Ever wondered who in Congress is worth keeping? Many believe that in 2010 we should get rid of them all, no questions asked.
Generally speaking I am in favor of term limits, but with exceptions. Some do such an admirable job at attempting to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution and our rights that they deserve to be sent back to Congress.
Well, I have compiled a list, for what it's worth. You can read it at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
Admittedly, most in the House and Senate need to be given the boot. But who deserves another term? Take a look to see.
Showing posts with label U.S. House of Representatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. House of Representatives. Show all posts
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
ALERT! Dems Scheme to Vote on HC by Friday
This is a special alert.
House Democrats are meeting behind closed doors today to attempt to bring the massive multi-trillion dollar government takeover of healthcare bill to a floor vote on or before Friday.
Don't let these scalawags get away with it! Read the breaking news at Columbia Conservative Examiner, and burn up those phone lines.
Don't let them tell you the vote is off, either! They are lying.
House Democrats are meeting behind closed doors today to attempt to bring the massive multi-trillion dollar government takeover of healthcare bill to a floor vote on or before Friday.
Don't let these scalawags get away with it! Read the breaking news at Columbia Conservative Examiner, and burn up those phone lines.
Don't let them tell you the vote is off, either! They are lying.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
ALERT! Watch These in Congress Very Closely!
With the present undercurrent of secret deals and negotiations by the single most corrupt Congress in U.S. History, the following elected representatives should be watched very carefully...to keep them honest (if that is possible).
Stealthy negotiations are under way to give Americans a multi-trillion dollar govt takeover of healthcare that they do not want.
Here are some of the sleazy, underhanded 'negotiators' to watch:
In the House: Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers, and ALL blue dog Democrats who seem to be in a 'compromise' mode.
In the Senate: Max Baucus of Montana, Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe, Jeff Bingaman, Kent Conrad, Mike Enzi, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins.
These 'power brokers' need to be monitored carefully. They will give us a version of Obamacare-lite in the name of 'compromise.'
This is totally unacceptable.
Stealthy negotiations are under way to give Americans a multi-trillion dollar govt takeover of healthcare that they do not want.
Here are some of the sleazy, underhanded 'negotiators' to watch:
In the House: Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers, and ALL blue dog Democrats who seem to be in a 'compromise' mode.
In the Senate: Max Baucus of Montana, Chuck Grassley, Olympia Snowe, Jeff Bingaman, Kent Conrad, Mike Enzi, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins.
These 'power brokers' need to be monitored carefully. They will give us a version of Obamacare-lite in the name of 'compromise.'
This is totally unacceptable.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
DEMS LIE TO AMERICAN PEOPLE ON HEALTHCARE
Just yesterday we saw a graphic display of just how scandalous the House Democratic leadership can be when committee chair Henry Waxman threatened to move to a floor vote on the government takeover of healthcare that very same day.
Conservative 'blue dog' Democrats were outraged and stormed out of a special meeting with Waxman, stating that he had 'lied to them' that they were merely trying to 'save their Party.'
As if this were not enough, White House henchman Rahm Emanuel told reporters yesterday afternoon that in spite of announcing to the public that there would be no vote on the healthcare legislation until the Fall, the House Democratic leadership is, indeed, planning a vote next week--BEFORE the recess.
From NPR:
So much for open, honest, ethical, and transparent government...
Conservative 'blue dog' Democrats were outraged and stormed out of a special meeting with Waxman, stating that he had 'lied to them' that they were merely trying to 'save their Party.'
As if this were not enough, White House henchman Rahm Emanuel told reporters yesterday afternoon that in spite of announcing to the public that there would be no vote on the healthcare legislation until the Fall, the House Democratic leadership is, indeed, planning a vote next week--BEFORE the recess.
From NPR:
The House of Representatives does plan to vote on health legislation before leaving for its August recess, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told NPR.
Emerging from several hours of meetings Thursday with House leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel told NPR's Steve Inskeep that "their intention is to go next week and she is working toward that goal."
So much for open, honest, ethical, and transparent government...
Friday, July 24, 2009
UPDATE! Blue Dog Dems Storm out of Committee!
Stating that they had been lied to by House Committee chair Henry Waxman, D-California, a group of conservative 'blue dog' Democrats stormed out of a meeting with Waxman concerning bringing the government takeover of healthcare to a floor vote today.
This report was filed by The Hill.
The Blue Dogs contend that the House Democratic leadership, Waxman in particular, ceased to negotiate with them 'in good faith,' and that they (the conservatives) were merely trying to 'save their Party.'
Obviously, the Democrats are in complete disarray over this monstrous plan that has sharply divided their own Party.
This report was filed by The Hill.
The Blue Dogs contend that the House Democratic leadership, Waxman in particular, ceased to negotiate with them 'in good faith,' and that they (the conservatives) were merely trying to 'save their Party.'
“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations.
“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,” Melancon said.
Although those Blue Dogs were supposed to be headed back into another meeting of the Energy and Commerce Democrats, their anger was visible.
Obviously, the Democrats are in complete disarray over this monstrous plan that has sharply divided their own Party.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
SPECIAL ISSUE! Bizarre Behavior in the House!
What on earth is going on in the U.S. House of Representatives?
Bizarre behavior, that's for sure.
Read all about it in this special issue of Columbia Conservative Examiner.
Thanks.
Bizarre behavior, that's for sure.
Read all about it in this special issue of Columbia Conservative Examiner.
Thanks.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
EXCLUSIVE--Interview with Conservative for Congress
In this Columbia Conservative Examiner exclusive, we have a chat with a true-blue conservative running against an entrenched liberal Democrat for U.S. Congress.
Click on the link above to read about Mike Yost, the kind of man we need to be sending to Washington.
If the GOP expects to regain the confidence of the American public, it had best be pulling out all the stops to support candidates such as Yost.
Tell a friend?
Click on the link above to read about Mike Yost, the kind of man we need to be sending to Washington.
If the GOP expects to regain the confidence of the American public, it had best be pulling out all the stops to support candidates such as Yost.
Tell a friend?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Pelosi Should Step Down
With her integrity increasingly in doubt, it is time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to relinquish her role as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
This is the subject of my latest op-ed at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
What can we say about someone who would prosecute government officials for waterboarding, when she admits she knew it had been used as far back as 2003, yet said and did nothing?
This is the subject of my latest op-ed at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
What can we say about someone who would prosecute government officials for waterboarding, when she admits she knew it had been used as far back as 2003, yet said and did nothing?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Draconian Rules Change Creates Partisan Furor
The draconian rules change in the U.S. House of Representatives, initiated by Nancy Pelosi and approved overwhelmingly by House Democrats who control the chamber, has created a partisan furor in Washington.
In spite of Barack Obama's talk about 'reaching across the aisle' in a spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats not only gave a thumbs down to that idea but went further to essentially strip the GOP of any influence whatsoever upon proposed legislation.
The rules change will mean the following:
*The repeal of term limits for committee chairs implemented by Republicans
*The elimination of the 'motion to recommit' on the part of the minority Party
*The end of free, open debate on the House floor on Democrat-initiated bills
*The elimination of the opportunity of the minority to offer alternative bills to proposed legislation
As Robert Romano states in the article linked above:
And we can safely add to that list gun control legislation that will roll back the clock to more oppressive times when gun bans and more restrictions on the right to bear arms were the order of the day.
The Democrats have effectively silenced any free, open debate on the House floor concerning these issues of grave significance.
This means, in stark terms, that extremists such as Carolyn McCarthy, Charles Rangel, and John Conyers, among others, can essentially have their way when it comes to legislation restricting Second Amendment rights.
Supposedly the American public rebelled against partisanship in the last election. Yet, the representatives they elected to Congress have just insured the most partisan atmosphere in Washington in decades.
In spite of Barack Obama's talk about 'reaching across the aisle' in a spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats not only gave a thumbs down to that idea but went further to essentially strip the GOP of any influence whatsoever upon proposed legislation.
The rules change will mean the following:
*The repeal of term limits for committee chairs implemented by Republicans
*The elimination of the 'motion to recommit' on the part of the minority Party
*The end of free, open debate on the House floor on Democrat-initiated bills
*The elimination of the opportunity of the minority to offer alternative bills to proposed legislation
As Robert Romano states in the article linked above:
Without the ability to offer alternatives to pieces of legislation like cap-and-trade, socialized medicine, massive bailout proposals for the Majority’s favored industries, restrictions on energy production, etc., the GOP is being robbed of the chance to debate some of the most important issues facing Congress during the coming session.
And we can safely add to that list gun control legislation that will roll back the clock to more oppressive times when gun bans and more restrictions on the right to bear arms were the order of the day.
The Democrats have effectively silenced any free, open debate on the House floor concerning these issues of grave significance.
This means, in stark terms, that extremists such as Carolyn McCarthy, Charles Rangel, and John Conyers, among others, can essentially have their way when it comes to legislation restricting Second Amendment rights.
Supposedly the American public rebelled against partisanship in the last election. Yet, the representatives they elected to Congress have just insured the most partisan atmosphere in Washington in decades.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
UPDATE: Nan Gets Her Way on New Rules
Commissar Nan Pelosi, Speaker of the House, got her way on the new rules as House Democrats voted overwhelmingly to approve a measure that will muzzle Republicans.
Only a small handful of Democrats did the right thing and voted to retain fairness rules that permit the minority Party to block potential legislation.
The Democrats certainly benefited from the fairness rules while Republicans were in the majority. Never did the GOP attempt to thwart the right of the minority Party to block bills.
Yet when Democrats come to 'power' fairness goes out the door.
And now, the Democrats can steamroll any piece of legislation through Congress without having to contend with opposition.
Sieg Heil!
Only a small handful of Democrats did the right thing and voted to retain fairness rules that permit the minority Party to block potential legislation.
The Democrats certainly benefited from the fairness rules while Republicans were in the majority. Never did the GOP attempt to thwart the right of the minority Party to block bills.
Yet when Democrats come to 'power' fairness goes out the door.
And now, the Democrats can steamroll any piece of legislation through Congress without having to contend with opposition.
Sieg Heil!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Pelosi's Recall of Congress in Nov. a Bad Omen?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated over the weekend that she has plans to recall Congress for a special session after the November election, supposedly to 'pass more economic stimulus legislation.'
And certainly this may be one item on the Speaker's agenda, no doubt.
However, there is a much more covert and ominous reason for the Speaker's unusual plan, and it has to do with the upcoming Presidential election.
Despite polls showing that Obama is still running ahead of McCain and winning the electoral vote outright, many observers of the electorate suggest a very close election--unusually close; so close in fact that we may end up with an Electoral College tie.
The Constitution makes it clear what happens at that point. In case of a tie, the election is thrown into the hands of the U.S. House of Representatives. The House then selects the next President.
We all know what this means. The Democrats control the House under Speaker Pelosi. Under normal conditions this would indicate that the Democratic candidate for President would be chosen by the House, in this case, Barack Obama.
Yet Democrats in the House are much more responsive to the wishes of their constituents back home than Senate Democrats. This means that there are many conservative-leaning Democrats in the House who cannot necessarily be counted upon to automatically vote for Barack Obama, should the House be forced to choose the next President.
There are roughly 90-100, possibly more, Democrats in the House who have defied Pelosi's leadership and voted with Republicans on some key issues. These conservative Democrats could be persuaded to join with Republicans to elect John McCain, in the best-case scenario...that is, unless they cave to Pelosi's strong-arm tactics.
And make no mistake about it, she will not hesitate to bring out the whips to keep the underlings in line.
And thus, it could well be that Pelosi's announcement of a special session of Congress in November, after the Presidential election, is a signal that she is preparing for all of the possibilities, including the responsibility of presiding over the election of the next President.
And certainly this may be one item on the Speaker's agenda, no doubt.
However, there is a much more covert and ominous reason for the Speaker's unusual plan, and it has to do with the upcoming Presidential election.
Despite polls showing that Obama is still running ahead of McCain and winning the electoral vote outright, many observers of the electorate suggest a very close election--unusually close; so close in fact that we may end up with an Electoral College tie.
The Constitution makes it clear what happens at that point. In case of a tie, the election is thrown into the hands of the U.S. House of Representatives. The House then selects the next President.
We all know what this means. The Democrats control the House under Speaker Pelosi. Under normal conditions this would indicate that the Democratic candidate for President would be chosen by the House, in this case, Barack Obama.
Yet Democrats in the House are much more responsive to the wishes of their constituents back home than Senate Democrats. This means that there are many conservative-leaning Democrats in the House who cannot necessarily be counted upon to automatically vote for Barack Obama, should the House be forced to choose the next President.
There are roughly 90-100, possibly more, Democrats in the House who have defied Pelosi's leadership and voted with Republicans on some key issues. These conservative Democrats could be persuaded to join with Republicans to elect John McCain, in the best-case scenario...that is, unless they cave to Pelosi's strong-arm tactics.
And make no mistake about it, she will not hesitate to bring out the whips to keep the underlings in line.
And thus, it could well be that Pelosi's announcement of a special session of Congress in November, after the Presidential election, is a signal that she is preparing for all of the possibilities, including the responsibility of presiding over the election of the next President.
Monday, August 04, 2008
HOUSE GOP TO CONTINUE PROTEST TODAY
Sensing that they have an issue that resonates with the vast majority of Americans, the GOP in the U.S. House of Representatives will reportedly continue its floor protest today.
Republican leaders had expressed outrage that Nancy Pelosi adjourned the House for a 5-week vacation in the middle of an oil crisis that has many Americans hamstrung by high prices at the pump.
By a one-vote majority, the Democrats managed to shut down the House over GOP objections that something must be done about gasoline prices before taking their vacation.
But the Republicans didn't go anywhere. They stayed on the House floor long after most had vacated the premises, making speeches on the necessity to 'drill here, drill now' although there were no lights, microphones, or air conditioning.
When local citizens began to hear of the GOP protest, they drove into the Capitol to join the Republicans in demanding a special session of Congress to deal with the drilling issue. Even the tourists who had gathered in the gallery joined in, often cheering Republican speeches on the need for Congress to lift its ban on offshore oil drilling.
A few within the GOP have stated that they intend to stay put throughout the entire 5-week break, calling attention to the inaction and obstructionism of the Democrats in Nancy Pelosi's House.
C-Span cannot carry the floor protest due to the fact that it does not control cameras in the House. The cameras are under the control of Pelosi, and they have been shut off.
For more on this breaking story, click HERE for a report at Politico.com.
Republican leaders had expressed outrage that Nancy Pelosi adjourned the House for a 5-week vacation in the middle of an oil crisis that has many Americans hamstrung by high prices at the pump.
By a one-vote majority, the Democrats managed to shut down the House over GOP objections that something must be done about gasoline prices before taking their vacation.
But the Republicans didn't go anywhere. They stayed on the House floor long after most had vacated the premises, making speeches on the necessity to 'drill here, drill now' although there were no lights, microphones, or air conditioning.
When local citizens began to hear of the GOP protest, they drove into the Capitol to join the Republicans in demanding a special session of Congress to deal with the drilling issue. Even the tourists who had gathered in the gallery joined in, often cheering Republican speeches on the need for Congress to lift its ban on offshore oil drilling.
A few within the GOP have stated that they intend to stay put throughout the entire 5-week break, calling attention to the inaction and obstructionism of the Democrats in Nancy Pelosi's House.
C-Span cannot carry the floor protest due to the fact that it does not control cameras in the House. The cameras are under the control of Pelosi, and they have been shut off.
For more on this breaking story, click HERE for a report at Politico.com.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
House Democrats Call for Socialism
House Democrats on Wednesday showed their true colors by calling for 'the nationalization of the oil industry.'
The classic definition of 'socialism' is 'a system where the government owns the means of production.'
Thus, when Adolf Hitler nationalized certain industry within the Third Reich, he was implementing socialism within Nazi totalitarianism. When Lenin and Stalin forbade private ownership of property, business, and industry, they were implementing socialism within Communist totalitarianism.
Socialism as an economic system will forever be associated with totalitarian regimes of one sort or another. We know for sure that its proponents are anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, and anti-free markets.
And if the truth were known, they probably don't want you to own private property or engage in any form of free enterprise either.
On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, one by one the Democrats called for the nationalization of the oil industry so that 'we can better control the flow of the oil supply.'
Balderdash. The reason they want to own the oil industry is because they don't believe in private enterprise, and the current skyrocketing gasoline prices give them a convenient excuse to seize what is not theirs.
The oil companies and oil refineries do not belong to the government but to the stockholders who invest in them. For government to take private enterprise is stealing, and anyone who attempts to do such a thing should be arrested on the spot, charged with the crime, and taken immediately to jail pending trial.
Read the following sickening and disgusting account of the statements on the floor of our illustrious U.S. House of Representatives, lead by the chief Commie herself, Nancy Pelosi, and her Democrat foot-soldiers in the American version of the Bolshevik Revolution:
http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18
The classic definition of 'socialism' is 'a system where the government owns the means of production.'
Thus, when Adolf Hitler nationalized certain industry within the Third Reich, he was implementing socialism within Nazi totalitarianism. When Lenin and Stalin forbade private ownership of property, business, and industry, they were implementing socialism within Communist totalitarianism.
Socialism as an economic system will forever be associated with totalitarian regimes of one sort or another. We know for sure that its proponents are anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, and anti-free markets.
And if the truth were known, they probably don't want you to own private property or engage in any form of free enterprise either.
On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, one by one the Democrats called for the nationalization of the oil industry so that 'we can better control the flow of the oil supply.'
Balderdash. The reason they want to own the oil industry is because they don't believe in private enterprise, and the current skyrocketing gasoline prices give them a convenient excuse to seize what is not theirs.
The oil companies and oil refineries do not belong to the government but to the stockholders who invest in them. For government to take private enterprise is stealing, and anyone who attempts to do such a thing should be arrested on the spot, charged with the crime, and taken immediately to jail pending trial.
Read the following sickening and disgusting account of the statements on the floor of our illustrious U.S. House of Representatives, lead by the chief Commie herself, Nancy Pelosi, and her Democrat foot-soldiers in the American version of the Bolshevik Revolution:
http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18
Monday, September 03, 2007
Washington: The Beautiful Sound of Silence
Whenever the U.S. Congress goes into recess, the most beautiful sounds one will hear during the entire year emanate from the nation's capital--the sound of silence.
One of those times is now. The Congress has been in recess, but will return with a vengeance on Tuesday after Labor Day.
The Founding Fathers never intended for the Congress to be a full-time job for Senators and Representatives. Perhaps the complications and complexities of modern life have necessitated that change, but I have often wondered if we would not be much better off doing it the way the Founders did it.
Congress was historically in session only as long as it took to take care of the nation's business. Elected officials then had to quickly return home to earn a living and care for families.
Today, Congress is in session so much that it sometimes appears they create for themselves work to do, particularly in that massive and cumbersome monster of a pseudo-government they created called 'the federal bureaucracy.'
Federal bureaucrats are ultimately dependent on Congress granting them the funds and the means to meddle more and more in the affairs of the citizens. Without the meddlesome task of regulating the lives, the property, and the businesses of private citizens, these bureaucrats would have nothing to do.
It is without doubt the ultimate insult, the most ill-informed point of view, and the most blatant display of ignorance to judge an elected representative by 'how many bills they introduced.' Rather, the thing I wish to know is how successful was my Congressman or Senator in stopping legislation from being passed.
We have enough laws on the books as it is, most of which are never enforced, such as the nation's specific and thorough anti-illegal alien laws. Why, then, do we need more laws unless those particular laws expand liberty for the citizens rather than restrict and regulate?
A pet peeve of mine concerning the upcoming formal announcement of Fred Thompson as a candidate for President revolves around this very issue. Critics maintain that 'Thompson is not known for introducing legislation when he was a Senator.'
Well, HALLELUJAH! Amen! We should be celebrating that fact rather than bemoaning it!
The fact that Fred Thompson is not known for getting more laws passed in Congress is a key indication that he adheres to the philosophy of Jefferson--'the government that governs best governs least.'
A politician who adheres to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers is not going to be known for the legislation he or she passes. Rather, they will be known for legislative restraint.
Socialists such as Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and company are the ones who have a corner on 'introducing legislation' that subjects the citizens to more restrictions and regulations. In fact, let them wear that badge of 'honor'--horror would be more like it.
And since this is the gang that controls Congress at present, although with only 16% of the public approving of the job they are doing, it is a good thing--a VERY good thing--that they are out of town on recess. If only they could stay out of town a bit longer.
Thus, when the present Congress is not in session, it is time to stop and count our blessings. For every day they miss work we don't have to worry about more and more cumbersome regulations and 'new legislation' designed to delve us ever deeper into the 'nanny state.'
Washington can actually be a very beautiful place--when the halls of Congress are silent.
One of those times is now. The Congress has been in recess, but will return with a vengeance on Tuesday after Labor Day.
The Founding Fathers never intended for the Congress to be a full-time job for Senators and Representatives. Perhaps the complications and complexities of modern life have necessitated that change, but I have often wondered if we would not be much better off doing it the way the Founders did it.
Congress was historically in session only as long as it took to take care of the nation's business. Elected officials then had to quickly return home to earn a living and care for families.
Today, Congress is in session so much that it sometimes appears they create for themselves work to do, particularly in that massive and cumbersome monster of a pseudo-government they created called 'the federal bureaucracy.'
Federal bureaucrats are ultimately dependent on Congress granting them the funds and the means to meddle more and more in the affairs of the citizens. Without the meddlesome task of regulating the lives, the property, and the businesses of private citizens, these bureaucrats would have nothing to do.
It is without doubt the ultimate insult, the most ill-informed point of view, and the most blatant display of ignorance to judge an elected representative by 'how many bills they introduced.' Rather, the thing I wish to know is how successful was my Congressman or Senator in stopping legislation from being passed.
We have enough laws on the books as it is, most of which are never enforced, such as the nation's specific and thorough anti-illegal alien laws. Why, then, do we need more laws unless those particular laws expand liberty for the citizens rather than restrict and regulate?
A pet peeve of mine concerning the upcoming formal announcement of Fred Thompson as a candidate for President revolves around this very issue. Critics maintain that 'Thompson is not known for introducing legislation when he was a Senator.'
Well, HALLELUJAH! Amen! We should be celebrating that fact rather than bemoaning it!
The fact that Fred Thompson is not known for getting more laws passed in Congress is a key indication that he adheres to the philosophy of Jefferson--'the government that governs best governs least.'
A politician who adheres to the philosophy of the Founding Fathers is not going to be known for the legislation he or she passes. Rather, they will be known for legislative restraint.
Socialists such as Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, John Kerry, and company are the ones who have a corner on 'introducing legislation' that subjects the citizens to more restrictions and regulations. In fact, let them wear that badge of 'honor'--horror would be more like it.
And since this is the gang that controls Congress at present, although with only 16% of the public approving of the job they are doing, it is a good thing--a VERY good thing--that they are out of town on recess. If only they could stay out of town a bit longer.
Thus, when the present Congress is not in session, it is time to stop and count our blessings. For every day they miss work we don't have to worry about more and more cumbersome regulations and 'new legislation' designed to delve us ever deeper into the 'nanny state.'
Washington can actually be a very beautiful place--when the halls of Congress are silent.
Friday, August 31, 2007
UPDATE! Ryan Horsley May Be Appointed to House
The buzz out of Idaho today is that the resignation of Senator Larry Craig will be today. The Governor of Idaho will in all likelihood appoint a present member of the U.S. House of Representatives to fill Craig's seat in the Senate.
If this is the case, that will create a vacancy in the House. It so happens that the district in question is Ryan Horsley's House district.
Horsley has indicated that if politics is in the works for him at the present time, he would prefer to serve in the House rather than the Senate.
We feel that either one would be great for our community and for the citizens of Idaho.
Remember, all of this is speculation at present. We still do not know how the whole thing will play out, and the Governor may appoint Idaho's Lieutenant Governor to the Senate seat, which would mean that there would be NO vacancy except for Lieutenant Governor.
In order to support Horsley's bid to be appointed to either the Senate or the House seats, go to the Red's Trading Post site and click on the link to the Governor's office in Idaho. Let the Governor know that appointing Ryan Horsley to one of these seats would be a great decision.
Click here to go to Red's Trading Post:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/08/ryan-horsley-looking-at-appointment-to.html
If this is the case, that will create a vacancy in the House. It so happens that the district in question is Ryan Horsley's House district.
Horsley has indicated that if politics is in the works for him at the present time, he would prefer to serve in the House rather than the Senate.
We feel that either one would be great for our community and for the citizens of Idaho.
Remember, all of this is speculation at present. We still do not know how the whole thing will play out, and the Governor may appoint Idaho's Lieutenant Governor to the Senate seat, which would mean that there would be NO vacancy except for Lieutenant Governor.
In order to support Horsley's bid to be appointed to either the Senate or the House seats, go to the Red's Trading Post site and click on the link to the Governor's office in Idaho. Let the Governor know that appointing Ryan Horsley to one of these seats would be a great decision.
Click here to go to Red's Trading Post:
http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/2007/08/ryan-horsley-looking-at-appointment-to.html
Friday, June 29, 2007
The House Blocks 'the Fairness Doctrine'
Washington, DC (TLS). In a striking victory for free speech and conservative talk radio, the U.S. House of Representatives today voted to block federal funding to revive the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'
Long derided by conservatives as a ruse by which Democrats seek to shut down conservative talk radio, and thus silence their voices entirely from most of the traditional media, the Fairness Doctrine was born in an era when there was no television, no cable or satellite TV, and no Internet.
In fact, one has to travel all the way back to the year 1929 to understand the context out of which the Fairness Doctrine was born.
Radio was the only source of electronic media in those days. Print newspapers and radio were the only game in town. The Fairness Doctrine was implemented as a means to insure the fair reporting of all sides of political news, since radio was one of only two sources of such news.
Thus, the Fairness Doctrine prevented radio from being dominated by one point of view. Plus, there was no such thing in those days as 'conservative talk radio,' which is funded by market-driven forces based upon ratings.
With the advent of various and sundry different forms of news reporting, such as television, direct mail, and the Internet, no longer did radio have a monopoly on electronic media. Suddenly people could get their political news and commentary in a variety of media.
This meant the end of the Fairness Doctrine, since the circumstances which necessitated it no longer existed.
Liberal politicians within the Democratic Party have long envied the remarkable success of conservative talk radio. And, they most certainly have bemoaned its influence, in spite of the fact that ever since the beginning of television news, political news has been reported with a definite liberal bias.
As legendary ABC News icon Howard K. Smith stated in the 1970s, 'Let's face it. Most of us in this business are liberal Democrats. This is bound to reflect on the manner in which we report the news.'
Yet, in spite of this consistent leftward leaning medium of television, the Democrats simply could not resist turning green with envy when they looked at Rush Limbaugh's ratings. They even attempted several failed forays into talk radio themselves, featuring liberals such as Al Franken and others, all of whom met a quick demise due to low ratings.
When no one is listening to your show, it's hard to get advertisers to spend money getting you to promote their products.
The failure of 'liberal talk radio' in the open marketplace of ideas led many Democrats to conclude that if they cannot compete with the conservatives on the radio, then they should force radio stations through legislation to put liberals on the air.
That legislation came in the form of the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
The House of Representatives, however, under the leadership of several conservative Republicans, successfully passed an amendment to an appropriations bill today that blocks using federal dollars to fund any revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
Not surprisingly, many conservative Democrats joined them in voting for the amendment.
Over in the Senate, don't expect the Fairness Doctrine to have any more success than it did in the House, despite Trent Lott's retort about talk radio 'ruining this country.' A very humbled and contrite Trent Lott appeared on Chris Wallace's Sunday morning program on Fox News to state that, 'Talk radio has helped me in many ways through the years. I believe that they should have the right to say whatever they please.'
Does this mean, then, that Democrats and liberals will be barred from lending their voices to the issues of the day, simply because they cannot shut down conservative talk radio? In spite of the fact that this is obviously what they want the voters to think, don't believe it for a second.
The Democrats still have the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, NBC News, more than a dozen filmmakers in Hollywood, and countless other forms of news to roll out the liberal party line in the media.
And this is precisely why their whines concerning the 'unfairness' of conservative talk radio are simply not credible. In fact, the entire charade makes them look like a bunch of spoiled cry-babies.
Long derided by conservatives as a ruse by which Democrats seek to shut down conservative talk radio, and thus silence their voices entirely from most of the traditional media, the Fairness Doctrine was born in an era when there was no television, no cable or satellite TV, and no Internet.
In fact, one has to travel all the way back to the year 1929 to understand the context out of which the Fairness Doctrine was born.
Radio was the only source of electronic media in those days. Print newspapers and radio were the only game in town. The Fairness Doctrine was implemented as a means to insure the fair reporting of all sides of political news, since radio was one of only two sources of such news.
Thus, the Fairness Doctrine prevented radio from being dominated by one point of view. Plus, there was no such thing in those days as 'conservative talk radio,' which is funded by market-driven forces based upon ratings.
With the advent of various and sundry different forms of news reporting, such as television, direct mail, and the Internet, no longer did radio have a monopoly on electronic media. Suddenly people could get their political news and commentary in a variety of media.
This meant the end of the Fairness Doctrine, since the circumstances which necessitated it no longer existed.
Liberal politicians within the Democratic Party have long envied the remarkable success of conservative talk radio. And, they most certainly have bemoaned its influence, in spite of the fact that ever since the beginning of television news, political news has been reported with a definite liberal bias.
As legendary ABC News icon Howard K. Smith stated in the 1970s, 'Let's face it. Most of us in this business are liberal Democrats. This is bound to reflect on the manner in which we report the news.'
Yet, in spite of this consistent leftward leaning medium of television, the Democrats simply could not resist turning green with envy when they looked at Rush Limbaugh's ratings. They even attempted several failed forays into talk radio themselves, featuring liberals such as Al Franken and others, all of whom met a quick demise due to low ratings.
When no one is listening to your show, it's hard to get advertisers to spend money getting you to promote their products.
The failure of 'liberal talk radio' in the open marketplace of ideas led many Democrats to conclude that if they cannot compete with the conservatives on the radio, then they should force radio stations through legislation to put liberals on the air.
That legislation came in the form of the revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
The House of Representatives, however, under the leadership of several conservative Republicans, successfully passed an amendment to an appropriations bill today that blocks using federal dollars to fund any revival of the Fairness Doctrine.
Not surprisingly, many conservative Democrats joined them in voting for the amendment.
Over in the Senate, don't expect the Fairness Doctrine to have any more success than it did in the House, despite Trent Lott's retort about talk radio 'ruining this country.' A very humbled and contrite Trent Lott appeared on Chris Wallace's Sunday morning program on Fox News to state that, 'Talk radio has helped me in many ways through the years. I believe that they should have the right to say whatever they please.'
Does this mean, then, that Democrats and liberals will be barred from lending their voices to the issues of the day, simply because they cannot shut down conservative talk radio? In spite of the fact that this is obviously what they want the voters to think, don't believe it for a second.
The Democrats still have the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald, Time Magazine, Newsweek Magazine, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, NBC News, more than a dozen filmmakers in Hollywood, and countless other forms of news to roll out the liberal party line in the media.
And this is precisely why their whines concerning the 'unfairness' of conservative talk radio are simply not credible. In fact, the entire charade makes them look like a bunch of spoiled cry-babies.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Showdown Vote on Immigration TODAY
Washington, DC (TLS). The Senate is expected to vote on the immigration compromise bill in today's session. Although 64 Senators voted in favor of 'cloture' to proceed to the consideration of the bill, The Liberty Sphere has learned that there are already defections among the Republicans who originally voted for cloture.
The tentative coalition of Democrats and top Republicans is being severely strained by what some Republican Senators describe as 'being railroaded.'
Republicans complain that they are being railroaded by the Democratic majority which has cut off consideration of their amendments and chosen instead to consider only those amendments offered by Democrats.
This, according to one Republican, is tantamount to being 'silenced.'
The tactical maneuver by the Democratic leadership to ignore all Republican amendments to the bill is the force driving the defections from the coalition.
According to Fox News Wednesday afternoon, there are already 4 Republican Senators who originally voted for cloture yet who indicate that now they plan to vote AGAINST the bill. More defections are expected.
And this is not the only bad news for the bill's supporters. Sources in the House indicate that if the bill is approved by the Senate, it will be dead-on-arrival as soon as it comes to the House.
Within the House there is a much stronger coalition among conservative Democrats and Republicans who oppose the bill than is the case in the Senate. Thus, the House, which by its very nature is closer to the people, is in no mood to antagonize their constituents any further by approving a measure that 70% of the voters deplore.
As for now, the only thing we can do is wait and see. We can only hope that the Senators considering this bill have been listening to the ire of the electorate.
The tentative coalition of Democrats and top Republicans is being severely strained by what some Republican Senators describe as 'being railroaded.'
Republicans complain that they are being railroaded by the Democratic majority which has cut off consideration of their amendments and chosen instead to consider only those amendments offered by Democrats.
This, according to one Republican, is tantamount to being 'silenced.'
The tactical maneuver by the Democratic leadership to ignore all Republican amendments to the bill is the force driving the defections from the coalition.
According to Fox News Wednesday afternoon, there are already 4 Republican Senators who originally voted for cloture yet who indicate that now they plan to vote AGAINST the bill. More defections are expected.
And this is not the only bad news for the bill's supporters. Sources in the House indicate that if the bill is approved by the Senate, it will be dead-on-arrival as soon as it comes to the House.
Within the House there is a much stronger coalition among conservative Democrats and Republicans who oppose the bill than is the case in the Senate. Thus, the House, which by its very nature is closer to the people, is in no mood to antagonize their constituents any further by approving a measure that 70% of the voters deplore.
As for now, the only thing we can do is wait and see. We can only hope that the Senators considering this bill have been listening to the ire of the electorate.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
LIBERTY ALERT! House Passes Gun-Grab
Washington, DC (TLS). In an effort to 'do something' about individuals such as Cho Seung-Hui and his massacre at Virginia Tech, the U.S. House of Representatives, under the pressure of the Democratic leadership, passed a measure that supposedly closes the 'mentally ill' loophole in gun purchases.
Republicans, along with the NRA, jumped aboard this rank piece of stench in order to appease the gun-grabbers who always use incidents such as this to justify their desire to rid the nation of guns, albeit piece by piece.
To its credit, the NRA succeeded in adding a provision that would allow U.S. Veterans who had been diagnosed with some sort of emotional disorder after their time in service to continue to be eligible to buy firearms.
Well, whoop-t-dooooo.
It's not that this is not an important provision, but what about the millions of other law-abiding citizens who will NOT be afforded an exemption, in spite of the fact that they have no history of violent behavior either toward themselves or anyone else, yet at some point or another they have been diagnosed with depression, panic disorder, or some other quite treatable emotional malady?
Well, under this bill they are shit-outta-luck.
Oh they can go through a process to get their names removed from the national registry that designates them as nuts, but that can be a lengthy, shameful, and embarrassing process.
Rather than bar these fine citizens from buying guns, I have a quite different proposal.
Let's ban anyone who has ever been to a psychiatrist or been treated for ANY emotional disorder from serving in Congress!
With the nutcases in control of things on Capitol Hill, this may be the perfect means of getting some sanity back in Washington.
As for the bill the House just passed, my fellow Americans, 'drop 'em, bend over, and grab 'em,' for you are getting ready to be screwed in the you-know-what by your illustrative representatives in the U.S. Congress.
Our only hope is that this abominable piece of legislation will be stopped in the Senate (which, admittedly, seems unlikely).
Read the full story on this rank piece of stench here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070613b.html
Republicans, along with the NRA, jumped aboard this rank piece of stench in order to appease the gun-grabbers who always use incidents such as this to justify their desire to rid the nation of guns, albeit piece by piece.
To its credit, the NRA succeeded in adding a provision that would allow U.S. Veterans who had been diagnosed with some sort of emotional disorder after their time in service to continue to be eligible to buy firearms.
Well, whoop-t-dooooo.
It's not that this is not an important provision, but what about the millions of other law-abiding citizens who will NOT be afforded an exemption, in spite of the fact that they have no history of violent behavior either toward themselves or anyone else, yet at some point or another they have been diagnosed with depression, panic disorder, or some other quite treatable emotional malady?
Well, under this bill they are shit-outta-luck.
Oh they can go through a process to get their names removed from the national registry that designates them as nuts, but that can be a lengthy, shameful, and embarrassing process.
Rather than bar these fine citizens from buying guns, I have a quite different proposal.
Let's ban anyone who has ever been to a psychiatrist or been treated for ANY emotional disorder from serving in Congress!
With the nutcases in control of things on Capitol Hill, this may be the perfect means of getting some sanity back in Washington.
As for the bill the House just passed, my fellow Americans, 'drop 'em, bend over, and grab 'em,' for you are getting ready to be screwed in the you-know-what by your illustrative representatives in the U.S. Congress.
Our only hope is that this abominable piece of legislation will be stopped in the Senate (which, admittedly, seems unlikely).
Read the full story on this rank piece of stench here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070613b.html
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
HOUSE DEMOCRAT CHARGED WITH MULTIPLE FELONIES
Washington, DC (TLS). U.S. Representative William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, has been charged with multiple counts of felonies, including bribery, racketeering, and money-laundering, in a stinging indictment that could potentially carry a 235-year term of imprisonment.
Two years ago investigators found $90,000 in cash hidden in a freezer in Jefferson's residence.
Yet voters in the New Orleans Congressional district elected Jefferson to another term even as a dark cloud of corruption enveloped him.
In addition, the ethically-challenged House of Representatives run by Nancy Pelosi has essentially abdicated its responsibility in following-up on the evidence of gross corruption on the part of Jefferson. The Democrats were elected to a majority in the House partially based upon promises to 'clean up the corruption.' Once in office, however, it was business as usual, not only with the Jefferson case but also with other high-profile corruption cases.
The Republican minority reported late Monday that it intends to force a vote on expulsion for Jefferson in light of today's revelation.
The Liberty Sphere agrees that this is the best course of action, unless Jefferson decides to resign. The charges against him are serious enough that it would be the right thing to do to step down while he deals with the legal ramifications of one of the worst offenses a public servant can commit--that of using his office to take bribes from foreign countries.
Two years ago investigators found $90,000 in cash hidden in a freezer in Jefferson's residence.
Yet voters in the New Orleans Congressional district elected Jefferson to another term even as a dark cloud of corruption enveloped him.
In addition, the ethically-challenged House of Representatives run by Nancy Pelosi has essentially abdicated its responsibility in following-up on the evidence of gross corruption on the part of Jefferson. The Democrats were elected to a majority in the House partially based upon promises to 'clean up the corruption.' Once in office, however, it was business as usual, not only with the Jefferson case but also with other high-profile corruption cases.
The Republican minority reported late Monday that it intends to force a vote on expulsion for Jefferson in light of today's revelation.
The Liberty Sphere agrees that this is the best course of action, unless Jefferson decides to resign. The charges against him are serious enough that it would be the right thing to do to step down while he deals with the legal ramifications of one of the worst offenses a public servant can commit--that of using his office to take bribes from foreign countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)