Shouldn’t Ryan’s Healthcare Failure be About Us?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

No Audio Version

Can we get a little perspective on the epic RINOCare fail? By perspective, I mean, exactly who it really harms.

There is a one word answer to the question of who it harms, and it doesn’t start with ‘T’. The word actually begins with ‘U’ – as in Us! Yet watching the weekend cable news broadcasts, there has been nary a word mentioned about the harm Paul Ryan’s phony “repeal and replace” bill has caused us – the Americans who voted for these bums.

We the “silent majority,” who, over the past few election cycles, have decided to not be so silent – to make our wishes known to these politicians. In return for our votes they have made promises.

Beginning in 2010, Republicans began an unbroken string of passing clean repeal bills. They’ve asked for our help to build majorities and WE made it happen. We even elected an “outsider” from the business community to aid in our quest to roll back government and rid us of ObamaCare. And for all our trouble – for all our hard work and heavy lifting, it is WE who have been stabbed in the back by Ryan and the establishment.

However, to historically reliable cables news outlets like Fox, it is like we don’t exist. It seems as if it is now all about politics – not people – not voters and taxpayers. read more

Trump May End Up Owning RyanCare

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

If Paul Ryan’s ObamaCare-lite bill makes it to president Trump’s desk in any form close to what it is now and he signs, it will become Trump’s healthcare debacle. Although it should be called RyanCare or CowardCare, it will ultimately end up as what I coined on Wednesday – O-DonaldCare.

And this is the shame of it. The president can’t know everything, so he must rely on honest brokers to give him an accurate account of various bills. Rand Paul, who is steadfast against the Republican bill, thinks the Republicans, particularly Paul Ryan, are not being accurate or honest with Trump. My buddy, Onan Coca at Constitution.com quotes Paul saying: “I don’t think it makes any sense and I think he’s [Ryan] trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the president.”

Unfortunately that’s just the way it works. Presidents get congratulated on everything good that happens on their watch, but also get hung, rightly or wrongly, by any failures. Few will remember or care that this sham started with Paul Ryan, anymore than we recall that Obama didn’t draft ObamaCare. Yet no one calls that GruberCare, after its architect, Jonathan Gruber, do they. All that will matter is that Trump promoted it and ultimately signed it, so it’s his baby – Rosemary’s baby!

Now I must admit, that in my haste to rush my initial reaction out to the Republican bill, I didn’t do justice to just how bad this thing is and I also was inaccurate on a point or two. If you care to go back and read it you may do so here.

I also admit that I am not personally privy to all that is in the Republican replacement bill, so must therefore rely on experts I trust to do that leg-work for me. read more

Paul Ryan’s Inclusive Conservatism

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Last week the New York Times wrote:  “Republican leaders on Capitol Hill conceded that they will miss a Friday deadline, and the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday put forward a stopgap measure to prevent a government shutdown and give negotiators an additional five days to reach an agreement.”

And this is what happens every time a budget bill or frankly any “important” legislation (if there is such a thing) comes up. It’s planned and purposeful – playing the postponement game with “stopgap measures.” Isn’t it curious that they always seem to be pushed right to the brink of a holiday period, a government shutdown or such thing? This time it’s a double whammy – Christmas break and the dreaded shutdown (which we all know is a mere slowdown). No one on capital hill wants to be here longer than they have to, so the old game is to keep extending the final decision making until the 11th hour and rush to make a deal, then leave town.

Senator majority leader and head bully, Mitch McConnell already stated there will NEVER again be a government shutdown. read more

Paul Ryan Gets Serious

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Yesterday Guy Benson, a Townhall.com contributor, wrote a piece entitled “Paul Ryan Introduces Balanced Budget, Democrats React Predictably“.

 

The article begins: “There was some debate over whether House Republicans would offer any spending blueprint for fiscal year 2015, as some argue it would only hand Democrats ammunition ahead of the midterm elections. In light of the Ryan-Murray compromise spending caps that last for two years, why bother advancing a detailed budget?”

 

Yes, we wouldn’t want to hand the Democrats any ammunition. That would be terrible. But I guess “some” would be right, assuming the “some” are the establishment Republicans who cower at any mention of a spending cut, real or fake, and who can’t argue in favor of cuts because they don’t believe in them – unless of course they’re the fake kind.

 

Benson goes on to catalogue the Republican “Path to Prosperity”. According to Paul Ryan; his “Path to Prosperity” balances the budget in 10 years.

 

Okay, to the average citizen, that sounds good, but we are not average. We follow this stuff closely, so we know that’s a lie and if not an out right lie, Ryan knows it won’t happen. He must. The next Congress can and will simply rewrite it and if not that one, then the next and so on.

 

It’s like saying global warming will kill us all in 20 years. You don’t have to prove it. You can just say it. read more

Paul Ryan Sells Out Disabled Veterans

A provision cutting the pensions of military retirees in the bipartisan budget deal that the Senate will vote on this week does not exempt disabled veterans, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

Disabled retirees were previously thought to be exempt from the changes to military retiree pay, which could cost servicemembers up to $124,000 over a 20-year period.

The Free Beacon previously reported that military retirees under the age of 62 would receive 1 percentage point less in their annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in the plan crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.).

The section of the U.S. code that has been altered also applies to disabled servicemembers, many of whom have been wounded in combat.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, called the change “unthinkable.”

“It has been asserted that the controversial change to military retirees’ pensions affects those who are ‘working-age’ and ‘still in their working years,’ with the clear suggestion being that these individuals are able to work,” Sessions said in a statement. “That’s why I was deeply troubled when my staff and I discovered that even individuals who have been wounded and suffered a service-related disability could see their pensions reduced under this plan.” read more

Republican Three Card Monte

by: the Common Constitutionalist

At 7:45 on Friday morning reports indicated zero senate republicans were planning on voting for the Ryan-Murray House budget proposal. The GOP’s Senate leaders plan is to launch a procedural effort to kill the plan over a laundry list of objections – including a claim that it short-changes military veterans and other government retirees, which is does, of course.

Dick (turban) Durbin told reporters on Thursday, “We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period. We need at least five. And I’m hoping that there will be more than that.” As of Friday morning he had none.

The GOP’s three most senior senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have announced that they will vote ‘no.’

As one would expect, Senator Ted Cruz said the proposal, “spends more, taxes more, and allows continued funding for Obamacare. I cannot support it.” Thanks Paul Ryan, for selling us out and lying to Mark Levin on national radio about it.

One GOP Senate staffer,  speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “this is the agreement’s ‘pixie dust approach to budgeting. We’re doing what we always do. We set out a ten-year plan while knowing full well that we have a decade to undo it and shift gears again.” read more

The Girlie Man Party

by: the Common Constitutionalist 

When John Boehner said to effectively read his lips: If you are for tax cuts, you are for this budget; did you believe him?

 

When Paul Ryan explained that this budget is the best deal we can get, did you believe him?

 

When old Johnny Boehner went on to exclaim that the budget deal, which fully funds Obamacare, is far from perfect, but it’s a start; did you believe him then?

 

Do you believe anything the Republicans are saying about this disastrous budget agreement? No? Me either.

 

Yet there is a positive that has come out of this bogus budget busting deal. And don’t believe the lies. There are no budget cuts – only the usual hollow promises.

 

So what’s the positive? We can, once and for all, plainly see who is on our side and who is not. We can clearly see who will fight and who will cave. Who has true courage and who are spineless.

 

And it all comes down to one word: Shutdown, or fear of another dreaded shutdown.

 

Mitch McConnell said it back in October: “they’ll not be another government shutdown, you can count on that”. Johnny Boehner said the same.

 

Paul Ryan told Mark Levin that he doesn’t want another shut down. And why? The “Republicans” all say that a shutdown merely distracts the public – that they want to focus on the problems of Obamacare.

 

Do you believe them when they say it? You shouldn’t because, as I stated, this  budget fully funds Obamacare.

 

So what’s really going on? Fear – fear is what’s really going on. The Republicans and all their inside the Beltway advisers are afraid. They’re afraid of the Democrats and afraid of the press.

 

You can see it by the way they react and lash out at those conservatives and conservative groups who wish them to fight, to actually try to win.

 

Frankly I think it’s more a fear of the Washington press corps, then anything else, and it’s been going on for a while.

 

Think back to the 2008 presidential campaign. John McCain chose the outspoken conservative Sarah Palin as his running mate. What happened? They immediately hamstrung her. The edict came down from the Republican wizards of smart that no one was to speak ill of the then candidate Obama.

 

And why? Fear! They would not allow anyone to be honest about the Marxist Obama lest they be branded a racist.

 

Recall the wailing and whining of everyone, including the Republicans, regarding Rush Limbaugh’s exclamation that he wished Obama to fail. None of the Republicans came to Limbaugh’s aid, choosing instead to run for the tall grass. Gee…who was right on that one?

 

Now, fast forward to the 2012 campaign – specifically the debates. The first debate was a thing of beauty. Romney was smart, tough and took the fight to Obama. Remember how excited you got? Second debate – Obama was better but Romney still won it.

 

Things were looking good for Romney, and then something happened. Remember? Romney came out for the third debate and went soft. Obama gave Romney opportunities, one after the other, to take it to him. Yet he just stood there, letting Obama off the hook, even agreeing with him on many occasions.

 

Chris Wallace of Fox News said it was Romney’s idea. I’m not sure I buy that. It just looks too familiar. And now, looking back and comparing it to the milquetoast way the Republicans comport themselves – it’s all just too familiar.

 

It was fear of conflict and the press then and it’s the same today.

 

The Republican Party is afraid. They’re afraid of the flight. They are not the stupid party, as some have described.

 

They are the wuss-party – or as Arnold would say, the Girlie Man party.

Ryan v Levin on Immigration

 

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Paul Ryan was on Mark Levin’s show on Tuesday discussing immigration. You know, the same Paul Ryan that with his tag team partner Marco Rubio, have been pushing for a “comprehensive immigration” bill. I’ll give him props for his courage at least.

Levin told Ryan that some new immigration numbers were just-released. He said that new CBO estimates are that the Senate bill will only reduce illegal immigration by 25%. Ryan responded by saying that the House will not focus or discuss the Senate bill and will only focus on their own bill.

Ryan said that “this problem” has to be dealt with. The “problem” being illegals but would not say the words illegal alien or illegal. He called them undocumented workers.

Ryan continued saying that we had a law in 1986 and it didn’t work nor did the ‘96 or 2006 laws. Ryan claimed, as Levin laughed out loud, that they in Congress want to get it right this time.

Naturally Mark asked him: “Why should we trust you [guys]?” Ryan said that this time they would have “real metrics” that would have to be met to secure the border. Not just DHS’s promise. He said the GAO would make the determination of border security. He then went on to explain the metrics that must be met regarding the undocumented workers.

Levin asked: “What if the illegal doesn’t meet your requirements. Are you going to deport them?” Ryan’s answer: “Yeah, then they are deportable, that’s the whole point.” Levin interrupted rather emphatically by saying that they’re not going to be deported!

Notice that Ryan said they are deportable, not that they would be deported. One has to listen very carefully as politicians throw out these code words.

Levin added that the president is in charge of who is deported and he simply won’t do it no matter what Congress insists on.

And of course Levin is correct. That’s why this argument is so specious. It sounds like tough talk but that’s all it is. I’m reminded of the Bumble Snow Monster that looked scary but was harmless after his teeth were removed.

Ryan’s response was if you write a law and they break the law, they are deportable. It can’t be fought or adjudicated. Huh? They already broke the law just getting here. What the heck do they care if they break another?

Could someone as intelligent as Paul Ryan really be this naïve, or is it something else?

Ryan then asked Levin: “Do you believe we will find 11 million or more people, round them up and kick them out?” Levin’s answer: “no, under this administration we won’t round up a half million people.” Ryan said that no administration could do that, even if they tried.

Frankly, how would we know? We’ve never tried. And I beg to differ. You won’t get them all, but you can get 70% within a few months time with the will and a few thousand agents. I live on the outskirts of a northeastern city. It’s a small city but a city nonetheless. I guarantee, you give me 1000 agents and a few days and I could find 75% of all illegals in my city. Why? Because they all settled in about 10-block area downtown and I’ll bet every city is the same. That’s why! 

All of what Ryan continued to promote was in the 1986 amnesty bill. Levin pointed this out to Ryan. Ryan didn’t really acknowledge it. He continued to drone on about metrics that have to be met regarding security and legal status of the undocumented workers. It didn’t convince Mark and it didn’t convince me.

Look, the bottom line is that all the metrics, the rules and new laws are not going to solve the illegal problem. We have been debating this current problem for over 25 years.

If they, Congress, were serious, they would simply state that we can live with our current situation for another year or two. Therefore Congress’s proposal should be to secure the border…period. Each border State would then verify to its security. When that is completed, we can revisit the rest. It’s that simple and that’s why it will never be done. It’s not “comprehensive” enough!

Immigration Law…Then and Now

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Who hasn’t heard the new pro-immigration ads? It seems like they’re playing on every news-radio station, all day. The group “Americans for a Conservative Direction” brings the ads to air. It is a lobbying group put together by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who is definitely not a conservative. The southern RINO Haley Barbour is also involved.

The ads posit the notion, put forth by Republicans Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, that the current immigration system is de facto amnesty. They neglect to mention that the current system bears no resemblance to and follows virtually none of the thousands of immigration laws already on the books.

Rubio and Ryan take turns promoting the new 1000 page “comprehensive” bill, saying: “Let’s secure the border.” But that’s not what is in the bill. It says that DHS shall submit a plan to the secure the border – that’s it.

In the ad both senators claim: “they’ll undergo background checks, start paying taxes, won’t qualify for federal benefits, pay a fine, learn English and no amnesty.” They claim that if illegals do all this they will then go to the end of the immigration line.

All lies or half-truths.

And what if they don’t do all those things? Will we deport them Marco? Will we send them home Paul? Of course not.

So no matter what they say, in actuality, between 11 and 20 million illegals will become legal. Litigation will see to that. Mark my words.

Don’t believe me? Okay, let’s take a ride back to 1986 and examine IRCA, the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

This failed law allowed amnesty for in excess of 2.7 million illegals (a fraction of todays). It greatly contributed to the downfall of California with over 40% of all illegals ending up in California and Texas. Texas as we know, is far more conservative than is California, thus it has been spared the same fate.

But did IRCA accomplish what the liars in 1986 claim it would do? Did they shut down the border and end or greatly decrease illegal immigration? Nope – none of the above – as any thinking person would guess.

According to a study done by the Cato Institute: “IRCA did not achieve its goal of reducing illegal inflows and the size of the undocumented population. Illegal immigration quickly resumed growing and legal immigration increased because the families of legalization beneficiaries immigrated.” (chain migration)

The study added that stricter enforcement has had little actual deterrent effect. But of course, we all know there is no “stricter” border security. There is virtually no border security at all.

They (Cato) warned of the potential burden of legalizing so many unskilled immigrants. Almost half of all adult illegals had not even a high school education and they comprised 22% of all non-high school graduates.

As we conservatives all know today and was expressed after passage of the 1986 law, “the number of immigrants far exceeded expectations”. Big surprise!

Newly legalized women were found to have left the workforce. Why? They suddenly became eligible for far more government giveaway programs.

The study added that the new adult citizens could then sponsor relatives; their parents, children, married children and their spouses, and so on and so on. 11 million immigrants my foot. Try double or triple.

And all those new arrivals will of course be taking advantage of the freebies we so generously offer. How stupid are we?

They concluded that having an amnesty can create the expectation of additional future amnesties which encourage continued illegal inflows. Another shocker.

So what have we learned from the debacle of 1986? Evidently, absolutely nothing. Check that. We’ve learned that politics and elections trump the nation’s security and our ever-dwindling resources. Oh… and common sense. We’ve also learned that whatever the era, politicians lie.

Post Debate

by: the Common Constitutionalist

At the start of the Vice Presidential debate, I thought Joe Bidens strategy might be a winner, but his condescension soon started to grate on me. The constant interruption of Paul Ryan was deplorable.

In fact, Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times during the 40 minutes Ryan was able to speak. That’s an interruption approximately every 30 seconds. Way to do your job Martha.

As Rush says, the Joe Biden you saw last night, was the real Joe Biden and the real modern-day democrat party. Mean, arrogant and patronizing.

I don’t know how Ryan felt, but I was worn out, watching Old Uncle Joe (not Stalin; Biden) cackling, grinning, wagging his finger and lecturing me.

I always thought the media, and the left in general, were disgusted by angry old white men. Yet, watching and listening to the main stream and lefty cable shows, post-debate, one would think the democrats were, in fact, the party of angry old white guys.

When discussing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, Ryan repeatedly stressed that they (Iran) had four additional years to develop fissionable materials and thus develop a nuclear weapon.

Biden’s retort was to agree, that Iran has more fissionable material but forcefully stated, “that we have no need to fear because they don’t a weapon to put it in.”

Well, that sure is good news Joe. And, of course, they’ll never find anyone willing to sell them one.

Biden turned to the camera and stated, “ Folks, we’re going to knowwwwww if Iran acquires a weapon.” “WE’LL KNOW!”

Really Joe; you’ll know? Just like you knew that the Benghazi attack was terrorism and not due to a video?

How Joe, will you find out they have a weapon? Will you receive that information from your intelligence community? You know, the one you threw under the bus, when you said they gave you the wrong info regarding Benghazi, and were unable to get you the correct intelligence for a two solid weeks. Is that where you will get the information regarding Iran’s bomb?

I’m not in the intelligence community, but even I could let this administration know two weeks after Iran gets a nuclear weapon.

It will be fairly evidently from the giant crater and nuclear fallout that was Israel.

Also, I would add that terrorists don’t need missiles. All they need are suitcases or backpacks and several brainwashed idiots willing to blow themselves for Allah.

As for the rest of the debate, it was more of the same; Old Joe, smiling, cackling and lying about all of the administrations domestic positions. In between, was Joe’s constant attempt at belittling Paul Ryan. By the close of the debate it was clear that Biden looked the village idiot.

One of the barometers of how well Old Joe did is how much time the mainstream media will continue to spend on breaking the debate down.

If he pulled off a clear and concise victory, the press will be discussing his brilliance up until the second the second presidential debate begins next week.

But the AP (Associated Press) , which, for all intent and purpose, is the media arm of the White House, is already speaking of the next Presidential debate. That debate is still a week away. That tells me they don’t want to discuss Old Joe’s performance. Evidently, the sooner they can put it behind them, the better.

Reports have also surfaced that the debate “Moderator” Martha Raddatz actually visited Old Uncle Joe Biden in the White House sometime prior to the debate. I’m sure it was to just stop by and say howdy and not to discuss the questions she would ask during the debate.

As it turns out Martha did Paul Ryan a huge favor by siding with Old Joe. Martha unwittingly preformed a valuable service to the viewing public by allowing all to see Old Uncle Joe, as he really is, an angry, insipid and shrill liberal.

The old saying is, if someone insists on making a fool of themselves, just get out their way and let them.

Ryan, I thought, may have been a little too polite for my taste, but it worked for him. The consensus opinion is that Paul Ryan won and Joe Biden surely lost, both the debate and his mind.