Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Thomas Massie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas Massie. Show all posts

Saturday, April 1, 2017

It Looks Like Republicans, Once Again, Are The Team That Can't Shoot Straight!!

  • Font Size
  •  
  • A
  •  
  • A
  •  
  • A
Print Images Print
Though the Freedom Caucus is under assault from all sides, some of its members who have spoken to the media or made public statements are standing strong — insisting that they are willing to work with President Trump to keep the GOP’s promise to repeal Obamacare.
The media has used the failure of the American Health Care Act — Republican leadership’s phony repeal bill — as an excuse to attack conservatives in Congress. The Tea Party members of the Freedom Caucus, who opposed the legislation on grounds that it would not improve the American health insurance market, have been labeled “hardliners” who are unwilling to “compromise” or “get things done.”
President Trump has expressed his frustration with the health insurance bill’s failure in a series of tweets, first suggesting that the Freedom Caucus saved Planned Parenthood funding and Obamacare, and later announcing that if conservatives don’t hop aboard the establishment Republican agenda they will be fought in 2018.
“The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the
 team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” the president tweeted.
Some members of the House Freedom Caucus are pushing back on President Donald 
Trump’s threat to “fight” conservatives in the 2018 midterm primary elections.
"It didn't take long for the swamp to drain [Trump]. No shame, Mr. President. Almost 
everyone succumbs to the D.C. Establishment," Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted. 
Freedom Caucus ally Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) also joined in.
So did Rep. Labrador:
Other Freedom Caucus conservatives are being less confrontational. Rep. Louie 
Gohmert (R-Texas) reiterated his support for “actual repeal” of Obamacare, and said
 he shared the president’s “frustration” with recalcitrant Republicans in Washington D.C.
"The Freedom Caucus is trying to change Washington. This bill keeps Washington
 the same, plain and simple," Rep. Jordan said on Fox News Thursday.
"We appreciate the president; we are trying to help the president. But the fact is, you
 have to look at the legislation. It doesn't do what we told the voters we were going to
 do, and the American people understand that. That's why only 17 percent of the
 population supports this legislation."
“We want to help the president get a bill that rises above 17% in the polling,”
 Congressman Dave Brat (R-Va.) told Conservative Review. He said the Freedom
 Caucus is looking for a bill that will lower premiums by repealing the insurance
 regulations and mandated health benefits that are driving up the cost of health
 insurance.
Brat also criticized the mainstream media narrative that the Freedom Caucus sunk
 Obamacare repeal. “The narrative by the elites and the D.C. cronies and the
 mainstream media is that ‘we can’t get to yes.’”
“On the facts that’s false,” Brat said. “We voted ‘yes’ 50 times for repeal. And the 
2015 bill was unanimous, basically, with Republicans in the House and the Senate.”
Rep. Brat argues that the Freedom Caucus has compromised from voting for that
 2015 full repeal of Obamacare to nearly supporting the American Health Care Act,
 “kind of an Obamacare federal structure that maintains the basic architecture of 
Obamacare.”
This is not what the conservative base in the Republican Party voted for in 2016. Then again, actually it is.
“The idea that we haven’t moved considerably is just laughable,” Brat said. 
Further, “it was clear to Leadership that more moderates were going to vote no if
 that bill came to the floor than the Freedom Caucus. But that narrative is not as 
convenient. Once that vote hit 22 ‘Noes’ it was going to go to 60 or 70, is the best
 estimate.”
Why then are moderates like Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Il.) claiming the Freedom
 Caucus killed Obamacare repeal? 
“They’re just being politically shrewd,” Brat said. “The mainstream media, of course,
 goes along with that narrative that it's these conservative guys’ fault. It’s the usual 
D.C. narrative.”
A narrative that President Trump has bought into. But Freedom Caucus conservatives 
aren’t the only ones making Brat’s point.
Congressman Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) — who is not a member of the Freedom Caucus 
— told PJ media that “there were probably ten to fifteen members of the Freedom
 Caucus that were still a no.” However, Emmer estimated that there were “two-thirds
 to three-quarters of the Freedom Caucus [who] were yes on this bill.” A “vast majority.”
This media narrative blaming the Freedom Caucus is “intentional,” Emmer said.
It always has been this way. You've got to marginalize the conservatives as 
much as possible. I think this is done both by liberals on the Left as much 
as liberals on the Right, Walter. The more you can marginalize this group,
 the less influence they can have, right?...
Marginalizing conservatives is exactly what the moderate Republicans in the Tuesday
 Group have decided to do. Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), who was the first member 
of Congress to endorse President Trump, told reporters today that the Freedom 
Caucus no longer has a seat at the table for negotiations on legislation.
These moderate Republicans refused to go along with a full repeal of Obamacare, 
and now they are pledging to work with liberal Democrats to pass bad bills rather than
 use the Republican majority to pass conservative legislation.
It’s compromise with Democrats. Screw the conservatives. Pass liberal legislation 
that will hurt people. And President Trump is fine with all of it.
This is not what the conservative base in the Republican Party voted for in 2016. 
Then again, actually it is. The Tea Party took this risk when they handed Trump the
 Republican nomination in 2016. Donald Trump was never a conservative. He was 
Some conservatives knew that when they held their nose to beat Hillary Clinton. 
Well, the Democrats are out of power and conservatives are still losing. So where
 do we go from here?

To get more exclusive content from CRTV, sign up here


Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer 
and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in Politics and Economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are Conservative Political Philosophy, the American Founding, and Progressive Rock. Follow
 him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations 
@ChrisCPandolfo
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/not-backing-down-freedom-caucus-stands-strong-amid-attacks-from-the-president#sthash.sXksTl2C.dpuf

Friday, September 25, 2015

Left Wing Ideology Promoted By Pope Could Cause Major Problems In The Church

The Pope Could Face Church Upheaval

Image: The Pope Could Face Church UpheavalPope Francis in U.S. (AP)
By Andrew Napolitano   |   Thursday, 24 Sep 2015 09:45 AM
Congressman Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has invited me to the House of Representatives to watch Pope Francis address a joint session of Congress.

This generous Methodist congressman has invited your traditionalist Roman Catholic columnist and cable TV guy to this grand event. I am going with joy because the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth, and his presence in Congress is historically unique.

But within me is fear and trembling over what he might say.

The papacy is an office created personally by our Lord. Its occupants are direct descendants of St. Peter. Its role and authorities have evolved over the centuries, but the core of its responsibilities has always been the preservation of traditional teachings about faith and morals and safeguarding the sacraments.

While the papacy is a monarchy, the teaching authority in the church is "the bishops under the Pope." This means that a Pope intent on change ought to consult with his fellow bishops.

Before the monumental church changes of the 1960s and 1970s that trivialized the Mass and blurred the distinctions between the clergy and the laity, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI consulted their fellow bishops at Vatican II.

The consultations were fractious and belligerent, but both Popes got what they wanted: a watering down of liturgical practices and an easing of rules safeguarding the sacraments, so as to make the church more appealing and accessible to former and to non-adherents.

The result was a disaster. Fewer Catholics went to Mass, confusion about former theological norms reigned, and a general tenor pervaded the faithful that the church never really meant what it preached.

Former Catholics continued to stay away, new Catholics barely showed up, and many traditional faithful became demoralized.

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI attempted to roll this back. They succeeded in part by emphasizing traditional orthodoxy and personal piety to youth.

Today, Catholic seminaries throughout the world are filled with young men who are more faithful to traditional practices and beliefs than many of their professors are.

Comes now Pope Francis to use moral relativism to take the church in two dangerous directions. The first is an assault on the family, and the second is an assault on the free market — two favorite political targets of the left.

In the past month, without consulting his fellow bishops, the Pope has weakened the sacrament of matrimony by making annulments easier to obtain.

The church cannot grant divorces because our Lord used his own words to declare valid marriages indissoluble. But it does grant annulments.

An annulment is a judicial finding that a valid marriage never existed. This generally requires a trial, at which the party seeking the annulment must prove the existence of the marital defect from the beginning.

Fair annulment trials are costly and time consuming, often taking years from the initial filing to the final appeal. Until now.

Last week, Pope Francis arbitrarily ordered the entire process to be completed in 45 days or fewer. For contested matters, a fair trial in 45 days is impossible.

So, to meet his deadline, more annulments will be granted administratively, not on the merits. It gets worse.

The church has taught for 400 years that abortion is murder. Because the victim of an abortion is always innocent, helpless and uniquely under the control of the mother, abortion removes the participants from access to the sacraments. Until now.
Latest News Update

Last week, Pope Francis, without consulting his fellow bishops, ordered that any priest may return those who have killed a baby in a womb to the communion of the faithful.

He said he did this because he was moved by the anguished cries of mothers contemplating the murder of their babies.

I doubt he will defend these decisions before Congress. He will, instead, assault the free market, which he blames for poverty, pollution and the mass migrations into Europe away from worn-torn areas in the Middle East.

In his papal exhortation on capitalism, Pope Francis spectacularly failed to appreciate the benefits of capitalism to the health, wealth, and safety of the poor.

Instead, he has reworked the Peronism of his youth to advocate government-mandated redistribution of wealth and to condemn those who work hard, employ others and achieve wealth — even when they give some of that wealth to the church.

When he is in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City later this week, he should take note of the recent and beautiful $200 million face-lift. It was paid in full by rich Catholic capitalists who employed hardworking artisans and laborers to do the work.

The Pope probably also will tell Congress that the world is an inherently unhealthy place because of human work. He will embrace the highly questionable green science of those who want the government to tell us how to live, outside our homes and inside, more Thomas Piketty than St. Thomas Aquinas.

The Pope has seriously disappointed those who believe the Roman Catholic Church preserves and teaches the truth. The truth is Christ risen and unity with him. It is not a debate about the minimum wage or air conditioning.

Pope Francis is popular on the world stage, and the crowds love him.

But if he fails in his basic duties as the Pope, if his concern is more for secular than sacred, if he aids the political agenda of the atheistic left, he is a false prophet leading his flock to a dangerous place, where there is more central planning and less personal liberty.
\
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey. He is Fox News’ senior judicial analyst. Napolitano has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and numerous other publications. He is the author of the best-seller, "Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History." For more of Judge Napolitano's reports, Go Here Now.


© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Monday, January 5, 2015

Most Republicans Favor Boehner Being Removed As Speaker

Caddell Poll: GOP Voters Want to Dump Boehner as Speaker

Image: Caddell Poll: GOP Voters Want to Dump Boehner as Speaker(Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Landov)
Sunday, 04 Jan 2015 10:45 PM
By James Morrison
  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
    A   A  
Sixty percent of Republican voters want John Boehner replaced as Speaker of the House, a new poll shows, as a conservative mutiny grows against the Ohio congressman they consider too accommodating with President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats.

The Caddell Associates' survey of 602 Americans who voted Republican in the midterm elections also found that they agree with the simmering conservative revolt, as 64 percent called Boehner too "ineffective" in opposing Obama’s agenda.

When asked if they wanted to replace Boehner, 34 percent said they would "definitely" support a new speaker and 26 percent added that they "probably" would want someone else.

The survey, conducted last week, adds to a growing debate on the right over Boehner’s future as the leader of the House in the new Congress.

The election for speaker is scheduled for Jan. 6, and Boehner would need the support of a majority of members present and voting.

The resignation of Republican Michael Grimm of New York dropped the total number of House members in the new Congress to 434, with Republicans holding 246 seats. Boehner would need at least 218 votes. So far, as many as 18 Republicans are privately opposing him.

Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, one of the few Republicans who are publicly against the speaker, says he "cannot vote in good conscience for John Boehner."

"Right now, I’ve been meeting with a small group, and we — about 16, 18 — and we’re hoping to have a name of a sitting member of Congress that we can call out their name," he told North Carolina’s Talk of the Town radio program.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, another Republican openly opposing Boehner, sees a lighter side to the campaign, even at a local fast-food restaurant.
Some of the strongest opposition to Boehner comes from conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity, who told Breitbart on Tuesday that he supports Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.

"It’s time for new dynamic leadership in the House of Representatives," he said. "Trey Gowdy is my choice for speaker. He has the ability to articulate and implement the changes needed to get the country on the right path."

Related Stories:
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.