Conservatives vs the Swamp

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

One of the claims that President Trump hailed during the campaign was that he wanted to “Drain the Swamp” in D.C. We heard many times from him and his surrogates about going to Washington to drain the swamp. Those at his rallies could even be heard chanting, “Drain the Swamp.”

It played great to the masses, but is it really possible? If all things remain equal, is this possible?

Well no – no it is not. First, without getting into detail, some of Trump’s cabinet picks belie his promise – although he never actually stated that, “I promise to Drain the Swamp.”

His choices of Sessions as Attorney General, Scott Pruitt at EPA, Tom Price at HHS, and certainly (we hope) the new supreme Court justice Gorsuch appear at first blush to be swamp drainers. But Reince Preibus, Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and Secretary of State Tillerson seem at best to be status quo swampists.

But it of course can’t all be left to Trump. There is no president who is capable of doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to this monumental and possibly insurmountable task. He must get help from the legislative branch. read more

Nothing Ever Changes – By Design (Part One)

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Do you ever wonder why nothing ever changes in Washington? It seems no matter who is President– Republican – Democrat – whomever – nothing changes.

Yet every four years we spent untold millions of dollars and thousands of hours promoting one candidate or another. But at the end of the day, no matter who is elected, things either get just a bit worse or a lot worse.

Same goes for Congress and the Senate. We expend so much time, effort and money electing these idiots and nothing gets better. Why is that?

Well, as usual, Mark Levin pointed to it just the other day on his radio program. It’s the bureaucracy and the judges. These faceless, nameless bureaucrats are immune from elections. Whether it’s a conservative or liberal president, it’s of no consequence to these bureaucrats.

It matters not to them who controls the House and Senate. They just continue on, pumping out more and more rules and regulations to choke us all and further their own influence.

It’s the same with federal judges. Mark cited the case of same-sex marriage. In every state, where the citizens were allowed to vote on it, they overwhelmingly affirmed marriage to be between one man and one woman. 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

Conservatives Must Compromise on Immigration

 

by: the Common Constitutionalist 

Several days ago (November 14) “conservative” George Will wrote a column entitled “A Need for Compromise on Immigration”. Needless to say I was curious, being that compromise and immigration are two of my least favorite words, at least politically speaking.

 

“What – you are against immigration?” I can hear it now know. Yes I am, when that word is used the way politicians and pundits intend. We all know when a politician or analyst uses that word, they intentionally lump all immigration together, both legal and illegal, as if it were the same.

 

And compromise simply means that conservatives forgo their principles and values in order to pass crappy legislation.

 

Anyway – the gist of Will’s article is that he thinks it foolish and very difficult to attempt to pass a sweeping “comprehensive” immigration bill. There’s another word that makes my skin crawl – comprehensive. Will doesn’t argue that a comprehensive immigration bill is bad for America, but that it is just hard to pass as omnibus legislation. read more

Dingy Harry Can Be Stopped… If We Have the Guts

 

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So Harry Reid actually did it. He finally pulled the trigger on the so-called “Nuclear Option”. And what does that mean for us – for our country? Nothing good, I’m afraid.

 

The “nuclear option” refers to the Senate’s advice and consent of a president’s nomination of cabinet heads and judges. With a single party line vote (all but three), Harry Reid has made the confirmation process much easier. It now takes but a 51 vote simple majority to confirm a nominee. It had been 60 votes.

 

Some have said, “Well at least it doesn’t include Supreme Court nominees”. That is correct. The Supreme Court is exempt from the new simple majority rule… that is until the Democrats decide they also want to include it. The only reason the Supreme Court was left out, was simply because no one on the court has claimed they are retiring. If say, Ruth “Buzzy” Ginsberg wanted to call it quits, the Supreme Court would’ve been part of the simple majority deal. You can bet on that.

 

So with that vote, the radicals in the Senate led by Reid are free to pack the lower courts, expand the courts and create new courts if they wish. What do I mean by expanding create? They can do that? Yep!

 

The United States Constitution states that, “the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (Emphasis added).

 

So they can create whole new courts and expand the numbers of leftist judges on current courts to overwhelm the right. read more

Senate Dems Get Gerrymandered?

Via the Corner. I’ve been looking for a palate cleanser all day for you guys but until now none of the offerings were up to snuff. Rand Paul claiming that the billions in federal money that New Jersey got after Hurricane Sandy basically bought the election for Christie? Nah. There’ll be time to blog that when Christie fires back and then Paul responds with another crack about “bacon.” McCain suggesting that he’s tired of being asked about Palin? Tempting, but no. read more

No Law Like Obamacare

No major legislation has ever been passed like Obamacare — and I’m using the word “passed” pretty loosely.

It became law without both houses ever voting on the same bill. (Say, is the Constitution considered “settled law”?) Not one Republican voted for it — and a lot of Democrats immediately wished they hadn’t.

Historically, big laws have been enacted with large, bipartisan majorities. In 1935, President Roosevelt enacted Social Security with a 372-33 vote in the House and 77-6 in the Senate.

In 1965, Medicare passed in the Senate 70-24 and the House 307-116, with the vast majority of Democrats supporting this Ponzi scheme and Republicans roughly split.

Reagan’s magnificent tax cuts in 1981 — which Democrats now denounce as if they’d been appalled at the time — passed with a vote of 89-11 in the Senate and even 323-107 in the hostile Democratic House. read more

Work is a Four Letter Word

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

The AP reported, “The House is poised to vote on cutting $4 billion a year from food stamp assistance, now used by one in seven Americans.”

 

To that, Nancy (Bella, I vant to suck your wallet) Pelosi said, “Maybe I’m just hoping for divine intervention, but I really do believe that there are enough Republicans that will not identify themselves with such a brutal cut in feeding the American people.” (Thanks to Jay Severin for the Bella Pelosi reference)

 

Well Bella, I’m sure you’re right. There will most likely be plenty of squishy, scared of their own shadow Republicans to kill or seriously watered-down the proposed bill. And as for the “brutal cut” as you describe it; proposing a one-dollar cut would be considered brutal for money-grubbing statists such as you. And another thing: what would Pelosi know about “divine” intervention? Always remember the progressive creed: government can never do with less… ever.

 

What the Democrats and RINOs won’t tell us is that the cuts are targeted. They are targeted at those recipients who are able-bodied and without dependents. The bill will actually have work requirements similar to the welfare reform act of 1996 that forced those who were able, back to work. Shocking! How mean-spirited.

 

But worry not all you bleeding heart liberals and big government progressives. Regardless of what happens in the House, the bill will die in the Senate. Harry Reid has assured us of this.

 

But what of us real conservatives? Those of us who don’t think the House reforms go nearly far enough. Is there any model, any state that is trying to do something about the well-known waste and abuse of the entitlement system?

 

Funny you should ask. The state of Michigan, of all places, is attempting just that.

 

The Michigan Senate recently passed a bill that will make those on public assistance do, at minimum, volunteer work. The Michigan House has upped the ante. Their bill will require benefit recipients to be drug tested. Those testing positive will have their benefits revoked and new applicants, or those current recipients who refuse testing will be denied benefits.

 

State Senator Joe Hune, the work bill sponsor said: “The whole intention is to make some folks have some skin in the game and I don’t feel there’s any problem with making folks go out and do some kind of community service in order to receive their cash assistance.”

 

There was of course the typical Democrat response saying that the bill was intrusive and mean. Vincent Gregory, a Senate Democrat, explained that, “a lot of people are embarrassed to even be there (asking for benefits) and they have this put on them. It’s this feeling that this is what the public wants, but the public doesn’t want to see people beaten down.”

 

You’re absolutely correct Senator. Speaking for myself, I don’t want to see anyone beaten down, but when an applicant for employment at my company tells me, “I make more in benefits than I could working for you”, where is the incentive to work?!

 

I agree with Sen. Hune. Everyone needs a little “skin in the game”. What’s wrong with drug testing them and having them go out and clean up a park or something?

 

Once again we can count on one of the founders to provide us guidance.

 

Ben Franklin’s famously said: “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Harry Reid’s Three Card Monte

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

It was as if Ted Cruz scripted the whole Harry Reid carnival sideshow on Friday.

 

As he and Rush Limbaugh predicted, the House voted on a continuing resolution (CR) to temporarily fund the government but stripped out funding for Obamacare, then passed the CR on to the Senate for a vote. Without funding, Obamacare would be DOA.

 

As predicted the Senate voted 79 to 19 for cloture, thus ending all debate on the House’s version of the CR. Once that supermajority threshold of 60 votes for cloture was reached, “Dirty” Harry Reid was free to reinsert the Obamacare funding provision, which he did within an hour of the cloture vote. Harry Reid’s three-card monte. Now you don’t see it, now you do.

 

Remember, both Cruz and Limbaugh explained all this prior to these events, almost to the letter. They knew exactly what the soft-spoken dictator of the Senate would do.

 

The Senate was now free to vote on the amended version of the CR with a simple majority, 51 votes. They got 54. It now goes back to the House, with full Obamacare funding reinstated.

 

You, as a voter, need to find out if your Senator voted for cloture and then against the CR as my Senator, Kelly Ayotte did.

 

These traitors to the conservative movement and the Constitution will come home to their districts and try to fool us by saying they voted against Reid’s amended resolution to fund Obamacare. They must’ve known what they were doing. Ted Cruz explained it prior to both Senate votes. He explained a vote for cloture was a vote for Obamacare.

 

If they claim this, they are either stupid or lying. Let’s not mince words; they’re liars who think we are stupid. Call them out for the progressive double dealers they are.

 

So what now? What does the House do? What recourse do they have at this point?

 

Well, Pat Buchanan had a great idea for the House leadership. He suggested that Boehner simply break up the CR into several parts and send each individual component back to Harry Reid and dare him to reject it. Instead of one omnibus continuing resolution, send Reid several, one after the other.

 

Break out the entire defense budget and send only that. Then the education portion, then agriculture, education, etc. All clean bills, daring Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate hacks to vote each of them down, thus defunding that department; of course leaving Obamacare funding out of each one. It could be done if the House has the courage to do so.

 

But what of all those politicians and pundits that say, “just get out of the way and let Obamacare pass”. Obamacare is so complicated, confusing and expensive it will surely “collapse under its own weight”, they say. We Republicans can then say, “see we told you so” and then let the Democrats own it. That will show the people.

 

All who have this strategy in mind are dead wrong! Let me put it another way. Can anyone, anyone tell me which of the thousands of failing, failed or bankrupt government entitlement programs have ever “collapsed under its own weight”? Enlighten me as to the program that was once implemented and no longer exists? I thought so.

 

Once implemented and funded there’s no turning back. It will be with us forever. That’s what Obama meant when he Thursday exclaimed that we are just five days away from completing the country’s fundamental transformation. Chilling! He understands this is the keystone to ultimate control of our lives.

 

Government shut down or not – this abomination must be killed. The question is, are there enough patriots in the House to do what needs to be done regardless of the “perceived” fallout. The public is squarely behind them, if they have the courage and brains to listen to their voicemails, read their texts, check their Twitter and Facebook and simply look beyond the Beltway for support.

 

We are many, we’re out here and ready to fight for those patriots.

Senate Panel OKs Measure Defining a Journalist

Who couldn’t have guessed this would eventually come up? I wonder if they have an end game in mind?

 

(AP) Senate panel Oks measure defining a journalist
By DONNA CASSATA
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
A Senate panel on Thursday approved a measure defining a journalist, which had been an obstacle to broader media shield legislation designed to protect reporters and the news media from having to reveal their sources.

The Judiciary Committee’s action cleared the way for approval of legislation prompted by the disclosure earlier this year that the Justice Department had secretly subpoenaed almost two months of telephone records for 21 phone lines used by reporters and editors for The Associated Press and secretly used a warrant to obtain some emails of a Fox News journalist. The subpoenas grew out of investigations into leaks of classified information to the news organizations.

The AP received no advance warning of the subpoena.

The vote was 13-5 for a compromise defining a “covered journalist” as an employee, independent contractor or agent of an entity that disseminates news or information. The individual would have been employed for one year within the last 20 or three months within the last five years.

read more