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.
I have been told that the GOP has a larger advantage in the US House than any Party since World War II. That is decidedly untrue. The Democrats have had a larger majority many times since World War II ended. But this is indeed the largest Republican majority since World War II. But let’s examine Baraka Obama’s infamous quote, shall we? And his impact on Democrat elections.
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Democrats have Obama
2009 Democrats 257 Republicans 178
2011 Democrats 193 Republicans 242 Republican gain of 64
2013 Democrats 201 Republicans 234 Democrat gain of 8
2015 Democrats 179 Republicans 243 13 seats currently undecided with 5 Republicans currently leading
That’s a Republican gain of 65 at a minimum, and a possible Republican gain of 70.
The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 258 Republicans 176
1995 Democrats 206 Republicans 228 Republican gain of 52
1997 Democrats 207 Republicans 226 Democrat gain of 1, Republican loss of 2
1999 Democrats 211 Republicans 223 Democrat gain of 4, Republican loss of 3
That’s a Republican gain of 47.
The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years is Republicans gained a minimum of 18 more House seats under Obama, possibly as many as 23 more seats.
US SENATE
The Obama years
2009 Democrats 60* Republicans 40* (see below-noted source)
2011 Democrats 53* Republicans 47 Republican gain of 7
2013 Democrats 55* Republicans 45 Democrat gain of 2
2015 Democrats 45* Republicans 52 Republican gain of 7, with 3 to be decided. Likely Republican gain of 8 or 9.
That’s a Republican gain of 12 to 14 Senate seats.
The Clinton years
1993 Democrats 57 Republicans 43
1995 Democrats 48 Republicans 52 Republican gain of 9
1997 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 Republican gain of 3
1999 Democrats 45 Republicans 55 No gain
That’s a Republican gain of 12 seats.
The difference between Obama and Clinton in the Senate? Obama hopes it’s a wash, but it’s much more likely that Republicans will gain more Senate seats under Obama than under Clinton.
Clearly, the difference between the Obama years and the Clinton years is Republicans gained more seats overall under Obama. And the reason is very clear. When Clinton got shellacked in 1994, he learned. He triangulated. He moved toward the center. He stole Republican agenda items for himself, even items Republicans had to force onto him. And he made the Democrats sound less Socialist and anti-American in the process. Furthermore, Clinton was a much better showman, a much better politician, a much better salesman than Obama could ever be.
Obama learned at the feet of a man who dedicated his book to Satan, a man who set off bombs inside the US in order to attempt to get the US government to bend to his will, two Ivy League professors who suggested the total overburdening of the freebie system to collapse the government budget and usher in Socialism. Obama and Clinton both have been shown incapable of telling the truth, but Clinton can actually make people buy his lies.
Clinton blinked, moved away from the Big Government Socialism he came in with, and the Democrats recovered better than Obama’s “I can’t learn anything from these elections” approach.
The difference between the Clinton years and the Obama years? Americans are not, in general, Socialist.
Gianna Jessen
My name is Gianna Jessen… I was aborted, and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California, and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.
A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mother’s womb. The baby then gulps the solution. It burns the baby inside and out, and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.
This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE… in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me the abortionist was not yet on duty and had me transferred to the hospital.
I should be blind, burned… I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy.
When I was diagnosed with this, all I could do was lie there. They said that was all I would ever do! Through prayer and hard work by my foster mother, I was walking at age 3 ½ with the help of a walker and leg braces. At that time I was also adopted into a wonderful family. Today I am left only with a slight limp. I no longer have need of a walker or leg braces.
…Death did not prevail over me… and I am so thankful!
Teen Breaks has more stories from abortion survivors. Teen Breaks is ready, willing, and able to help teens out. You don’t have to be pregnant, or even a girl, to reach out to them. They’re there to provide a loving environment, information, and a community of support for you as you are bombarded by pressures and life’s travails. If you’re a “cutter”, cutting yourself to regain a sense of control or to zone out or to get relief from life’s stresses, you’re not alone. 1 in 200 teen girls have done it. Teen Breaks is there for you, ready to help you.
Pregnant and need help?
You can talk with someone by phone, e-mail, text, chat live online or be shown where there is a pregnancy center near you. And remember, everything is confidential and free!
Click above to chat live or text “TEEN” to 313131.
A year ago, when I was 21 years old, I met the woman who gave birth to me. I had always dreamed about the day I would meet her, and it NEVER involved the most significant part of it all…learning that I was an ABORTION SURVIVOR. She was 13 years old when she became pregnant with me and the only option she knew of (according to her mother) was abortion. She proceeded to go to an abortion clinic nearby where she had an abortion. A few weeks later she realized she was still pregnant and decided to go to an out-of-state late-term abortion clinic to have a second abortion. During her examination at the late-term abortion clinic, she was told that she had been pregnant with TWINS. One was aborted, and one survived. She was also told that it was too late to have even a late-term abortion. She decided to give me up for adoption when I was born two weeks later. If you ask her now, she will tell you that if she had known the results of abortion vs. adoption, she would have gone straight to the adoption agency instead. Putting me up for adoption (and giving me the best family I can imagine) was a life-changing decision for all of us.
Because of the abortion, I was born 2 ½ months premature and weighed 3 lbs 2 oz. I was on life support and had to stay in the hospital for 2 ½ months until I could be brought home. My hips were dislocated and my feet were turned (because during the abortion, the sac that held my body together was broken) and when I was brought home I had 2 casts on my feet and a harness. I was put in a body cast for 4 months, and I didn’t walk until I was over 2 years old. It still affects me even today.
The Editor of The First Street Journal found another lying Democrat. There are some rules of writing that say when a word is defined in part by a qualifier, the qualifier is unnecessarily redundant; therefore, it is unnecessarily redundant to add the qualifier “lying” to the word “Democrat”. Democrats win elections by lying. There is a good chance that Democrats would never have more than a small minority position in most State Legislatures and the US government without their lies. Republicans want to throw granny over the cliff. Republicans have a war on women. Republicans are all racists. Heck, the race card has been so overplayed as to not mean anything anymore. Democrats have fought for all the Civil Rights Laws we have in this country. The long list of proven Democrat lies could go on forever. So what’s so important that the Editor of The First Street Journal would point out another Democrat lying? It’s the Pro-Life nature of the Democrat. Or, rather, it’s the lie that he’s in any way Pro-Life at all.
Well, we have just found out how pro-life Senator Casey really is. The pro-abortion forces introduced S. 1696, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is designed to eliminate state restrictions on abortion, through the entire nine months of pregnancy. It was in response to restrictions imposed in states like Texas, where abortion clinics are required to meet rigorous safety and health standards. The Texas law1 is designed, unquestionably, to reduce the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star State, but it was also in response to “Dr” Kermit Gosnell’s little shop of horrors. When it came time to actually vote on S. 1696, the devout Roman Catholic, pro-life Senator Casey, who represents the state in which “Dr” Gosnell was “practicing,” voted for the bill, as did every other Democrat in the Senate.2
With that vote, Senator Casey just told us, through deeds, that his words are nothing but lies. Senator Casey could have attempted to provide some “moderation,” some bit of pro-life sentiment, which he claims to have, by voting against the bill, because, in the end, the bill is both symbolic and meaningless: its chance of passage by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is infinitesimally small.
If you’re Pro-Life, you cannot vote Democrat. Because Democrats are only Pro-Life to get your vote. Afterward, they are pro-abort in every sense of the word. But you also have to be careful which Republican gets your vote. Because there’s more than one Republican who is pro-abort. And no Democrat wants you to see the photos to the left, because that might make you vote against the Democrat and against abortion on demand.
Welcome to Truth Before Dishonor’s version of live-blogging the US Senate election results. The current makeup of the US Senate is 47 Republicans, 51 Democrats, 1 Socialist (Bernie Sanders), 1 independent who caucuses with the Democrats. In case you haven’t noticed, it is my desire at Truth Before Dishonor to associate Democrats with the color of Liberalism and Socialism, and to return the Republicans to their color of blue. It wasn’t always the case that Republicans were red, as I explained in my article Obama Wins 2008, In All Likelihood Loses 2012. Who knows, maybe I can help set a trend in motion to reclaim the rightful colorings for their rightful owners.
As properly educated high school students of Government know, not all US Senators are up for election this year. Only roughly 1/3 of them are. And the US Senate (in combination with the US House of Representatives) is equivalent in importance as is the US Presidency, so saith the US Constitution. And, as the US Presidential election is absolutely critical this year, so too is the US Senate election.
Here is the list of states holding US Senate elections and the Real Clear Politics polling of likely outcomes (note Independents caucus with Democrats:
Safe Democrat seats:
Feinstein (D) California FOX News has called it for Feinstein
Cardin (D) Maryland FOX News has called it for Cardin
Gillibrand (D) New York FOX News has called it for Gillibrand
Sanders (Socialist) Vermont FOX News has called it for Sanders
Carper (D) Delaware FOX News has called it for Carper
Klobuchar (D) Minnesota FOX News has called it for Klobuchar
Whitehouse (D) Rhode Island FOX News calls it for Whitehouse
Likely Democrat seats:
Open (R) Maine (likely going Independent) FOX News has called it for Angus King
Open (D) Hawai’i
Stabenow (D) Michigan FOX News has called it for Stabenow
Menendez (D) New Jersey FOX News has called it for Menendez
Open (D) New Mexico
Cantwell (D) Washington FOX News has called it for Cantwell
Manchin (D) West Virginia FOX News has called it for Manchin
Leans Democrat seats:
Open (D) Connecticut FOX News has called it for Chris Murphy
Nelson (D) Florida FOX News has called it for Nelson
McCaskill (D) Missouri FOX News has called it for McCaskill
Brown (D) Ohio FOX News has called it for Brown
Casey (D) Pennsylvania FOX News has called it for Casey
Toss Ups:
Open (R) Indiana FOX News has called it for Donnelly
Brown (R) Massachusetts FOX News has called it for Elizabeth Warren
Tester (D) Montana
Heller (R) Nevada
Open (D) North Dakota
Open (D) Virginia FOX News has called it for Tim Kaine
Open (D) Wisconsin FOX News has called it for Tammy Baldwin
Leans Republican seats:
Open (R) Arizona
Open (D) Nebraska FOX News has called it for Deb Fischer
Safe Republican seats:
Wicker (R) Mississippi FOX News has called it for Wicker
Open (R) Texas FOX News has called it for Ted Cruz
Barrasso (R) Wyoming FOX News has called it for Barrasso
Corker (R) Tennessee FOX News has called it for Corker
Hatch (R) Utah FOX News has called it for Hatch
UPDATE 6:20pm Texas time: FOX News projects Socialist Bernie Sanders wins re-election as Vermont Senator.
UPDATE 8:40pm Texas time: I have unfortunately been unable to live-blog the Senate race like I wished, but I am updating the list above as I can.
UPDATE 10:05pm Texas time: With FOX News’ projection of Tim Kaine winning in Virginia, Democrats are projected to retain majority in the US Senate, while Republicans are projected to gain a larger majority in the US House.
We are fast approaching the inglorious 1,000 day mark. No actual attempts by the Democrat-controlled Senate to write a Federal Budget for nearly 1,000 days. This despite the Constitutional imperative and the Federal Law requiring such.
In the run-up to the 2008 elections, Nancy Pelosi’s Democrat-controlled House and Harry Reid’s Democrat-controlled Senate refused to send a budget to Republican President George W Bush, waiting instead until Democrat Barack Obama was inaugurated. They then produced the most deficit-ridden, spend-happy budget in the history of the US. But since that April 2009 Budget — which was supposed to have been done before November 2008 — the Democrats have steadfastly refused to attempt to create a Budget.
As 2009 came to a close, there was no new Budget even proposed for upcoming 2010 from either of the Democrat-held Houses of Congress, and as 2010 came to a close, there was again no new Budget even proposed for upcoming 2011 from either of the Democrat-held Houses of Congress. The reason for their reluctance to do their Constitutional duty and their reluctance to obey Federal Law is very straight-forward: The Democrats feared if they produced a Democrat Budget plan, the national outcry to oust Democrats from office would be even greater than it already was.
In 2011, the new, Republican-controlled House of Representatives did their Constitutionally and Federally mandated duties and produced a Federal Budget, which they then sent to the Senate. And Harry Reid and his Democrat-controlled Senate refused to even attempt to obey Federal Law and the Constitution. Harry Reid refuses to even attempt a Budget despite being required by Law to do so. It has been over 975 days now since the last Budget was passed and it will be another 380 days before another Budget is even attempted in the US Senate.
And Democrats deign to speak about irresponsibility when they are so transparently irresponsible in their refusal to obey the Law? November, 2012 is looking better by the day.
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.
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.
In an earlier article, I wrote about Congressman Kelly hitting hypocritical Democrats hard. Now it’s the Senate’s turn. Ron Johnson (R – WI) hammers the hypocritical Democrats, using a TEA Party tactic — focusing in on the Rule of Law.
Congress has not passed a Budget in roughly 800 days. The Democrat-controlled Congress didn’t even try to pass a budget in 2010 — despite the Constitutional requirement to do so — because they knew doing so would cost them a lot of seats in Congress. Harry Reid declared the Senate will not bother with a budget this year. And, in fact, the Senate Budget Committee hasn’t even bothered to start a mark-up for a budget — despite the Constitutional requirement to do so.
What is Senator Ron Johnson (R – WI) going to do about it? He’s going to use Senate Rules (that thing the Constitution says the Senate writes for itself) to put the pressure on. If the Senate does not do its duty regarding the Budget process, and do so in the open, “unanimous consent” will be far less common, as Senator Johnson intends to object and withhold consent. Will this force the Senate to do a budget? No, not at all. But it could effectively shut down Senate business. “I ask unanimous consent that the [bill/amendment] be considered as read.” “I object.” Then the bill or amendment would have to be read in its entirety, each bill, each amendment, each reading. How long does it take to read aloud a 1,000-page bill? How long does it take to read aloud each of 100 amendments to the bill? How much business can be accomplished if every word of every bill and every amendment has to be read aloud before any debate begins?
To Senator Ron Johnson’s (R – WI) planned course of action in staring down the unconstitutional activities of Harry Reid (D – NV) and the rest of the hypocritical Senate Democrats (who are busily lambasting Republican budget plans), I say “Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes!”
Reid confirmed on Thursday that the Democrats have no intention of giving the American people a plan to stave off fiscal disaster
That’s right, the Senate Democrats have no intention of breaking with their most recent tradition of ignoring the Law that states they need to have an annual budget. The Democrats have staked their illegal and unconstitutional position. Now, we need Common Sense Constitutional Conservatives to go in and clean up the mess the Democrats and Big Government Republicans made. And to do that, we’ll once again have to bypass the RNC, NRSC, NRCC just like we did in 2010. Our nation’s survival depends on it.
Dana Pico
DNW
Foxfier
Hube
Yorkshire
Truth Before Dishonor 