Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Reed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reed. Show all posts

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Filibuster Move Will Result In Justice Being Perverted.

Cruz: Democrats Want to Pack D.C. Court To Save Obamacare

Image: Cruz: Democrats Want to Pack D.C. Court To Save Obamacare
Friday, 22 Nov 2013 10:25 AM
By Drew MacKenzie
Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
The White House is trying to save Obamacare by packing the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., with judges who will rubber stamp its "lawless behavior," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says.

Senate Democrats, according to Cruz, enacted "the nuclear option" to prevent filibusters against appellate court nominees in order to make it difficult for Republicans to repeal the disastrous Affordable Care Act, Obama's signature healthcare legislation, The Hill reported.



"The heart of this action is directed at packing the D.C. Circuit (court) because that is the court that will review the lawless behavior of the Obama administration implementing Obamacare," said Cruz, a leading force in the government shutdown last month in a confrontation over the Affordable Care Act.

"President Obama and the administration refuse to follow the plain text of the law, and the D.C. Circuit is the court of appeals that has been holding the administration accountable."

Cruz said the change in the filibuster rule, passed by the Senate on Thursday, was designed purely "to pack that court with judges that they believe will be a rubber stamp" to Democratic policy.

The D.C. court has a quota of 11 seats. Three have been vacant. Of the current judges, four were appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats.

Obama has nominated Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard, and Robert Wilkins, but their nominations were being filibustered by Republicans who worried a shifting balance of power.

The court is particularly important because it deals with decisions made by federal agencies and the White House, reports The Washington Post.

Cruz was echoing the sentiments of numerous Republicans, including Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who told Newsmax that the real reason for the "dangerous" ploy was "to create a controversy so they can escape criticism for Obamacare, which is wrecking the country."

Hatch claimed that Obama will use the D.C. court to pass legislation that he can't get through Congress.

Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana said that the "nuclear option" was intended by Democrats as a"distraction" from the failed launch of the Affordable Care Act and its website HealthCare.gov.

Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, declared that the fate of Obamacare may rest in the hands of the D.C. court.

"Lawsuits affecting the healthcare law will go through this court, and if the president is able to pack this court, it’s his effort to try to defend a law the American people don’t like and believe they can’t afford," he said.

Meanwhile, during an appearance on Bloomberg TV Thursday, Cruz suggested that he might use the expected budget crisis in January as a means of having the healthcare law repealed.

"There will be plenty of time to worry about the specific text," he said of the possibility of linking budget legislation to the removal of the Affordable Care Act.

"What I think is critical is that we keep focus on Obamacare and on fixing things. I think what we need to do is repeal in its entirety. I don’t know (if I can do that in January). I hope so."

Related Stories:



© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Filibuster Rule Change Infuriates Rush. Was His Analogy Appropriate?

When the Senatorial dictator, Harry Reed, proposed  that filibuster rules be modified, it was a major departure from current procedures of the Senate. When it passed on party lines with the exception of three Democrats, it upset the rules that had been in place from the time of Thomas Jefferson.


The irony that was not lost on many was that not only Reed but also President Obama and Vice President Biden had spoken very strongly against the so called "nuclear" option when they were in the minority in the Senate. How things change when in you are in the majority!

The passage of the act prompted Rush Limbaugh to use an a rape analogy. Of course, liberals and progressives immediately reacted negatively. Obviously, Rush was not promoting rape but using a similar situation as to what occurred in the Senate with a deplorable act.

One of the techniques that Rush uses is to be outrageous by being outrageous. Most people who don't understand the conservative commentator think he is being literal. His "rape" argument is a great example.

Those who miss the importance of this move by the Senate are either Democratic operatives or are unwilling to comprehend the damage that has been done. The majority now can force anything, approve the most anti-liberty bills and confirm Constitution stripping justices. It is a rape of the country.

Rush and all Americans should deplore this outrageous and immoral move by Reed and the other traitors in the Senate.

Conservative Tom


Limbaugh Uses Rape Analogy to Blast Filibuster Rule Change
Image: Limbaugh Uses Rape Analogy to Blast Filibuster Rule Change
Friday, 22 Nov 2013 04:50 PM
By Cathy Burke
Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
Rush Limbaugh used a rape analogy Friday to criticize the Senate's filibuster rule change that makes it easier for the majority party to confirm presidential nominees.

"The simple fact is, when the majority in any group of people, when the majority can change the rules at any time, then there aren't any rules," the bombastic radio talk-show host said to explain his point about the "nuclear option."

He then went into a long rape analogy.

"Forget the Senate for a minute," Politico said he told listeners. 
"Let's say, let's take 10 people in a room, and they're a group. And the room is made up of six men and four women. Right? The group has a rule that the men cannot rape the women. The group also has a rule that says any rule that will be changed must require six votes of the 10 to change the rule."

Then he said, according to a transcript of the audio on Huffington Post:

"Every now and then, some lunatic in the group proposes to change the rule to allow women to be raped. But they never were able to get six votes for it. There were always the four women voting against it and they always found two guys.

"Well, the guy that kept proposing that women be raped finally got tired of it, and he was in the majority, and he was one that [said], 'You know what? We're going to change the rule. Now all we need is five.'

"And well, 'you can't do that.' 'Yes, we are. We're the majority. We're changing the rule.'

"And then they vote. Can the women be raped? Well, all it would take then is half of the room. You can change the rule to say three. You can change the rule to say three people want it, it's going to happen. There's no rule when the majority can change the rules, there aren't any."

Limbaugh said the only reason behind the Senate's invoking the "nuclear option" is that President Barack Obama "can’t get what he wants democratically."

Senate Democrats took the dramatic step Thursday of eliminating filibusters for most nominations by presidents — a power play they said was necessary to fix a broken system, but one that Republicans said will only rupture it further.

Politico reported that Limbaugh's analogy triggered a flurry of sharp rebukes on social media.

Ana Marie Cox, a political columnist for The Guardian, wrote on Twitter, "Limbaugh using a rape analogy to explain the filibuster really takes mansplaining to a level I never imagined."



ChartGirl.com founder Hilary Sargent then tweeted "rape-splaining." 

Media Matters research fellow Oliver Willis tweeted, "rush limbaugh really games out how you could theoretically vote to rape women. hes just throwing it out there folks," while Media Matters colleague Todd Gregory called it  "dumb, glib" and "such a perfect encapsulation of rape culture, it should be put in a museum."

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Justin Barasky posted this tweet: "my goodness will someone tell him to [shut] up. Seriously?" and "I'm sure Rush's comments were actually made my a 'junior staffer' right folks?"


Related Stories:
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Obama, Biden And Reed WERE All Against Nuclear Option When They Were In The Minority. Now They Support It.

Rove: US Will Rue 'Dictator' Reid's 'Nuclear Option'

Image: Rove: US Will Rue 'Dictator' Reid's 'Nuclear Option'
Friday, 22 Nov 2013 03:26 PM
By Wanda Carruthers
Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acted like a dictator in passing the "nuclear option" in a move the people of the United States will regret, Republican adviser Karl Rove said Friday.

"The country will rue the day that Harry Reid, in dictatorial fashion, changed the rules in the middle of the game, in a hypocritical gesture that he condemned when it was proposed in 2005," Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, told Fox News' "Happening Now."

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday passed a measure, known as the "nuclear option," that allows a simple majority to approve executive branch and lower-court nominees.



Rove called the action "gross hypocrisy" and recalled that in 2005, Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., suggested the tactic at a time Republicans had a Senate majority. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, both senators at that time, as well as Reid, roundly criticized the tactic.

The change will enable the majority party to pass votes more easily on an ideological basis, Rove said. He said the Senate was designed by the founding fathers to "make it tougher to put things through" by requiring a 2/3-majority vote.

"We're going to see them ramming through people who represent the ideological base of each political party on 51 votes. That is not going to be good for the country," Rove said.
"If this extends further ― the legislation — we will have lost . . . [what the] Senate was designed to be, to be protected a little bit from the passions of people," he said.



Related stories:
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Saturday, November 9, 2013

"I Didn't Know That"--The Obama Mantra

Our Know-Nothing President

November 1, 2013 by  
 104 9
 
 0 207
Our Know-Nothing President
UPI FILE
Is it really possible that the President of the United States knows as little about what his Administration is doing as his defenders claim? That no one tells him anything about what’s going on until he reads it in the papers?
Consider all of the scandals that have taken place since Barack Obama moved into the White House: Operation Fast and Furious; the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya; the Internal Revenue Service harassment of Tea Party and other patriotic groups; National Security Agency spying on foreign leaders, as well as millions of Americans; the incredibly botched implementation of Obamacare… The list goes on and on.
We’re supposed to believe that Obama remained in blissful ignorance about all of them until the media reports started. When that happened, he was just as surprised and upset as the rest of us.
The latest “I didn’t know anything about it” scandal is the revelation that the NSA has been monitoring the private conversations of some 35 world leaders. Apparently, the bugging operation has been going on for years. Yet we’re supposed to believe that no one told the President about it until a couple of months ago.
Sure, that sounds credible, doesn’t it? Turns out, we’re tapping the cellphone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, among others; yet no one in the chain of command thinks that maybe, just maybe, Obama should be told about it.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, followed the party line when she said: “It is my understanding that President Obama was not aware Chancellor Merkel’s communications were being collected since 2002. That is a big problem.”
It certainly is. Of all the sorry excuses that have been offered for this Presidential ignorance, my favorite is the one from anonymous officials who said that “the NSA has so many eavesdropping operations under way that it wouldn’t have been practical to brief him on all of them.”
If you were in charge, how would you like to have that pathetic excuse laid in front of you? Do you think that maybe some heads would roll? That’s what would happen in the real world — but not in this Administration, where the watchword is to protect the President at all costs. And always, but always, blame somebody else when anything goes wrong.
The latest example of this came on Wednesday, when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the woman in charge of implementing Obamacare, trudged up Capitol Hill to explain why things have gone so disastrously wrong in the launch of the President’s pet program — and to promise that they will get better very soon.
In her testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Sebelius said that she was “as frustrated and angry as anyone” about the problems that have occurred since the launch of Obamacare on Oct. 1.
At one point, she even denied that the Healthcare.gov website had actually crashed, saying it just runs a lot slower than it should. Hah! In a piece of cosmic irony, the website crashed again, just as she was delivering this whopper. When it did, CNN broadcast a split screen, showing Sebelius on the right half and the crash error message from the website (“The system is down at the moment”) on the left-hand side of the screen.
Potential enrollees aren’t the only ones who can’t get the information they need from the Obamacare website. Turns out that neither can the HHS Secretary. When asked how many people had actually managed to navigate through the website to the end and actually purchase one of the government-mandated health plans, Sibelius said that the numbers weren’t available yet. Check back next month.
Is it that the total number of enrollments can’t be tabulated or that they won’t be released, since they are so embarrassingly low?
Still, Sebelius promised her skeptical inquisitors that everything would be hunky-dory by the end of November, when the website will finally be working properly. In the meantime, she proclaimed, “Hold me accountable for the debacle. I’m responsible.”
Does that mean she’ll do the honorable thing and tender her resignation to the President? Not on your life. Or at least, not yet. If the promised re-launch of the website comes on Dec. 1, as seems likely, I don’t think the White House will bear with her much longer. By sometime in January, I suspect you can color Sebelius gone.
Meanwhile, CNN reports that the Administration is putting pressure on insurance companies not to say anything critical of Obamacare. “What’s going on,” reporter Andrew Griffin told Anderson Cooper, “is [a] behind-the-scenes attempt by the White House to at least keep insurers from publicly criticizing what is happening under this Affordable Care Act rollout. Basically, if you speak out, if you are quoted, you’re going to get a call from the White House, pressure to be quiet.”
Bob Laszewski, a consultant for several insurance companies, says he’s getting calls from executives he knows, asking him to speak out on their behalf. He told CNN: “The White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations, to keep quiet.”
Now it turns out that the insurance companies — and the Obama Administration — have known for years that millions of Americans would lose their health insurance once Obamacare went into effect, despite all of the claims to the contrary.
Regulations written by the Department of Health and Human Services in July 2010 estimated that “40 to 67 percent” of policyholders would not be able to keep their health insurance once the Affordable Care Act went into effect. Now there are estimates that the actual figure may be as high as 80 percent. So somewhere between 8 million and 14 million Americans will lose the health insurance they presently have.
Of course, Obama promised the American people exactly the opposite. Back in June 2009 he said, “[W]e will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.”
And he’s repeated that promise countless times since then. In fact, as of yesterday, the official White House website still claimed, “If you like your plan, you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the healthcare law.”
Of course, we now know that this isn’t true. Millions of people are learning that they won’t be able to keep their present policy, no matter how much they might like it. But the Obama Administration continues to spread this falsehood.
This helps explain why Obama’s popularity is plummeting faster than a safe falling from a window. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll says that the President’s job-approval rating has fallen to an all-time low. According to the poll, a majority of Americans — 51 percent — now disapprove of the job he is doing. Only 42 percent say they still approve of his performance. That’s down from 53 percent at the end of last year.
In the same poll, just 29 percent said that their representative deserved to be re-elected to Congress. More than twice as many, some 63 percent, said it was time to give a new person a chance.
The disdain was bipartisan, by the way, with two Republican leaders — House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — joining Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in getting their highest negative ratings ever.
Oh, and get this: Half of those polled don’t believe that an accord will be reached by the Jan. 15 deadline on a plan to fund the government. They say another Federal shutdown is likely.
Will all of this disdain and distrust result in votes to actually reduce the size, power and cost of our central government? It would be wonderful if that were the case. But I wouldn’t count on it.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

McCain, Reed, Graham, Schumer: More Enemies Of The State Than Snowden

As we read the debacle that occurred in the Senate today, we realized that these four leaders are more dangerous than Snowden! They, in the appearance of doing the people's business, actually are hamstringing future generations and guaranteeing that the minority in the US Senate will never have a say in Presidential appointments.What a travesty and to think it was Republicans that guaranteed their minority status forever

Conservative Tom


comment
Print

McCain says 'lots of people' asked him to step into filibuster fight

By Emily Goodin - 07/16/13 02:02 PM ET
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he stepped into negotiations to prevent the nuclear option at the request of colleagues on both sides of the aisle and the White House.
“Lots of people asked me to be involved — both sides of the aisle,” he said.
He added that the White House also requested him to step in, but “not the president directly.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) praised McCain as the key deal-maker in the matter.
McCain has been taking more of a leadership-like role in the Senate lately, working to avert the so-called "nuclear option" on presidential nominees and pairing up with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the Gang of Eight to successfully pass immigration reform.
But the longtime senator, who was his party's presidential nominee in 2008, was quick to say he wasn't usurping his party's leaders.
“I don't mean to replace the leadership — usurp it in anyway,” he said, adding “I'm just there to help.”
He said he talked to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) several times over the weekend as he worked with Reid on negotiations.
“He was encouraging me. He wanted to get this done,” McCain said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of McCain's closest friends in the upper chamber, said the Arizona lawmaker was helping out because he “really loves the institution.”
“I think John looks long-term in terms of the Senate. I think he's trying to keep the Senate the way he found it,” Graham said.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/311375-mccain-says-lots-of-people-asked-him-to-step-into-filibuster-fight#ixzz2ZEytDnOS 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Internet Sales Tax--More Money For Washington?


Stop Washington’s Latest Tax Grabs

April 26, 2013 by  
Stop Washington’s Latest Tax Grabs
PHOTOS.COM
Some 21 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court did us all a huge favor. It ruled that states don’t have the legal authority to tax purchases you made from an out-of-State retailer, unless the retailer had a “physical presence” in your State.
Back in 1992, most of us didn’t purchase all that much from out-of-State companies, so the loss in tax revenue wasn’t significant. But, boy, how times have changed. Today, we buy more than $250 billion worth of stuff from online retailers each year, and that number is expected to rise to $370 billion by 2017. On most of it, we pay no sales tax.
With local and State sales taxes averaging about 10 percent, that’s $25 billion that stays in consumers’ pockets now. Needless to say, there are an awful lot of politicians who want to get their greedy little hands on those funds. You won’t be surprised to learn that the Administration of President Barack Obama wants to make it happen.
In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is so eager to get an Internet sales tax bill passed that he has skipped the normal committee process and is bringing the bill directly to the Senate floor. Word is that he’s lined up several moderate Republicans who will vote in favor of the measure so the big spenders can claim that it has bipartisan support.
And, of course, many State governors love the idea of collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes. Many State budgets are already perilously close to bankruptcy, thanks in large part to the incredibly generous pensions and other benefits that State and local government employees have extracted over the years.
In an editorial supporting passage of the Internet tax bill, USA Today complained that its lack “forces cash-strapped states to raise other taxes, or go into debt, to compensate for the $23 billion in annual uncollected e-commerce sales taxes.” Got that? Forget any nonsense about reducing spending. The only choices those poor States have if this measure isn’t passed is to “raise other taxes, or go into debt.”
But an Internet sales tax is just one of the schemes Washington has come up with to extract more money from you. Several others can be found in the new Federal budget proposal that the White House finally released this month.
The English newspaper the Daily Mail had the best description of Obama’s budget I’ve seen. It called it a mixture of “bad math, phantom revenues, imagined spending cuts and a middle-class tax hike.”
It’s all of that… and more. Among the budget’s optimistic forecasts is that Federal revenues will more than double over the next decade, rising 113 percent by 2023. During the same period, spending will go up “only” 60 percent. But even if both were to happen, deficits would not be eliminated. That’s why the budget calls for the debt ceiling to be raised by another $8 trillion, to $25 trillion.
While we were promised that the long-overdue White House proposals would be replete with “big ideas,” the sad truth is that they are the same old solutions we’ve heard for many years: bigger and bigger government, only partially paid for by higher and higher taxes. Rather than see any reduction in Federal debt, Obama wants to increase it by another $8 trillion.
When he released his budget, the President claimed, “I am willing to make tough choices that may not be popular within my own party, because there can be no sacred cows for either party.” What a bunch of baloney!
The White House claims that the budget contains $2 of spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes. But it’s all a bunch of smoke and mirrors. The so-called spending cuts are a cruel illusion. They are achieved by allowing minor reductions to previously proposed increases. Spending doesn’t go down one thin dime in Obama’s new budget. Instead, it will increase by at least $680 billion over the next five years.
Maybe figures don’t lie. But liars sure can figure.
Yes, there’s a lot not to like in Obama’s budget for fiscal 2014. One of the sneakiest proposals it contains is for the Federal government to change the way cost-of-living increases are calculated, by switching to something called a “chained CPI” (Consumer Price Index). Here’s how the Daily Mail describes the effect of this sleight of hand:
The chained CPI signals a shift in how the federal government will calculate everything from Social Security payouts and congressional pensions to college students’ Pell Grants and veterans’ benefits. Anything tied to cost-of-living increases would be subject to a new formula.
The White House’s budget blueprint suggests that these programs would see $230 billion in costs savings over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office puts the number at $216 billion.
Does anyone believe that today’s calculations for the consumer price index are anywhere close to being correct? Most of us who live in the real world know that the prices we pay for most things are going up by a heck of a lot more than 2 percent a year.
Now Uncle Sam wants to change the formula to reduce the payouts even further. That doesn’t sound very fair to me. But wait, it gets worse. Switching to a chained CPI will also hit the middle class with a huge new tax increase.
How is that possible? Here’s how the Daily Mail explains it:
The money will come pouring in because the consumer price index also controls income tax brackets, tax filers’ standard deductions, nontaxable contribution limits for 401(k) retirement plans, and more.
So millions of individual Americans will see themselves moved involuntarily to higher tax brackets, and middle-class taxpayers in particular will lose some of the tax credits and deductions that they count on.
Forget all of Obama’s blarney about only the rich being hit by these higher taxes. The brunt of these increases will fall squarely on the middle class. And, of course, the same thing will be true of the costs of Obamacare, which will be fully implemented next year.
Do you remember when Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass” the badly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to see what’s in it? Pretty soon, we’ll all get to see the higher costs and increased regulations this monstrosity will produce. It won’t be pretty.
So now Congress has three different budgets for 2014 to consider: one passed by Democrats in the Senate, one approved by Republicans in the House and one presented by the White House. All of them call for increased government spending next year. None of them will reduce the deficit by one penny over the next decade.
Margaret Thatcher famously observed that “the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The big spenders in Washington seem determined to speed the day when that happens in this country.
It seems to me this could be a mighty good time to trade some of your rapidly depreciating dollars for assets of enduring value. I hope you noticed that gold and silver have been on sale recently.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.