Fascinating

Five of the wealthiest Muslim countries have taken no Syrian refugees in at all, arguing that doing so would open them up to the risk of terrorism. Although the oil rich countries have handed over aid money, Britain has donated more than Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar combined.

Between 10 and 12 million Syrians have been displaced by the bloody civil war raging in their country. Most still remain within Syria’s borders, but around four million have fled over the borders into neighbouring countries, mostly Turkey Jordan and Lebanon, and beyond.

Lebanon, which has 1.1 million Syrian refugees, shut her borders to the Syrians in June of last year. Jordan, host to another 630,000, followed suit in August last year, preventing more Syrians from abandoning their country.

Think about this also: If the “moderates” and The Christians are the ones fleeing, who’s left?

The Radicals.

Is that the plan??

By early August 2015, European states had received nearly 350,000 asylum applications from Syrians, nearly a third of whom applied to Germany for asylum. Another 65,000 have applied Sweden and 50,000 in Serbia. Hungary and Austria have received close to 19,000 applications each although that figure is likely to rise, while the UK is processing 7,030 applications, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR).

Extraordinary failure to act by Arab countries. Everyone should know. Hat-tip — Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) September 5, 2015

Yet amidst cries for Europe to do more, it has transpired that of the five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula, that is, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, not one has taken in a single refugee from Syria. Instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people. Sherif Elsayid-Ali, Amnesty International’s Head of Refugee and Migrants’ Rights, has slammed their inaction as “shameful”.

He said: “The records of Gulf countries is absolutely appalling, in terms of actually showing compassion and sharing the responsibility of this crisis… It is a disgrace.” None of the Gulf States signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, which legally defines a refugee as “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality”. However, they have taken refugees in the past.

Twenty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of Kuwaitis fleeing Saddam Hussein’s invasion were given refuge. According to Arabian expert Sultan Sooud al-Qassemi: “in Abu Dhabi, the government rented out entire apartment blocks and gave them to families for free.”

“Damn it, open the door to #Syria refugees you apathetic bums” Rich Arab countries to European Union  — SaadAbedine (@SaadAbedine) September 1, 2015

Instead the countries, all of which are within the Top 50 list of wealthiest nations by GDP, have opted to donate aid to those affected by the crisis. According to the Daily Mail, the UAE has funded a refugee camp in Jordan giving shelter to tens of thousands of Syrians, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar have donated funds, food, shelter and clothing to Syrians in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan.

Total donations from the Gulf States are believe to total £589 million, less than a quarter of America’s £2.8 billion, and a fraction of the £65 billion they spent on defence in 2012 alone. The UK has handed over £920 million so far, but the Prime Minister yesterday pledged to increase that figure to £1 billion. He also promised to take in thousands more refugees.

Al-Qassemi has argued in the that the standing that the Muslim countries now have in the world confer on them a moral obligation to step in. “The Gulf States have emerged as the nerve centres of Arab diplomacy, culture, media production, commerce and tourism, amassing an unprecedented degree of soft power unrivalled in the region and beyond,” he said.

They also form “the most influential bloc within the 70-year-old Arab League.”

“But with great power comes great responsibility. The Gulf must realise that now is the time to change their policy regarding accepting refugees from the Syria crisis. It is the moral, ethical and responsible step to take.” (Breitbart)

Or not. 🙂

On Thursday, despite veto threats from the Obama White House, the House passed the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. How overwhelming? It was veto-proof, with 47 Democrats joining Republicans to increase the screening and approval process of Syrian refugees entering the country. Over 2,000 have been admitted so far.

So, what’s so horrific about the SAFE Act (via GovTrack.us):

H.R. 4038 [SAFE ACT] would expand the screening process for those refugees attempting to enter the United States by requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct its own background checks in addition to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS). Any refugee would be prohibited from entry until the FBI certifies that they pose no security threat. Refugees would only be admitted with the unanimous agreement of the FBI, DHS, and Director of National Intelligence.

If you couldn’t find anything controversial about this, you’re normal. And many Democrats viewed this as a reasonable piece of legislation. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough met with House Democrats before the vote, where their presentation on why they shouldn’t support the SAFE Act was pilloried as “too complicated,” or inarticulate at best.

One Democrat, who wished to remain anonymous, went into a caucus briefing opposed to the bill, but left supporting it–adding that the White House “royally f**ked” up their whole strategy in fighting this bill (via Huffington Post):

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has already promised this bill will die in the upper chamber, but that doesn’t mean this issue is going away. Congress needs to pass another spending bill by December 11 to keep the government running. We could be seeing another act of Shutdown Theater, but this time there are no adversaries (via Vox):

Even if Senate Democrats hold the line against a veto override, that won’t permanently solve the problem. It’s looking extremely likely that congressional Republicans will demand changes to Syrian refugee policy as a condition for keeping the government open past December 11. And unlike past shutdown threats, this is one congressional Democrats might actually go along with.For congressional Republicans, this bill is a brilliant strategic move. It’s anodyne enough that it’s attracted broad support from congressional Democrats as well as Republicans. And it’s forced the Obama administration — which has never had good relationships with Democrats on Capitol Hill — to fight an uphill battle.

As reported before numerous times, the FBI has admitted that there is no way they can screen every Syrian refugee. This isn’t an issue to be taken lightly; we should have a serious debate about how to screen these refugees and prevent those who wish to execute a terrorist attack on American soil from entering. Rep. Israel is right regarding the political fallout from this issue. Now is not the time for Democrats to look weak on national security issues, since they’ve been a little light in this area since 1972. The American people are against Obama’s refugee policy, barely 30 percent support it.

The president has mocked Republicans for their position on this crisis that is embraced by voters, along with a substantial amount of members from his own party. Either the president thinks he’s right and we’re all wrong, which isn’t out of the realm of possibility due to his arrogance, or he just doesn’t care. He’s a lame duck. He is, as Allahpundit prolifically says often, a “semi-retired president.”

Then again, we’ll see how this goes. For now, Reid seems confident that there are enough Senate Democrats to prevent cloture. But if Speaker Ryan decides to tie the December 11 spending bill to refugee funding, which he said is on the table, it should be interesting to see how long Reid’s stranglehold grip on his caucus lasts, especially when these issues played a role in defeating Democrats in some of the 2014 races–namely Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina. It has the potential of making Virginia more of a battleground state, given that Arlington County has signaled they’re willing to open the floodgates.

We shouldn’t be shocked if this “I don’t care, I do what I want” attitude persists on this issue within the Obama administration, who didn’t really mind that Democrats were being utterly decimated at the state level since 2009. As for Reid, well, he’s on his way out as well, so his “bull in a china closet” antics are expected as well. Moreover, is there any other attitude to be taken when you do royally mess up on an issue like this?

Just wait for the reaction of this bill ever reaches the president’s desk for his signature.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The Narrative is The Narrative.

🙂

Cruz-ing Along

On the Senate floor Wednesday, Senator Ted Cruz called out Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Dianne Feinstein for their description of Kate’s Law as an attack on all immigrants. Both Reid and Feinstein objected to Cruz’s motion to advance passage of the bill, dishonestly describing it as a wholesale attack on immigrants. The bill would implement a mandatory minimum five-year term of imprisonment for illegal aliens caught reentering the country who were previously convicted of aggravated violent felonies.

The Agenda is The Agenda. The Narrative is The Narrative. And Illegals are just Democrats waiting to vote, even if it kills you!

Kate’s Law is named after Kate Steinle, who died on July 1 after being shot on Pier 14 in San Francisco. Police arrested Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national and convicted felon who was in the United States illegally and because of “sanctuary city” policies was released without any conscience at all.

So the Left also trumpets that the law would cost too much (yeah, I’m sure the irony is completely missed by the Left): “Kate’s Law would suck up every dime you saved from criminal-justice reform and negate it,” said Molly Gill, a government-affairs counsel at FAMM. Undocumented immigrants typically serve between 15 to 18 months in prison under the current sentencing laws before deportation, Gill said.Housing the Kate’s Law inmates for longer periods of time would cost the U.S. Bureau of Prisons an estimated $2 billion per year, according to FAMM. The bureau’s annual budget request for all of 2015 was $7 billion. (The Atlantic)

The get deported and come back the next day. Wow, that was effective and worthwhile. Oh, and the article goes on assert that since these sentences and convictions aren’t really effective, why bother…

Cruz lamented, “It is sad that the Democratic leader chooses to stand with violent criminal illegal aliens instead of the American citizens, but even sadder is that he impugns legal immigrants.” Cruz condemned what he described as the Democratic Party’s cynical belief that Americans are unable to make the distinction between violent criminal illegal aliens and immigrants in the main.

“I am the son of of an immigrant who came legally from Cuba,” Cruz continued. “And for the Democratic leader to cynically suggest that somehow immigrants should be lumped into the same bucket with murderers and rapists demonstrates the cynicism of the modern Democratic party.”

Feinstein recycled Reid’s mischaracterization of the bill, stating, “going overboard, and punishing everybody makes very little sense.” She described Cruz’s words as “over the top rhetoric that moves visceral impulses.” Cruz corrected her, reiterating that aggravated felon illegal aliens are a discrete category that cannot be conflated with all immigrants.

Cruz laid out startling statistics regarding the Obama Administration’s release of violent criminal illegal aliens. In 2013, 36,000 illegal aliens were released while awaiting deportation proceedings. Among this cohort of illegal aliens were violent criminals responsible for 193 homicide convictions, 426 sexual assault convictions, 1075 aggravated assault convictions, 16,070 drunk driving convictions. Beyond this, 68,000 illegal aliens with criminal convictions were never taken into custody by federal authorities for deportation.

So what, as long as they are potentially loyal Democrats and Republicans are “racists” for it Why The F*ck  would the Democrat Party and Harry Reid give a crap about the truth.

So what if Reid and Fienstien CHOOSE murderous ILLEGAL Aliens over the protection of American Citizens…right on the Senate Floor…The Agenda is The Agenda and the Narrative is the Narrative, the truth is irrelevant.

Oh, and it’s not his,Obama’s, fault for his Executive Amnesty and his general policies toward Illegal Immigration, according to Politifact, ” it’s simplistic to suggest the administration has full decision-making authority. Court decisions and federal laws play important roles.”  (I wonder if they felt the same way about Bush or Reagan?) 🙂

It’s the Liberal Courts and The Federal Laws passed by Liberals, Not Obama. Wow!, reaching for that one aren’t we. But it is the usual Liberal Progressive spin.

As I have said repeatedly, for years, the Democrats (and RINOs) don’t give a shit about the truth in any manner at all.

In total, over 104,000 criminal illegal aliens have been released into the public in 2013 under President Barack Obama’s leadership.

That’s 104,000 new Democrats. That’s all that Matters to them. The RINOs just don’t care enough to be called “racists” to object.

Ted Cruz: “But the Obama plan is to allow millions to come in illegally and try to grant them amnesty, grant them a pathway to citizenship, and they believe they’ll vote Democrat in perpetuity to keep the big-government Democrats in power. It is a transformational policy, if amnesty goes through. It changes who we are as a country, if Obama and the Democrats succeed in this.“

Yeah, yeah, I know that makes him  (and Me) a “racist” according to the Left.

Good for him. I don’t give a shit.

Sometimes, the Truth hurts, it’s messy, unpleasant and uncomfortable.

But it’s still the truth!

False Prophets

Hot Air.com: Soon-to-be former Speaker of the House John Boehner is warning about “false prophets” in the Republican Party which are promising things they can’t deliver. He made his ominous claim to CBS’ Face The Nation on Sunday.

“And so, we’ve got groups here in town, members of the House and Senate here in town, who whipped people into a frenzy believing they can accomplish things that they know — they know — are never going to happen.”

So is that why you campaigned VERY hard about defunding ObamaCare and repealing it? Stopping Executive Amnesty?? because you knew they’d never happen but you wanted to whip people up into a frenzy to vote for YOU. 🙂

Now that’s a “false prophet” Johnnie Boy!

Boehner also discussed his “accomplishments” over the last four years including the Ryan-Murray Budget of 2013 (or sequestration, Boehner wasn’t that clear), the “doc fix” bill, and the extension of most of the Bush tax cuts. Whether any of these were actually good for the American people is questionable. The Bush tax cut extension didn’t cut spending at all and just delayed sequestration. The Ryan-Murray budget raised airline fees (aka taxes) and got rid of some of the sequestration cuts, under the promise they’d go back in place in 2022 and 2023 (not that another Congress couldn’t delay those again). The “doc fix” bill was criticized by FreedomWorks as adding $14B to the deficit over ten years. I’m not sure this is really an accomplishment, but Boehner has a message to those (like me) who don’t think it is.

“All done over the last four and a half years with a Democrat president and all voted against by my most conservative members because it wasn’t good enough. Really? You know this is the part that I really don’t understand…Our founders didn’t want some parliamentary system where if you won the majority you got to do whatever you wanted to do. They wanted this long, slow press. So change comes slowly, and obviously too slowly for some.”

Funny, that’s how Washington DOES work and exactly what the Democrats HAVE been doing with your aid and assistance. After all it was unrealistic to promise to do one thing and then actively not do it as a “pragmatic” “compromise. 🙂

As for slow change, I’d say the change in the last 8 years has been pretty rapid and “fundamentally transforming America”, Mr. Soon To be Ex-Obama kiss ass Speaker.

Boehner’s right about change coming slowly, but for the wrong reasons. If you look at how D.C. works (or doesn’t work) it seems like politicians end up being corrupted by the idea of power and the temptation of using it for their own benefit.

They are.

Peter Schweizer wrote in his 2011 book Throw Them All Out how Congress members appeared to play the stock market a bit when it comes to pending legislation.

Wonderful book. Loved it.

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/the-ruling-elite-exposed/

Here’s what Newsweek wrote on the book, including hits on John Kerry and, shock of all shock, Boehner.

The Kerrys’ capital gains on the transactions were at least $500,000, and as high as $2 million (such information is necessarily imprecise, as the disclosure rules allow members to report their gains in wide ranges). It was instructive to Schweizer that Kerry didn’t try to shape legislation to benefit his portfolio; the apparent key to success was the shaping of trades that anticipated the effect of government policy…

Indeed, Schweizer reports that, during the debate over Obama’s health-care reform package, John Boehner, then the House minority leader, was investing “tens of thousands of dollars” in health-insurance-company stocks, which made sizable gains when the proposed public option in the reform deal was killed. (“There are laws and there are rules of the House, and they should be followed,” a Boehner spokesperson tells Newsweek. “The speaker does not make those trades himself. He has a financial adviser in Ohio.”)

This is what happens when politicians end up in Washington for too long. They get corrupted by the system and probably decide to just “go along to get along” when it comes to staying in power and, for lack of a better term, profiting from it. There’s a reason why almost all of the longest serving tenures in the House and Senate start in the 1900’s. Those in power decide to stay in D.C. instead of going home. Essentially, they become “the elites,” instead of those who serve out of the goodness of their own hearts. The 17th Amendment takes most of the blame for this because it allows direct election of Senators, instead of allowing the state legislatures to pick them. What’s amusing is William Jennings Bryan pushed for direct election as a way for the people to keep politicians more accountable, yet it’s obvious there’s no real accountability. Allowing direct election of Senators essentially establishes a cabal where Senators become pals with House members, thus allowing collusion which “benefits” someone other than the constituents they’re supposed to represent.

It’s here where Boehner fails to realize why the so-called “false prophets” are actually the ones who are probably more true than he realizes. It shows how foolish Congress is to keep going from “cliff to cliff” and “deadline to deadline” instead of bothering to actually budget out things. Boehner’s “false prophets” are actually the ones pushing for real reform, real change, and real spending cuts instead of just making deals from time to time to keep the government running. This is why the Tea Pary was so important in 2010 and why it should stay important when it comes to cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and getting it out of my life and yours. Hopefully the “false prophets” are the ones who actually win this fight, instead of the current “elites.” But they’ve got to be careful not to become those they seek to destroy.

Much like the Gay Mafia, that has become the very thing they wanted to destroy.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And Johnnie, you’re one of THEM, and not looking out for US.

Congress Slipped a Bo(eh)ner

The Good News: JAR JAR RESIGNS!

THE BAD NEWS: Boehner 2.0 Coming in November.

There is no way in hell the Establishment RINOs are going to allow an actual Conservative to take over as Speaker. We are going to get Boehner 2.0 shoved down our throats, most likely his loyal Lt., Kevin McCarthy.

THEN WE WILL HAVE TO DETHRONE HIM TOO!

But Jar Jar finally said “NO” for once in the last 5 years and he just might stick to it this time. Have the cowardice of his convictions.

There’s no reason to say nice things about John Boehner that he doesn’t deserve. He didn’t die; he quit his job after enough Republicans FINALLY started moving to unseat him behind the scenes. It would be a better country if that had been done years ago. Other than an earmark ban long ago and sequester cuts, which were practically accidental, John Boehner’s tenure as a leader has been one long, unbroken streak of mediocrity, cowardice and disaster.

Conservatives consider Boehner to be an untrustworthy weakling, Democrats look at him as a joke and the American public despises him. Boehner will leave office as the least popular Speaker in 30 years.

The Man who promised to stop ObamaCare and Executive Amnesty and then actively worked for them to get them passed is gone.

He was against them before he was for them. 🙂

Under the spending deals cut by House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the federal government’s debt has climbed $3,968,445,855,460.28, according to debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.

That works out to an increase in the debt of $26,627.43 per each of the 149,036,000 people who, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, had a full- or part-time job in the United States as of August 2015.

When the first spending deal made by Speaker Boehner took effect on March 4, 2011, the total federal debt was $95,162.43 per the 149,036,000 workers who had jobs as of this August. It now equals $121,789.86 for each of those workers.

Not very “conservative” is he…

“Here’s the attitude. Ohhhh. Don’t make me do this. Ohhhh. This is too hard.” — John Boehner mocks Republicans in Congress who oppose amnesty.

Though his re-election campaign was all about stopping it.

So he was for it before he was against it! 🙂

Short Live his RINO Successor!

As a leader, Boehner’s “strategy” is usually completely reactive. It’s like he reluctantly gets in the ring with the Democrats, leads with his face and hopes that the Democrats will defeat him quickly so he can turn around and yell at the people who insisted he fight for something in the first place.

The perfect example of Boehner’s “leadership” came when Obama shut the government down because the House refused to fund Obamacare.

First of all, you have to keep in mind that John Boehner had publicly promised that the Republican Party would use the power of the purse to stop Obamacare if the GOP took control of the House in 2010.

“We are going to fight to repeal this government takeover of health care and start over with solutions that focus first on lowering costs. Cutting off funding for ObamaCare is absolutely something I support. For example, I would support moving as soon as possible to deny any funding for the estimated 16,500 IRS employees that will be needed to implement ObamaCare. House Republicans will continue to stand with the American people against this unconstitutional government takeover of health care.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, Boehner never had any intention of living up to his pledge.

So eventually Ted Cruz started pushing the idea of using the power of the purse to stop Obamacare and it caught on in the House to such an extent that Boehner felt compelled to try it.

After hemming and hawing that made it clear he didn’t want to pursue the strategy in the first place, Boehner announced that the House was going to fund the government except for Obamacare. Then he came out like a house on fire, slammed Obama for shutting down the government and said he would stand tall!

After a few days of that, Boehner practically went mute while the Democrats continued to hammer away at Republicans. Meanwhile, Boehner ALLIES like Peter King and Devin Nunes publicly undercut the whole strategy, something they would have NEVER done without getting the thumbs up from the Speaker.

“We are the ones who did shut the government down. You don’t take the dramatic step of shutting down the government unless you have a real strategy.” — Peter King

“Unlike many Republicans, (Devin) Nunes is publicly criticizing some of his colleagues, calling them ‘lemmings with suicide vests’ earlier this week.

….’It’s crazy. I don’t understand the whole point, the whole strategy. Most Americans don’t understand it,’ said Nunes.

The California Republican said a small group of lawmakers, what he calls ‘the lemming caucus,’ have been blocking GOP House leadership for three years.

‘It’s guys who meet privately. They’re always conspiring. It’s mostly just about power. And it’s just gotten us nowhere,’ said Nunes.”

Since government shutdowns are essentially a big game of chicken where both sides can equally be said to be at fault, but they try to blame each other, having Republicans in Congress siding with Democrats was very damaging to the effort.

Boehner had options. He could have held out and tried to make a case to the American people. He could have agreed to end the shutdown if Democrats would end the Obamacare subsidy for lawmakers and their staffs. Instead, as per usual, Boehner just surrendered and the shutdown lasted only 16 days.

To top it all off, Boehner went on the Leno Show and said none of it was his fault.

“It was a very predictable disaster, and the sooner we got it over with, the better. I told my colleagues in July I didn’t think shutting down the government over Obamacare would work because the President said, ‘I’m not going to negotiate.’ And so I told them in August ‘Probably not a good idea.’ Told them in early September. But when you have my job, there’s something you have to learn … When I looked up, I saw my colleagues going this way. And you learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk … So I said, ‘You want to fight this fight? I’ll go fight the fight with you.'”

The types of questions people had after this disaster were the ones that dogged Boehner through his whole tenure as “leader.”

The shutdown was a predictable disaster? Then why did he promise to adopt that strategy before he became Speaker? Did he not realize it was a bad idea then or was he just a liar who made promises he never intended to keep? Moreover, if Boehner knew the strategy wouldn’t work, why did he go through with it? Furthermore, how do you call talking tough for a few days and then caving a “fight?” Once Boehner decided to go with the strategy, what was his plan to win – or was it his plan all along to fight a halfhearted battle, lose and then throw up his hands and say, “I tried?” Whatever happened to actually trying to WIN battles for conservatism and the American people? When did that officially become something the Republican Party doesn’t do anymore?

Republicans have a right to expect a lot more out of a leader than drinking, crying and capitulating in every fight that matters. That’s the only thing John Boehner has offered America since he became Speaker of the House and the tragedy isn’t that he’s being muscled out of office, it’s that it didn’t happen much sooner. (John Hawkins)

But just to give you a taste of the Far Left’s response, our friends at the Daily Kos:

Oh no, the Repidiots biggest boner is leaving. Whatever will they use to screw Americans now? There is talk that Rep. McCarthy from California may replace him. That is sending the T (as in terrible) Party into fits of apoplexy. From what I read about him he is a semi intelligent (for a republican) human. He can actually see and understand facts, as opposed to most of the other morons in the party.

This is Homo Superior Liberalis folks!

But let’s get back to the Party while it lasts…

Proof of Jar Jar Binks’s death may be on the way. In a Vanity Fair interview published, appropriately, on Star Wars Day (May the Fourth…), director J.J. Abrams said he just might show fans Jar Jar’s bones.

Sorry, wrong Jar Jar… 🙂

The Petulant Child

Wile E. Coyote, Suuuuper Genius Barack Obama unloaded on his own troops because they dared to defy his royal commands. Oh Petulant One had a hissy fit.

He made his ultra-super secret Trade Deal passed without anyone in the public knowing anything about it.

“You have to pass it to find out what’s in it” kinda thing. Funny, that sounds familiar somehow… 🙂

Democrats, including several who favor Obama’s trade agenda, banded together to prevent the Senate from considering legislation that grants the president so-called Trade Promotion Authority, which would bar Congress from amending or filibustering trade agreements negotiated by the administration. Fifty-two senators voted to start debate on the bill, short of the 60 needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Forty-five senators voted against the plan.

I am King, am I not?

Article by: Brent Budowsky formerly served as policy aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex) and Legislative Director to Rep. Bill Alexander D-Ark.), then Chief Deputy Majority Whip.

President Obama’s performance in pushing for approval of fast track legislation of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, in which he’s allied with Republicans and has spent the last week castigating and insulting liberal Democrats, has been one of the most bizarre and ill-advised performances of his presidency.

I spent many years working for senior Democratic Senators such as Lloyd Bentsen and House Democratic leaders beginning with the legendary Speaker Tip O’Neill, and have never seen any president of either party insult so many members of his own party’s base and members of the House and Senate as Mr. Obama has in his weeks of tirades against liberals on trade.

His Agenda is his Agenda and even his allies are targets of his childish wrath if you get in the way of this would-be Emperor’s wants. He wants what he wants when he wants it and because he wants it. That should be good enough for anyone, in his less than  humble opinion.

In Mr. Obama’s speech at Nike last week, his comments to Matt Bai of Yahoo over the weekend, and White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s comments to reporters on Monday, Mr. Obama and his White House staff have repeated a string of personal insults directed against prominent liberal Democrats in Congress, liberal Democrats across the nation, organized labor, and leading public interest and environmental groups who share doubts about the TPP trade deal.
By the time the House and Senate finish their work on trade the headline will probably be either “Obama loses on trade” or “Obama and Republicans win on trade.” Either outcome is undesirable for Obama.

But the spin master supreme will concoct something sick & twisted, stay tuned.   

Mr. Obama’s tirades on trade have included accusations that these liberal Democrats are ignorant about trade policy, insincere when offering their opinions, motivated by politics and not the national interest, and backward looking towards the past. Obama’s repeated attacks against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), in which he charged that Warren’s concern about the trade bill is motivated not by a reasoned view of what is right for America but by her personal political motivations, is one of the most dishonest and repellant examples of character assassination and contempt by any American president, against any leading member of his own party, in my lifetime.

Of course Ms. Warren, the most nationally respected liberal leader in American politics, is motivated by what she believes is right for the nation. Doubts about the trade bill are not limited to Ms. Warren. They are shared by the leader of Senate Democrats, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the leader of House Democrats, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and a majority of Democrats in the Senate and House as well as a significant number of leading liberal economists.

For the President to suggest that he knows more about trade then all of them do, and that they are all ignorant about the trade bill and trade policy, is staggeringly false and contemptuous of many who have been working on trade policy far longer than he has and know far more about trade, in truth, than he does.

For Obama to question liberals’ knowledge of trade, when he has chosen to keep the terms of the trade talks secret from the American people and most leading trade experts, and classified them as though the terms of trade talks should be equated with nuclear weapons secrecy, is absurd. As Elizabeth Warren and many others charge that the game is fixed, does anybody seriously believe that the highest paid lobbyists for the most wealthy global conglomerates that will reap the greatest profits from the trade pact are not aware of the key details of the trade talks that are being kept secret from most of the nation?

Let’s be clear. The issue is not protectionism versus free trade. Globalization is here to stay; it cannot be wished away. The issues are what should be the fair terms of trade; whether these terms should be decided in secrecy, where the winners get special access to the terms of the deal where the losers and the nation as a whole are kept in the dark; and whether Obama can lead an informed national discussion based on shared knowledge and mutual respect that his tirades about trade have failed to offer.

Obama should be nervous. By the time the House and Senate finish their work on trade the headline will probably be either “Obama loses on trade” or “Obama and Republicans win on trade.” Either outcome is undesirable for Obama.
President Barack Obama speaks to Nike Employees and other Oregonians at Nike Headquarters May 8, 2015 in Beaverton, Oregon. (Photo: Natalie Behring/Getty Images)

President Barack Obama speaks to Nike Employees and other Oregonians at Nike Headquarters May 8, 2015 in Beaverton, Oregon. (Photo: Natalie Behring/Getty Images)

Obama’s inexplicable mistake is that rather than try to persuade liberal Democrats to support the trade bill, and rather than push Republicans to accept amendments that would tie a major jobs bill to the trade bill to mitigate the economic damage that liberals correctly worry about, Obama joins Republicans in castigating liberal Democrats.

To make matters worse, Obama’s insults against liberal Democrats on trade materially harm the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who needs to solidify trust from the liberals who distrust the trade bill. Does Clinton want to side with Obama and against the overwhelming majority of Democratic liberals on trade, on an issue where Obama’s attacks against liberals have inflamed many of them? Or does she want to side with the liberals, which could lead to defeat of the trade bill and alienate many of her business supporters?

Obama to this day does not fully understand why Republicans walloped him in the 2010 midterm elections, taking control of the House, and walloped him again in the 2014 midterms, taking control of the Senate, leaving his presidency a prisoner of a Congress that is fully controlled by Republicans.

What happened in 2010 and 2014 is that Obama inflamed conservative and Republican voters to vote in large numbers, while he depressed many liberal and Democratic voters who stayed home on Election Day. Obama’s current contempt for liberals on trade reinforces a trend that leads to the worst election results for Democrats.

For Obama to fire insults against liberals at Nike last Friday only adds insult to insult to injury. Nike is one of the companies most associated with exporting American jobs abroad to low-wage nations that often have abusive practices against workers. Is the president who says liberals don’t know what they are talking about on trade intellectually unaware of this, or callously insensitive to this, or so contemptuous of liberals he simply does not care?
    
Obama should be listening to liberals and working with liberals, not insulting liberals who want more high paying jobs under better conditions for American workers and workers around the world.

At this late date there is still a solution that can help Obama escape from the box he has created for himself, and help America avoid the worst aspects of globalization that could further hurt America.

The president should declassify and make public the terms of the trade talks to convince the nation there is no hidden danger lurking in the secret trade deal, to allow the leading economists and policy advisors of the nation to fully debate and clearly propose the best jobs plans to mitigate any damage.

In particular, President Obama should lead the charge to include in a trade bill the long-discussed and never enacted plan (which many business leaders and Republicans support) to create massive numbers of high wage jobs to rebuild America’s roads, ports, bridges, and schools.

No nation can avoid the economic facts that cause and will continue globalization. And no nation can avoid the economic fact that unfair terms of trade become a job destruction machine migrating jobs from higher wage nations to lower wage nations, creating downward pressure for wages in all nations, while computers and robots replace men and women doing the work of the world.

On trade Obama should be listening to liberals and working with liberals, not insulting liberals who want more high paying jobs under better conditions for American workers and workers around the world.

But he wants the credit, for his Acme-inspired plan, for after all, he is Barack Obama, Suuuper Genius!

“Most people don’t realize that we actually fixed a lot of what was wrong with NAFTA in the course of this,” said Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), one of the few Democrats to stick with Obama on the vote. “We need to be negotiating in the present, in the present tense, and not the past.” (HP)

Mind you, that was a trade deal promoted and passed by DEMOCRATS 22 years ago that was supposed to make everything come up rainbows and unicorns, so pardon me if I scoff…

Backbone

Congress: Republicans are headed towards losing their nerve against President Obama on amnesty by passing a “clean” homeland security bill. If they do, many 2016 voters will consider it a dirty betrayal.

The Homeland Security/immigration amnesty showdown is, in the words of the Washington Post, “a fractious and politically harmful family feud” among Senate and House Republicans now enjoying a majority in both congressional chambers.

Republicans’ ability to govern in united fashion is at stake, the dominant media, and the liberal Democratic politicians they cater to, tell us.

But this is really about something much bigger: maintaining GOP nerve, especially considering Republicans’ 2014 campaign promises to stand up against Obama and top Senate Democrat Harry Reid.

If the party lets itself lose this battle, Democrats will repeat their Senate filibuster strategy over and over again this year and next.

As a GOP Senate aide earlier this month told National Review’s Joel Gehrke: “If the Democrats, as a minority in the Senate, can not only tell the majority what bills they can bring up and whether or not they can or can’t have amendments, but also feel like they have the power to tell the House what bills they have to pass, it’s going to be like this on every single issue.”

In this particular case, the public should view the White House and Senate Democrats, not Republicans, as sacrificing homeland security on the altar of politics.

The department’s funding officially expires at midnight Friday. But a DHS “shutdown,” in fact, will have no real negative effects on the safety of the nation since 85% of its employees are “essential,” exempt from furloughs. TSA workers will still grope airline passengers during such a “shutdown,” just as before.

So the “shutdown” is a bully scare tactic that the Republicans should call the Democrats bluff on, but the Senate doesn’t have the backbone for it.

Moreover, as House Speaker John Boehner pointed out to reporters on Thursday, “we passed a bill to fund the department six weeks ago — six weeks ago!”

As Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, correctly recalled regarding the last DHS shutdown, “I don’t remember anybody noticing.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, this week strongly opposed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s “clean” DHS bill, with separate anti-executive amnesty legislation later. “Congress is obliged to use every constitutional check and balance we have to rein in President Obama’s lawlessness, and that includes … the power of the purse,” he said.

Many Republican senators have six or four years to go before worrying about re-election; with a two-year term, GOP House members don’t have that luxury.

If the Stupid Party wants to get smart and make next year one of victory in the executive and legislative branches — instead of going home to angry “town hell” meetings with base voters — it will stand strong now. (IBD)

The Cave-in

AS predicted some time ago, the Republicans who refused to deal with the unconstitutional Executive Amnesty before the election, after the election and now after the seating of the new Congress are going to cave YET AGAIN to the schoolyard bullies that are The Democrats.

The Democrats knew the Republicans have no balls.

So are the Republican worth even having in Washington DC if they have a majority in both Houses and they still cave-in to the Democrats every time the word “shutdown” comes up ?? Even if it’s “unconstitutional” the Republican won’t stand their ground.

Well, when the Democrats get 5 million newly minted Welfare Democrats and use them to destroy the Republican Party for good, I guess we’ll have our answer. 😦

Shall we coronate Queen Hillary The First now?

With the Homeland Security Department set to shut down on Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday offered Senate Democrats everything they wanted. And then, as with mice and cookies, they asked for some more.

McConnell told reporters Tuesday that after two months of begging, he would finally agree to give Democrats a clean vote to fund DHS through the end of the fiscal year. The funding, based on an agreement between Democratic and Republican appropriators last year, would come with no strings attached.

“I’ve indicated to the Democratic leader that I’d be happy to have his cooperation to advance the consideration of a clean DHS bill which would carry us through till September 30th,” McConnell said to press Tuesday.

Then, he would hold a vote Friday to defund President Obama’s executive action on immigration, as a consolation prize for conservatives in the House and Senate who have pushed to tie the two issues together. That sequence would keep DHS open and could earn enough Democratic votes to pass the separate measure defunding the president’s executive action. Already Sens. Claire McCaskill and Joe Manchin have said they will vote to move forward the immigration bill; although McCaskill said that the DHS funding must come first and hasn’t made a decision on whether she’ll vote for the underlying immigration measure.

 

But when Democrats heard the news, they were not impressed. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said that he had a positive meeting with McConnell on Tuesday, but then asked for more: House Speaker John Boehner’s guarantee that the clean DHS funding bill could pass the House.

That’s a tall order for Boehner, who will meet with his conference to discuss their options on Wednesday. It’s likely that a clean DHS funding bill will earn the vast majority of Democratic votes in the House, but with conservatives riled up about the immigration measure, it will be a much harder sell in Boehner’s own conference.

McConnell told reporters Tuesday, “I do not know what the House will do.”

McConnell spokesman Don Stewart would not say whether McConnell had told Boehner about his new strategy before making the announcement Monday night, although he acknowledged that the two leaders speak often.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said McConnell announced the decision at a conference luncheon Tuesday, but that the announcement had drawn ire from more-conservative members who believe McConnell was giving in to Democratic demands without holding the president accountable. Multiple Republicans in the meeting said there was still broad disagreement as to whether a caving to Democrats demands for a clean funding bill was the best course forward.

“Most of us feel like the courts gave us a major victory,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said outlining the rationale for McConnell to offer a clean DHS bill now after weeks of not backing down. “Sometimes it makes a lot of sense to bank victories and move ahead.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who has been a major advocate of tying DHS funding to blocking Obama’s actions, says he thinks leadership should stick with the original plan.

“I think it is a big deal of huge, historic importance,” Sessions says.” I will be glad to consider what our leaders have talked about, but I remain firmly convinced that at this point Congress should put the heat where it belongs, and that is on the president.”

Outside conservatives, who have been known to influence Boehner’s ability to get his conference to “yes” have already said they are opposed to stand alone DHS funding bill. Senate Conservatives Fund tweeted Tuesday, “Senate GOP leaders surrender again … plan to fund Obama’s amnesty for the rest of the fiscal year.”

The influence, especially of a group such as Heritage Action for America, which announced it will key vote a “no” on a clean DHS funding vote, could still derail any DHS deal. “As the majority leader said last year, the power of the purse is the ‘only tool’ Congress has to rein in executive overreach,” Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham said in a statement.

“I think it is clear that the House has not agreed on a strategy yet,” Flake told reporters.

For Democrats, the only way to pass a DHS bill is without amendments defunding Obama’s unilateral actions. “Separation’s important,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said after the press conference, “and the order if it’s going to be accomplished before the deadline really requires us to move to the funding bill first.”

“If this is a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, it’s going to have a lot of Democratic support,” Durbin added.

The deal appeared to still be very delicate Tuesday afternoon, however, when a senior GOP House aide accused Democrats of demanding too much.

“Apparently inspired by President Obama’s own overreach, Senator Reid is now shamelessly threatening to filibuster a ‘clean’ Homeland Security funding bill,” the aide said. “The American people are watching, and there will be consequences for Senate Democrats’ hypocrisy and irresponsibility.”

Democrats will need to agree to McConnell’s new plan for the DHS funding bill to move forward. The minority—or at least six of its members—will have to agree to allow the Senate to take up the House-passed DHS bill, which Democrats have already voted down four times. The House bill currently includes several amendments defunding Obama’s executive actions on immigration from the past three years, but McConnell has promised that he would move to remove them once Democrats agree to get on the bill.

If Democrats continue to filibuster the funding bill, McConnell said Tuesday he would bring up the immigration measure from Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on Friday anyway.

Welcome, to the end of America.