The Republicans chose to use the parliamentary procedures available to them in order to stop the Democrats from breaking the Law, to the surprise of the Democrats I fully suspect.
While the Democrats are trying to rule by Rule of Man, the Republicans are working hard to govern by Rule of Law. Kudos to the Senate Republicans who are standing up to the law-breaking Senate Democrats.
Dana Pico
DNW
Foxfier
Hube
Yorkshire
Truth Before Dishonor 