Archive for Congress

I Know What You Did Last Night

Pleasuring yourselves for the sake of it.

Have you no shame?

[T]his may be the first time in history that a group of senators filibustered themselves.

About 30 Democratic senators — calling themselves the Senate Climate Action Task Force — resolved to keep the Senate open overnight Monday into Tuesday morning. “We’re not going to rest until Congress wakes up and acts on the most pressing issue of our time,” declared Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), the organizer of the sleepless senators.

[T]hese guys are trying to persuade the majority — themselves — to pass something.

Joining the late-night guerilla action was Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who as the Senate majority leader is usually a target of filibusters, not a sponsor. If he and his colleagues really want action, they don’t have to lose sleep. All they have to do is bring a climate-change bill to the floor.

The problem is that Reid doesn’t have the votes in his caucus to pass such a measure.

Reid, who kicked off the 13-hour talkathon at 6:30 Monday evening, didn’t mention the problems among his fellow Democrats. He praised his colleagues for “standing up to the deniers” and “the oil-baron Koch brothers and their allies in Congress.”

Apparently, those allies were not intimidated by the Democrats’ late-night show. The office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
e-mailed “Climate Tax Bingo” cards to reporters.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) crashed the Democrats’ party, needling his colleagues for more than half an hour. “All night long? That’s going to be fun,” said Inhofe, who calls global warming a “hoax” and frequently sights cold snaps as confirmation. “They’ll have an audience of themselves and I hope that they enjoy it.”

As Woody Allen observed, masturbation is sex with someone you love.

Or were they trying to impress someone?

[T]hey figured their antics in the wee hours would display their dedication for all Americans to see — or at least insomniacs who watch C-SPAN2. It also might impress Democratic donors. As The Post’s Ed O’Keefe reported, Democratic senators discussed plans for the filibuster last month at a fundraiser held by liberal billionaire Thomas Steyer.

As if it wasn’t worthless already, Congress has been rendered obsolete by Obama, who legislates from on high. What else are they supposed to do?

Comments (1)

Lois, You Got Some ‘Splainin’ to Do

Now, where were we?

House Republicans announced Tuesday that they are recalling Lois G. Lerner, the former IRS employee at the center of the tea party targeting scandal, to testify to Congress next week, saying she has critical information.

Ms. Lerner asserted her right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination at a hearing last year, but at the time she also proclaimed her innocence. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, said she effectively waived her Fifth Amendment rights with that claim and made her open to being compelled to testify.

“Ms. Lerner’s testimony remains critical to the committee’s investigation,” Mr. Issa said in a letter to her attorney, William W. Taylor III. “Documents and testimony obtained by the committee show that she played a significant role in scrutinizing applications for tax exempt status from conservative organizations.”

In a dramatic hearing in May, just weeks after the targeting was revealed, Ms. Lerner appeared before the oversight committee and refused to testify.

Republicans initially seemed prepared to excuse her, but Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican and a former prosecutor, raised an objection saying her statement of innocence amounted to waiving her right to remain silent.

Technically, Gowdy had a point. If you assert your 5th Amendment right to remain silent, you remain silent. You don’t get to apply it selectively. Politically, however, it would appear as bullying if mean old Republicans compelled this damsel in distress to answer their questions.

But aren’t we past that now? It’s now clear not only what happened, but why. The Tea Party (more a movement than a party) rose up to swing the 2010 elections to Republicans; that was not going to happen in 2012 if Obama and his shock troops had anything to do with it. And they did. And it didn’t.

Obama feigned outrage, once, when the story broke, but he got over it. Now it’s a “phony” scandal. What’s he going to do, investigate himself? His myriad agencies and departments are too busy mobilizing against any dissent or opposition to look into malfeasance from the Oval Office. Heck, we just learned the that Treasury Secretary himself placed a scathing call to S&P for lowering the nation’s credit-rating directly AFTER meeting with Obama. He learned that one from his hermano de una otra madre, Hugo Chavez (may he burn in hell).

Eric Holder has already announced his intention to enforce only those laws that meet his fancy; he recently encouraged state AGs to follow suit. Along with the IRS and FEC disenfranchisement of conservative Americans, the FCC floated the idea of “monitoring” media newsrooms. Even signature pieces of legislation (constitutional legislation, bitches) are applied only according to taste.

This is statism out of control. Obama is more than just the evil twin of Chavez. No wonder he made a bee-line to his true idol—or as close as he could get:

Do please tell Fidel that I send my best—and that I bowed.



I mean, under the circumstances, nice.

No academic Kristallnacht:

A bipartisan bill was introduced in the US House of Representatives on Thursday; if passed it will revoke all federal funding for any US academic institution that decides to boycott Israel.

The academic boycott leveled against Israel last December by the American Studies Association (ASA) was a key factor in the bill, which seeks to prevent similar discrimination. The “Protect Academic Freedom Act” was submitted by House Chief Deputy Whip Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) and Rep. Dan Lipinski (D., Ill.).

Presenting the bill in the House on Thursday, Roskam said the act aims to “prevent (boycott) campaigns by prohibiting federal funds to universities that boycott Israeli organizations,” adding that the “US taxpayer doesn’t have to be complicit” to an act that amounts to “anti-Semitism.”

Former Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Oren spoke in support of the new bill, calling it “the first legislation that defends Israel against discriminatory boycotts which impede rather than advance the peace process, and that seek to deny Israelis the right to free speech on American campuses.”

“As an historian and visiting professor on leading American campuses, I strongly support this courageous initiative,” Oren said. “It can be the turning point in the struggle against the delegitimization of the Jewish State.”

Again, shameful to the extreme that such a law is necessary, but such a law is necessary.


Black President Watch

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid broke publicly with the White House Wednesday on trade policy, instantly imperiling two major international trade deals and punching a hole in one piece of the economic agenda the president outlined in his State of the Union address a day earlier.

Mr. Reid told reporters he opposed legislation aimed at smoothing the passage of free-trade agreements, a vital component to negotiating any deal, and pointedly said supporters should back down.

“I’m against fast track,” Mr. Reid (D., Nev.) said, using the shorthand term for legislation that prevents overseas trade agreements from being amended during the congressional approval process. “I think everyone would be well-advised just not to push this right now.”

Sounds like typical Harry Reid bullying.

But we’re just kidding about Harry Reid not liking Obama because he’s black. We know what a fan of the president Reid is:

“He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”

No higher praise. And a lot nicer than the future First Husband:

Former President Bill Clinton’s efforts to persuade Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to endorse his wife’s presidential bid fell flat when Clinton told the Democratic lawmaker that just a few years ago, Obama would have been serving the pair coffee.

Bill Clinton is a serial abuser of women, a seducer of young interns, and a speaker of racist crap (if not a racist himself). Do the Democrats keep him around only to make Harry Reid (and Hillary) look good?

Comments (1)

Here We Go Again




The Seal of the United States Congress tells an observer a number of salient facts about American politics: the olive branch stands for America’s commitment to peace; the arrows represent its readiness for war; and the Star of David, which The Economist has helpfully added to the original design, symbolises the control of Jews and/or Israel over America’s policies of war and peace.

Peter Schrank’s cartoon, which accompanies an article on negotiations with Iran in this week’s Economist, depicts President Obama with his ankle shackled to the Judaised seal of the US Congress, thereby prevented from shaking hands with Iran’s President Rouhani, who is being restrained by his nefarious-looking, US-flag-burning compatriots.

The message is that either American Jews or Israel (and it is unclear which, because the Star of David is both a Jewish and Israeli symbol) are holding the United States back from making peace with Iran – and moreover, that they are doing so through their control of the machinery of the American government, since the Star of David is incorporated into the official insignia of the US, alongside the stars and stripes. The Israel Lobby, as the cartoon rather nefariously hints, is not a separate influence on the US government – it is a constituent part of it.

The analysis is correct. Buy let’s add to it. What is it that the nefarious Jews are preventing? A handshake. Whoop-di-do. With an ayatollah. Who calls you the Great Satan seven times before breakfast. And who would wipe Israel off the map—literally—given half a chance.

But Rouhani, the Mirthful Mullah, is also being held back. The cartoonist, Hanna or Barbera with a college degree, would have us believe that pressing the flesh with a shrinking shiite would solve anything. If I could draw a decent stick figure, my cartoon would show Obama piloting a stealth bomber, ready to drop a bunker-buster or a JDAM on a quivering conclave of clerics, only to be stopped by Ban ki Moon with a net (labeled with a UN logo). Isn’t that more accurate?

Comments (1)

Obamacare is for Little People

Leona Helmsley comes to Washington (by way of Nevada):

When it comes to Obamacare hypocrisy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has plenty of company. That masquerader’s club now includes Nevada’s junior senator, Republican Dean Heller.

Sen. Reid, D-Nev., made national headlines earlier this month when he exempted some of his top aides from buying health insurance through an Affordable Care Act exchange. As millions of Americans were being forced into plans they didn’t like and couldn’t afford, congressional committee and leadership staffs — some of the same people who helped Sen. Reid pass and relentlessly promote the unpopular law — were allowed to remain in a federal employee plan instead. They wanted no part of Obamacare exchange plans, and although Sen. Reid could have forced them to share in the country’s misery, he chose not to.

It was typical Washington “Do as I say, not as I do” politics. However, as proof that hypocrisy is a plague on both major parties, Sen. Heller has joined Sen. Reid in going against his word and doing the wrong thing.

Under the Affordable Care Act, members of Congress and their personal staffs are required to purchase the same high-deductible, high-cost, reduced-provider, mandate-heavy coverage Democrats forced on everyone else. But members of Congress and their staffs are eligible for premium subsidies intended for the lower-middle and lower classes, even though their high incomes otherwise would disqualify them.

A consistent Obamacare opponent who backed legislation to deny Affordable Care Act subsidies to lawmakers and their staffs, Sen. Heller has nonetheless lined up at the Capitol trough to take those subsidies anyway. As reported Monday by the Review-Journal’s Steve Tetreault, Sen. Heller’s office confirmed he signed up for insurance through the District of Columbia marketplace, which offers the subsidy to the political class. It’s worth up to 75 percent of total premiums, a maximum of $5,113 for an individual and $11,378 for a family.

Sen. Heller’s explanation: He’s in compliance with the law — and Democrats are hypocrites, too!

“I know people who voted against the Bush tax cuts and still took them,” Sen. Heller told Mr. Tetreault. “So you ought to ask those people why did they take the Bush tax cuts when they voted against them.”

Sen. Heller certainly is correct about the left’s bounty of bad faith. Democrats voted against reductions in income, capital gains and estate taxes more than a decade ago and railed against those breaks for years, all the while claiming every available deduction, never submitting a tax bill that totals what they claim they should pay, and creating trusts to completely avoid the estate tax they champion as a vehicle to reduce income inequality and dynastic wealth.

But using one party’s hypocrisy as justification for hypocrisy by the other is low-road politics. When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Reid and Sen. Heller could have followed the lead of other lawmakers in being true to the spirit of the law and their word — and they decided not to.

The author makes a nice try out of tarring Heller as worse than Reid. But Heller did all he could to see that this train wreck never happened. Reid did all he could to see that it did. There would be no hypocrisy had Heller’s party prevailed.

At least Leona did time for her evasions and lies. What time will Harry Reid do—except for eternity in whatever passes for Hell in Mormonism?


Wanna Get Away?

They say Benghazi is lovely this time of year.

If you thought the bogus sign language guy at the Mandela tribute was cringe-making (i.e. hilarious), this feels like a real kick in the nads.

Mark Steyn narrates:

First, she has no idea what “Benghazi” is.

Then, pleading in mitigation that she’s there to talk about the Middle East, she reveals that she has no idea where Benghazi is.

Finally, when her constituents helpfully point out that Benghazi is in Libya, she turns to the side and gives that pitiful look that is the single thing I most loathe about American politics – the look a floundering empty suit gives to her minder when she needs him to come and rescue her. Which the minder immediately does.

This isn’t an especially partisan point, but I’m so weary of post-modern ventriloquist’s dummies who can’t be allowed near their constituents without the protection of a phalanx of aides.

He’s so right about that look. A look of helplessness, but not humility; of condescension, but not contrition.

Steyn is no more forgiving as she tries to play catch-up:

Now that she’s safely back in her congressional cocoon the low-information congresswoman has issued a statement. When I say “she’s issued a statement,” what I mean is that whatever salaried handler is responsible for damage control has written a statement and typed Representative Kuster’s name on the bottom of it. It reads:

Like all Americans, I was horrified by the tragic attack on our Embassy in Benghazi that killed four patriotic Americans. Our focus must remain on finding those responsible, bringing them to justice, and taking every necessary step to prevent an attack like this from ever happening again.

So whichever twerp is responsible for putting those words in Ms Kuster’s guppy-like mouth is now piling on lame boilerplate insincerity to pitiful ignorance.

I’m not interested in what “her office” says. I’m interested in what she says, and what she’s capable of saying without being retrospectively fed prompts by the “office.” The feeble dependence of American politicians on “the office” is a big part of the problem. To hell with “the office”; Congress is supposed to be a legislature of citizen-representatives: If I wanted someone who could mouth what “the office” tells her to 24 hours later, I’d vote for Lamb Chop on tape-delay.

What Steyn comes close to saying, I will say. She may be a mouth-breathing idiot, but she’s an elected mouth-breathing idiot. Alan Grayson is a vile, hate-spewing pigeon, who has been scammed out of millions of dollars—twice. And I still feel better about him in the House of Representatives than I do about Annie Kuster.

Comments (1)

Sauce for the Goose?

Many of us frustrated by the unfair treatment of Israel by the Arab occupiers of their lands lash out angrily, and call for Israel to treat the AOTLs as the AOTLs treat them. Shell their kindergartens; stone their moms driving the kids to soccer practice; describe them as vermin, subhuman; glorify your mass-murderers as heros and heroines; board their buses and detonate bombs packed with nails and ball bearings—sounds like fun, no?

But no, we’re better than that. The Israelis are better than that.

Let’s hope the Republicans are not better than that:

Today’s Democrats have grown up in the Saul Alinsky tradition, and on Thursday they proved it with a partisan vote to break the Senate filibuster rule for confirming judges and executive-branch nominees. The new rules will empower the party’s liberals for as long as they control the White House and Senate, but they will also set a precedent for conservatives to exploit in the future.

[T]he great irony is that Democrats voted to end the practice of judicial filibusters that they pioneered when George W. Bush was President. As the minority from 2003-2005, Democrats demanded 60 votes to confirm executive-branch nominees like John Bolton for U.N. Ambassador.

The move shows how foolish Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch were to worry that if they broke the filibuster, Democrats would then do it too. Democrats did it anyway. The only way to deter bloody-minded Democratic behavior is to treat Democrats as they treat Republicans. Democrats sicced special prosecutors on GOP Presidents for years, but they gave up the independent-counsel statute only after Ken Starr investigated Bill Clinton.

The immediate result of Harry Reid’s power play will be that President Obama has a freer hand to pursue his agenda through regulation and the courts. Democrats will now rush to pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in particular, adding three new judges over GOP objection to a court that is already underworked.

The next GOP President should line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport. Imagine two or three more Clarence Thomases on the High Court confirmed with 51 Senate votes. Planned Parenthood can send its regrets to Harry Reid.

ObamaCare would never have passed if Mr. Franken hadn’t stolen the Minnesota recount and prosecutors hadn’t hidden exculpatory evidence to convict Alaska Republican Ted Stevens on false ethics charges. But liberals are showing that they’ll only need 51 votes, not 60, to pass the next ObamaCare.

Conservatives have more of a stake than liberals do in the legislative filibuster as a check on the political passions of the moment. But the Democrats who rewrote Senate rules on Thursday should also understand that they have now opened the door to repeal ObamaCare with only 51 votes.

It is true that sometimes the only way you can change an unwanted, antisocial behavior is to subject the violator to that same behavior. In which case a future Republican administration should not “line up Federalist Society alumni for judicial nominations like planes waiting to take off at O’Hare International Airport”, but members of the Aryan Brotherhood. Hey, if you’re going to be a bear, be a grizzly. Democrats can’t tell Federalist Society members from neo-Nazis anyway.

And I leave Israel with this suggestion: sneak into an Arab home and butcher everyone there—women, children, infants. Leave blood-spattered toys and dolls strewn around the crime scene. If you don’t want more Fogels, do unto the AOTLs as they did unto you. Don’t let faith or scruples muddle your thinking.


Congressional Staffers Shocked By New Insurance Prices.

Aw, Muffin…

Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.
“In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”

In the email, Ta noted that older congressional staffs may leave their jobs because of the change to their health insurance.
(PHOTOS: 12 Democrats criticizing the Obamacare rollout)
Under the Affordable Care Act, and federal regulations, many congressional staffers — designated as “official” aides — were forced to move out of the old heavily subsidized Federal Employees Health Benefits program and into the District of Columbia’s health insurance marketplace exchange. Others designated as “unofficial” were allowed to stay in the FEHB program. Managers had to choose whether aides were “official” or “unofficial” by Oct. 31, and Ta said that wasn’t enough time to make an informed decision about who would benefit and who would lose out by going into the new system.

Too bad the rest of us can’t designate ourselves “unofficial” so that we don’t have to be in ObamaCare.

Moore’s office was one of those in which all staff were designated as “official” and pushed into the exchanges. That ended up being a problem for older staff, who weren’t accustomed to paying higher premiums because of their age.
But age is one of the few factors insurers can use to adjust prices under Obamacare — and older people will often pay much more than younger people.

WAIT! I thought that older people were going to be paying less and that younger people were getting screwed??? Are we all getting screwed???

In an interview with POLITICO, Ta emphasized that “employees are not dissatisfied with the Affordable Care Act” and that some younger staffers have seen their premiums fall. But, he noted, congressional aides are treated differently now than other federal employees, and he would like to be able to offer the best health insurance option available to his employees — even if that means some of them are covered under the old system and others jump into the exchanges.
He wrote in his email that he had asked Democratic staff on the House Administration Committee whether she could redesignate some of the aides on Moore’s payroll as nonofficial office staff so that they could avoid the exchange and keep their FEHB plans.

NO NO NO! You dolts in Congress wrote this law and you should all live with it.

“So far the answer is no, and that we have the opportunity next year to redesignate staff,” Ta wrote. “I am asking for a solution now though because I will lose staff in my office because of this snafu and I mentioned to payroll and House Admin[istration Committee] that it was unfair for our offices to make this designation without allowing our staff the ability [to] actually go on the DCshop to compare rates. I would have made a different decision on the designation of my older staff.”
Ta concluded by asking other chiefs of staff to join him in petitioning the Administration Committee for an immediate fix. Glenn Rushing, chief of staff to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, quickly replied to the group that he would join the fight.

Got that? They would have to wait just one year in the worst case scenario to avoid ObamaCare. So, even though they wrote it, they plan to fix it for themselves. Are these the most nauseating people EVAH?

- Aggie


Back to ObamaCare!

Among the more shameful things President Obama has said (high up there in a very long list) is this:

[T]he American people — those who got cancelation notices do deserve and have received an apology from me, but they don’t want just words.

And by the way, I think it’s very important for me to note that, you know, there are a whole bunch of folks up in Congress and others who made this statement…

But even he—even George Washington Obama, Harry Reid chopped down the cherry tree—knew that wouldn’t fly. The full quote:

And by the way, I think it’s very important for me to note that, you know, there are a whole bunch of folks up in Congress and others who made this statement, and they were entirely sincere about it. And the fact that you’ve got this percentage of people who’ve had this, you know, impact — I want them to know that, you know, their senator or congressman, they were making representations based on what I told them and what this White House and our administrative staff told them, and so it’s not on them, it’s on us.

That can’t be right. Congress writes the laws, no? How could they be blameless for a law they wrote and passed? In that quaint charter of “negative liberties”, Article One, Section One states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” “Legislative Powers” would include legislation, wouldn’t they? I think? Maybe?

Besides, in this singular, unique, lone, solitary, rara avis, sui generis occasion, Obama is right:

How many Democrats made the promise? There’s no comprehensive list of all of them, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office has compiled a list of 27 Democratic senators who pledged that Americans could keep their coverage under Obamacare. The list includes the entire Democratic leadership in the Senate as well as Democrats facing tough re-election races in 2014, like Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich, and Kay Hagan.

It’s time to break out Sarah Palin’s target map!

Oh sorry! Was my “rhetoric” too “eliminationist” for you? Let’s hear a few Dead Congressmen Walking in their own words:

SEN. HARRY REID (D-Nev.): “In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8642, 8/3/09)

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: “We believe — and we stand by this — if you like your current health insurance plan, you will be able to keep it, plain and simple, straightforward.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6401, 6/10/09)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “If you like your insurance, you keep it.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/29/09)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-Mont.): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.” (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-Colo.): “We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you.” (Sen. Bennet, Press Release, 6/11/09)

They “believed” in the “central premise”, the “basic principle”, even “core principle” that you could keep your plan, your doctor. Unless Obama had his hand up the behinds of these sock puppets, contorting their lips to say these wretched falsehoods, they all lied to you.

They lied, and they lied, and they lied, and they lied. And then they lied some more. Their contempt for you oozes from every pore. For many of you, so does mine.


Who You Gonna Believe: Me or the Lyin’ I’s?

Who’s the most dangerous man in America?

Not even close:

Republican senators who were briefed on Wednesday about recent talks with Iran were reportedly told to “ignore anything the Israelis say” about the issue, BuzzFeed reports.

Members of the Senate Banking Committee who spoke to the website after a briefing by Secretary of State John Kerry and lead Iran negotiator Wendy Sherman sharply criticized the presentation.

The briefing came as part of an ongoing appeal by the Obama administration to the Senate to hold off on a new round of sanctions against Iran.

Senator Mark Kirk (R-Il.), a member of the Banking Committee, described the briefing as “very unconvincing” and, in what seems more disturbing, he said it was also “anti-Israeli”.

“I was supposed to disbelieve everything the Israelis had just told me, and I think the Israelis probably have a pretty good intelligence service,” Kirk told BuzzFeed.

A Senate aide familiar with the meeting told the website that “every time anybody would say anything about what would the Israelis say they’d get cut off and Kerry would say, ‘You have to ignore what they’re telling you, stop listening to the Israelis on this.’”

“They had no details,” the aide told BuzzFeed. “They had no ability to verify anything, to describe anything, to answer basic questions.”

Another member of the Banking Committee, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), said he was left “undecided” following the presentation, adding that he was “very disappointed in the presentation.”

“I am stunned that in a classified setting when you’re trying to talk to the very folks that would be originating legislation relative to sanctions, to have such a lack of specificity – I feel I may get that over the next 24 hours in another setting, but it was solely an emotional appeal,” Corker said.

Kirk also criticized Sherman, whose “record on North Korea is a total failure and embarrassment to her service.” Sherman was part of the U.S. negotiating team that focused on North Korea in the 1990s.

“Wendy wants you to forget her service on North Korea,” Kirk said. “You shouldn’t allow her.”

He added, “Today is the day I witnessed the future of nuclear war in the Middle East.

The Israeli media are all over this story; the US mainstream media not at all. Not one report. John Kerry is articulating American policy to throw our sole ally in the Middle East to the very wolves who already have American and Jewish blood-soaked hands (paws)—and the press covers it up.

That’s no less a scandal than Kerry’s wretched, horrible, disgraceful hate speech.

Comments (1)

Do You Throw a Life Jacket to a Drowning Man?

If that man is Charles Manson?

How about David Berkowitz (Son of Sam)? Or Mark David Chapman (John Lennon’s assassin)? Or John Hinkley (Reagan’s would be assassin)?

Now, would you throw a life line to the Democrat Party if they were being dragged to the inky depths by the anchor of EdselCare?

No, no, no, no, and kiss my a…dam’s apple, in that order. I agree.

Now, would you throw the Constitutional Affordable Care Act (CACA) a lifesaver if you stood to get the blame for its miserable failure, despite the fact that your fingerprints aren’t anywhere on it? I still wouldn’t, and here’s why.

First, the hypothetical: if a critical mass of Democrats wants to stuff CACA for a year, wipe it off the books until it’s ready to drop, should Republicans go along? “Delay” was the full-throated cry of the Republican Party last month when Ted Cruz was calling “defund”; why not now? Democrats would label the Republicans flip-floppers of the worst kind, seeking to hurt “folks” for the sole purpose of making political points. The media would back them up—as the media always do—and the truth would be drowned out. The a-holes responsible for CACA would be made out as defenders of the middle class, while Republicans would look like mean-spirited losers.

So, why not go along to get along? Why not hold their noses and help the Democrats out of the whirlpool of legislative overreach? Because CACA is still bad law. The website will be the least of it, the thin end of the wedge. Canceled plans, more expensive plans, lost doctors and hospitals, government inefficiency, nationalizing an entire industry—obviously, one could go on.

The issue isn’t delay; it’s repeal. This is the time for counteroffensive. Don’t go along with the Democrats, hit back. Insist that a bad law, an unpopular law, be taken off the books entirely. Demand that your market-based alternatives be implemented instead. The overwhelming majority of people were personally happy with what they had before; those of them that supported change were lied to about how bad things were. They were dumb then; they (might) know better now.

Don’t fall into line behind the lying Democrats; don’t stonewall them. Offer an alternative now that the country is dying for one. Be a party that stands for something. Who knows, you may even lead.


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »