The Washington Parlour Game At Its Best

Senator Graham Is A Loose Cannon, An Irresponsible Loose Cannon

RINO Senator Ponders Trump

 Impeachment

• 03/21/2017 
• Source: American Action News 
• by: AAN Staff

1 0 0  1

image: https://aanews-structure-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/

aanews/media/picture/55f6/dec8/2017/a855/3900/00f6/300x200_

donaldtrump.jpg?1489598763

SPECIAL:WHAT TURNS OFF SMALL BUSINESS SHOPPERS?

45% of small business consumers say a poorly designed website makes them unlikely to shop. Is your site sabotaging you?

Learn More

We're used to hearing unhinged liberals talk about impeaching the president

of the United States. We're not used to hearing Republicans talk about it.

Of course, Lindsey Graham isn't much of a Republican. The

 neo-conservative, "invade the world/invite the world" throwback

 bachelor from South Carolina is clearly no fan of the president, and

 during hearings for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, he tossed

 up an interesting hypothetical about whether or not the president is

 "above the law." As Bob Unruh notes:

That line surfaced several times during the course of the questions,

including once when Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a longtime member

of the GOP elite in Washington, raised the question of impeaching

Trump.

“In case President Trump is watching, which he may very well be,

one you did a good job picking Judge Gorsuch,” Graham said,

“No. 2 … if you start waterboarding people, you may get

impeached. Is that a fair summary?”

Gorsuch said the power of impeachment belongs to the U.S.

Senate.

“That’s even better,” Graham replied. “Would he be subject

to prosecution?”

“Senator, I’m not going to speculate,” Gorsuch responded.

“But he’s not above the law,” Graham replied.

“No man is above the law,” Gorsuch said. “No man.”

We applaud future Justice Gorsuch's commitment to the rule of law,

 but we can't say the same about Senator Graham. Does this man 

ever miss a chance to undermine conservatives in his own party?

Read more at http://americanactionnews.com/articles/rino-senator-ponders-trump-impeachment#ut4Hvv0l0cbJRB4o.99

President Makes The Facts Fit His Agenda

'Ferguson Effect' Divides Obama, FBI Director

 St. Louis August 2015 (Michael B. Thomas/Getty)

By Greg Richter   |   Sunday, 01 Nov 2015 11:46 AM

Short URL|

Email Article|

Comment|

Contact|

Print|

    A   A

• 0
  inShare

Debate over whether the "Ferguson Effect" is hindering police from doing their jobs is a subject of debate between President Barack Obama, a Democrat, and his own FBI Director James Comey, a Republican.

Comey last month publicly stated that, while he has no data to back him up, he believes officers are backing off doing their jobs in some cases for fear of being accused of harassment. He cited multiple cases in which police have told him of such fears and said it could be to blame for the recent uptick in violent crime in several major cities.

Obama disagreed, telling a meeting of police chiefs last week, "We do have to stick with the facts. … What we can't do is cherry-pick data or use anecdotal evidence to drive policy or to feed political agendas."

The "Ferguson Effect" is named for the Ferguson, Missouri case of Michael Brown Jr., a black teenager who was shot to death by white officer Darren Wilson. A grand jury investigation showed that even though Brown was unarmed, he was charging Wilson and had tried during an altercation to take his gun.

Latest News Update

Get Newsmax TV At Home »

Still, the case brought divisions along racial and political lines and was the spark that founded the Black Lives Matter movement.

The argument between Obama and Comey is coming just as Congress is considering legislation on sentencing reform, and if Americans see police afraid to enforce the law, that could set back the effort, The Hill notes in an article published Sunday.

"What I am worried about is that this rise in crime is being used as an attack to those seeking reform," for Justice Department lawyer Jonathan M. Smith told The Hill.

But Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute agrees with Comey's argument.

"The FBI is the nation’s premiere keeper of crime data and Comey has a pretty clear sense in cities across the country," she said. "Historically, he is no facile apologist for police officers. So I think this is a strong conformation that he has heard from officers that they are reluctant to engage."

Related Stories:

• White House Disagrees With FBI Director: Police Scrutiny Good 
• Christie: Obama Encourages 'Lawlessness' By Supporting Black Lives Matter 

© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Hidden Parts Of Obama Crap Trade Bill. Have Republicans Lost Their Minds?

FLASH: House GOP Leaders To Sneak Obamatrade Tax Increase Into Intel Bill Rule

• Intelligence Authorization Bill
 
• TAA
 
• TPA
 
• Trade Adjustment Assistance
 
• Trade Promotion Authority

CHQ Staff

In an indication of just how desperate the Republican establishment and their Big Business paymasters are to revive the package of fast track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bills that went down last week, the House Rules Committee slipped the rule for reconsideration of the failed TAA bill into the rule for H.R. 2596, the Fiscal Year 2016 Intelligence Authorization bill.
Along with the National Defense Authorization bill, the Intel Authorization bill is considered to be one of the “must pass” bills of each legislative year.
According to the existing Rules, the Motion to Reconsider the vote on the failed TAA bill should take place today, June 16. The new rule would let the Motion to Reconsider vote on TAA be postponed through legislative day of July 30, according to a Rules Committee release.
If the House adopts the new rule, that would give the White House until end of July to build Democratic support for trade legislation that was stymied in House last week, according to Bloomberg Government reporter Jaclyn Kochell.
House Democrats opposed the trade assistance component of the two bill package as way of killing entire trade package, including fast-track authority sought by President Obama.
“We remain committed to getting TPA done, and this will give the president more time to communicate the consequences of not moving forward with his party,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesperson for House Speaker John Boehner, reports Kochell.
While Speaker Boehner would like to keep the heat on the Democrats to come up with the votes to pass the trade package, and ultimately pass Obama’s secret Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, this is as much about saving Boehner’s tenuous hold on his own restive House Republican Conference as it is about passing Obamatrade.
Populist conservative Republicans came within a couple of votes of defeating “fast track” and, allied with labor-oriented Democrats, did defeat the TAA bill, which included a sizable tax increase that would hit small businesses especially hard.
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart’s Matt Boyle, Sen. Rand Paul called on Republicans in the House—and the grassroots nationwide—to oppose efforts by House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan to revive Obamatrade via the tax increase hidden inside the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) portion of the deal. Said Senator Paul:

You know typically to pass these kinds of things, the establishment will try to buy off Democrats by sprinkling money so they have some money in there. To get the money, under our budget rules, we have to pay for it—so they want to pay for it with a fine on small businesses. But I thought a point that was made in the article which was pretty good is this is similar to the fines they wanted to do in Obamacare with 1099s and there was such an outcry it’s the only part of Obamacare we ever repealed. So I think when people discover they’re sticking a tax increase in there I think people will be even more unhappy.

Senator Paul told Boyle that Leadership didn’t tell any of the members—including the 86 Republicans who voted for TAA last week—that they put the tax increase in the deal, so most of them who voted for it had no idea they were voting to violate a pledge they all made to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.
In Senator Paul’s view that’s largely because leadership was so dead-set on trying to convince rank-and-file Republicans to grant Obama fast-track authority under TPA—so that Obama can speed through at least three highly secretive trade deals, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP), and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)—because the donor class wants open borders trade so badly.
Senator Paul reiterated to Matt Boyle one of our principle objections to the Obamatrade package:

Most members who support TPA didn’t even read the TPP text because it’s kept in a secretive room in the Capitol basement and only members can go in to read it—and they’re only allowed to, in certain instances, bring staffers with high enough security clearances with them. TiSA and T-TIP text is not even available for members to read, so there’s actually no way any member of Congress who supported TPA can know what it was they were actually voting for.

That the establishment Republican leadership of the House slipped the Rule for the reconsideration of TAA into the Rule for the Intel Authorization bill is a sign of desperation, not strength or leadership ability.
House conservatives have vowed to vote down the Rule. According to reports from inside the Capitol, conservatives are maintaining a constant vigil on the Floor of the House to ensure that Speaker Boehner and Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions do not try to sneak the Rule through on a voice vote or by unanimous consent when no one is on the Floor to oppose it.
We urge CHQ readers to call their Representative to demand he or she vote “NO” on the Rule for H.R. 2596, the Fiscal Year 2016 Intelligence Authorization bill, if it includes the Motion to Reconsider the failed TAA bill. The Capitol Switchboard is 1-866-220-0044 and the vote will likely be today, call NOW!

The Left Is So Shallow! So Hypocritical! Such Frauds!

They're People, Not Political Statements

Bruce Jenner and Randy Boehning shouldn't be subject to political litmus tests because of their sexuality.

By Susan MilliganApril 30, 2015 | 10:55 a.m. EDT+ More

Here’s a question of individual freedom and choice: Should lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people be allowed to favor a party that does not believe they deserve protection under the law?

If that seems like an absurd query, it’s because it is. But it’s getting asked – as it has been before – by people who cannot comprehend why former Olympian Bruce Jenner, who is transitioning from male to female, is a Republican. Or, for that matter, how a North Dakota legislator who voted against a gay rights bill could do so when it turns out (“out” being the operative word here) that he himself is gay.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Gay Marriage]

Part of the problem with the acceptance of LGBT people is that such individuals are too often seen not as, well, individuals, but as walking political statements. A gay man can’t just be a guy from Cleveland who likes the Browns, never had much use for plaid and prefers Cajun cuisine over French. Instead, such a hypothetical man is viewed as a Gay Man, as though his sexuality defines him entirely. The growing acceptance of not just LGBT people but gay marriage has developed because more and more people realized that they had children, friends and co-workers who were gay or lesbian, and the fact of their sexuality was just one thing about them – not something worth thinking much about, let alone judging. But when we impose a political party litmus test on people because of their sexuality, we are playing right into the disrespect and stereotyping the anti-gay contingent is accused of exercising.

So Jenner is a Republican. So what? As The Weekly Standard’s Philip Terzian noted, can’t Jenner just be a human being? Maybe Jenner wants lower taxes and less government regulation. He might not like what some people in his party say about transgender people, but should that be the only, or even defining, question in choosing a political party? Does anyone ask Roman Catholic women how they can bring themselves to worship in a church that tells them they must be incubators at will, not using birth control, and can never serve as priests?

[READ: Views You Can Use: Gay Marriage Gets Its Day in Court]

Then there’s Randy Boehning, a Republican state representative from Fargo, North Dakota. Boehning had voted against a bill that would have given legal protection to gays and lesbians. It turns out that Boehning had been trolling for (male) dates and sex on the social network app Grindr. A local gay man noticed Boehning’s photo in the paper and thought it looked remarkably like someone he had communicated with on Grindr. Boehning ended up having to come out as gay. Why? Is it more offensive if a gay person votes against basic human rights than if a straight person does? Why does the heterosexual get more freedom to think and vote as he or she pleases?

Hypocrisy is generally the word used to justify reducing non-heterosexuals to their sexual orientation, as though they are somehow betraying the cause by not being a vocal activist for LGBT people. Worse things are said about people still in the closet. Yet that actually makes some sort of sense. When former Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was found apparently soliciting gay sex in an airport men’s room, he was denounced as a hypocrite for denying his sexuality and then voting against gay rights bills on the floor. In fact, Craig, if he is indeed gay (he denied it) was being painfully consistent with self-hatred. Someone who seeks out anonymous sex in a public restroom – gay or straight – is not someone who thinks very highly of himself. It’s not a huge leap that he would extend the same disrespect to his voting record.

Supporting human rights is a goal that should be shared by all of us, regardless of our sexual orientation. Demanding that LGBT people adhere to a certain political framework is not only insulting, but it undermines the very goal of universal acceptance.

Poll Indicates Large Republican Win--We Hope So But Fear Fraud

Rasmussen Poll: 62 Percent Say Republicans Will Retake Senate

Friday, 31 Oct 2014 05:00 PM

By Todd Beamon

Share:

  Get Short Link |

  Comment  |

   Contact Us  |

  Print  

|  A   A  

• 1
  inShare

Sixty-two percent of Americans believe the Senate will return to the Republicans on Tuesday, as hope that the Democrats will take over the House continues to fall, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey released on Friday.

The results from the survey of 1,000 adults conducted on Wednesday and Thursday compared with 54 percent who felt the GOP would win the upper chamber in early July and with 44 percent in early January, Rasmussen said.

The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The latest Rasmussen survey comes as other polls indicate that the GOP will be victorious in the Senate on Election Day. Republicans need only six seats to take the chamber, while the party is widely expected to maintain control of the House.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has predicted a "historic election night" — and Democrats are questioning the credibility of various polls that have been used to forecast Republican success.

In the latest Rasmussen poll, only 24 percent said they believed that the GOP would not take the Senate. Twenty-two percent think it is very likely, while only 4 percent said it is not likely at all.

Fifteen percent of those surveyed, however, remained undecided.

By contrast, 34 percent said that Democrats were likely to wrest control of the House from Republicans. That is down from 40 percent in July and 44 percent in January, Rasmussen said.

Only 12 now say it’s very likely, while 51 percent said it is not likely to happen — and 25 percent say it is not going to happen.

Fourteen percent remained unsure, the survey found.

Related Stories:

• Legal Experts Question Use of PAC Funds in Senate Campaigns
• Poll: Sen. McConnell Takes Solid 5-Point Lead in Kentucky
  

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.