Congress Slipped a Bo(eh)ner

The Good News: JAR JAR RESIGNS!

jar jar

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… 🙂

Tranforming America

In this presidential cycle, voters in both parties, to the surprise of the punditocracy, are rejecting experienced political leaders. They’re willfully suspending disbelief in challengers who would have been considered laughable in earlier years.

Polls show more Republicans preferring three candidates who have never held elective office over 14 candidates who have served a combined total of 150 years as governors or in Congress. Most Democrats are declining to favor a candidate who spent eight years in the White House and the Senate and four as secretary of state.

And going in larger numbers for the complete Socialist package with little baggage, Bernie Sanders.

Psephologists of varying stripes attribute this discontent to varying causes. Conservatives blame insufficiently aggressive Republican congressional leaders. Liberals blame Hillary Clinton’s closeness to plutocrats and her home email system.

But in our system the widespread rejection of experienced leaders ultimately comes from dismay at the leader in the White House. In 1960 Richard Nixon, after eight years as vice president and six in Congress, campaigned on the slogan “Experience counts.” No one is running on that theme this year.

Nixon could, because over the preceding quarter-century the majority of Americans mostly approved of the performance of incumbent presidents. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower still look pretty good more than 50 years later.

Barack Obama doesn’t. His deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes recently said that the president’s nuclear weapons deal with Iran was as important an achievement of his second term as Obamacare was of the first. Historians may well agree.

These two policy achievements have many things in common.

nuclear_blast

Both were unpopular when proposed and still are now. In March 2010 Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that people would know, and presumably like, what was in the bill after it was passed. But most Americans didn’t like it then and most don’t today, five and a half years later. As for the Iran deal, Pew Research reports it has only 21 percent approval today, much lower than Obamacare in 2010.

But since both are on THE AGENDA, they and The Ministry of Truth are happy.

What “the American People” want is irrelevant nowadays. It’s what The Agenda wants, whether it’s The Democrats or The Republican Elite RINOs.

Both Obamacare and the Iran deal were bulldozed through Congress through legislative legerdemain. Democrats passed Obamacare by using the temporary 60-vote Senate supermajority gained through a Minnesota recount and the wrongful prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens. After they lost the 60th vote, they resorted to a dubious legislative procedure.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

This year Obama labeled the Iran treaty an executive agreement, and Congress concocted a process requiring only a one-third-plus-one rather than a two-thirds vote for approval. Only 38 percent of members of Congress supported it. Many, such as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, did so only after saying that they never would have accepted it in negotiations.

But the Republicans, allegedly in control of Congress,  willfully submitted to this slight of hand rather than stand on the principles that got them elected in the first place.

And they have done this REPEATEDLY. The Minority (Democrats) are still in control of Congress.

In 2008 Obama promised he would “fundamentally transform” America, and Obamacare and the Iran deal are indeed fundamental transformations of policy –transformations most Americans oppose.

But are on THE AGENDA, so they must be.

Obamacare assumed that financial crisis and recession would make most voters supportive of, or amenable to, bigger government. But as National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru points out, polling doesn’t show that. Obama assumed that if America could “extend a hand” to such propitiated enemies as the mullahs of Iran, they would become friends with us. Most Americans think that’s delusional. No wonder voters are angry.

So he goes out an gets more Illegals to vote for Democrats instead. After all, it’s about the power of Homo Superior Liberalis. The Agenda is The Agenda.

Republican voters are frustrated and angry because for six years they have believed they have public opinion on their side, but their congressional leaders have failed to prevail on high visibility issues. Their successes (clamping down on domestic discretionary spending) have been invisible. They haven’t made gains through compromise because Obama, unlike his two predecessors, lacks both the inclination and ability to make deals.

Rigid Ideologues and weak spined Republicans will do that.

So Republicans who imposed harsh litmus tests in previous presidential cycles (like asking candidates if they’ve ever supported a tax increase, or if they’ve ever wavered in their opposition to abortion) are flocking to Donald Trump, a candidate who would fail every one of them. They are paying little attention to candidates — Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal — who advance serious proposals to change public policy.

Because, we don’t believe them. The proof is in the Jar Jar Boehner and Mitch The Ditch pudding.

In polls, Democratic voters have stayed loyal to the president. But to listen to their candidates (and maybe-candidate Joe Biden) you would think we are in our seventh year of oppression by a right-wing administration. You don’t hear much about the virtues of Obamacare or the Iran deal — or “choice.”

Of course not, it’s still, Vote for Me, the “other guy” is an asshole. The “other guy” is still the fear mongering and “Bush” narratives. Grandma is still going be thrown out in the street by evil White, Male, Rich Republicans. The candy is still going to be stolen from babies by evil, heartless Conservatives.

The narrative hasn’t changed because The Democrats haven’t changed.

Most Americans hoped the first black president would improve race relations. Now most Americans believe they have gotten worse.

White Guilt has bit them in the asp!

And so a president who came to office with relatively little experience has managed to tarnish experience, incumbency and institutions: a fundamental transformation indeed. (Michael Barone)

those dame dirty nukes! Agree with me or else!

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Agenda is the Agenda

Anyone who opposes the new Manifesto of homosexuality and gender neutrality/gender identity is at risk.

You will comply, or else!  That’s the American way. 🙂

J Mark Brewer: I was a law student when I first learned of the consequences of not being politically correct concerning homosexuality.  A former Miss America’s contract as the citrus growers’ brand-ambassador was allowed to lapse because she had successfully campaigned for the repeal of a pro-homosexual ordinance in Miami-Dade County. 

She was quoted as saying, “What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable, alternate way of life.”  She was publicly humiliated – “pied” on national television – and her name – Anita Bryant – became synonymous with something called “homophobia” and “hate speech.”

As a new Air Force J.A.G. officer, my first court assignment was to represent the United States in an administrative discharge proceeding concerning a female service member.  She was being kicked out of the service for allegedly engaging in homosexual acts.  Even as an inexperienced young lawyer, I managed to prove that she had committed the requisite two homosexual acts.  She was given a “general” discharge and sent back to the United States.

I don’t remember when thereafter I first noticed that there are only two instances in which “sex” occurs in the “ethics” rules for lawyers.  Both are in the same, “anti-discrimination” provision:  “A lawyer shall not willfully, in connection with an adjudicatory proceeding … manifest, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, or sexual orientation towards any person involved in that proceeding in any capacity.” 

There it was – right there with the prohibition racial discrimination; a lawyer could not “manifest” any “bias or prejudice” based on “sexual orientation.”  Hadn’t I done precisely that just a few years earlier?  Hadn’t I done that on behalf of the United States government?  And yet in that case, I hadn’t set out to prove that the female service-member was a homosexual.  My task was limited to proving that she had engaged in homosexual conduct. 

Then, suddenly, the issue of homosexual rights – that is, not the right to be a homosexual – but the right to openly engage in homosexual practices and be insulated from any push back from the rest of society – was everywhere.  Suddenly it had become a daily staple of bar journals and legal news sources.  I don’t remember when I first noticed that.  Was it when California’s voters approved a referendum that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”?  It must have been before then.  It must have been as early as 1993 when I first noticed the enormous consequences of this new so-called right.  That was the year Travis County, Texas legalized “domestic partnerships,” in order to attract business investment to Austin, the state capitol.                     

Not until the spring of 2015, however, did the consequences of this new “right” really begin to sink in for me.  That’s when I knew that people who for years had thought that the emerging collection of special protections for homosexual behavior was, “no big deal,” were flat wrong.  Indiana Gov. Mike Pence had signed a “religious freedom” bill.  The backlash, in the name of homosexual rights, was ferocious with the now infamous threats and boycott of a small-town pizza joint whose owners had the temerity to volunteer that they would decline to cater a homosexual marriage celebration. 

So, now we know that Anita Bryant was right – at least partly so – when she embarked on her doomed campaign nearly 40 years ago.  Ms. Bryant primarily worried about children being confronted with a dangerous alternative way of life.  Today, all opponents of special homosexual rights have cause to be worried about their very survival – legal and economic.  Anyone who opposes the new Manifesto of homosexuality and gender neutrality/gender identity is at risk.

 
 

Using statutes originally and primarily (if not exclusively) designed to protect blacks from discrimination, activist homosexuals have targeted bakers, photographers, and florists, seeking to force all of them to promote a “marriage” that they believe to be immoral.  One day, such laws probably will be deployed against writers of articles like this one. 

In Washington State, a judge ruled that a florist violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws when she referred a longtime customer to another florist for the wedding flowers for his homosexual marriage.  In New York, a husband and wife shut the doors to their business hosting weddings on their family farm, after a court fined them $13,000 for refusing to host gay marriages in their home.  In Colorado, a baker faced jail time and stopped baking wedding cakes entirely, after a court ruled that he discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake them a cake for their wedding.  In Oregon, a court found similarly against another baker, and he may be forced to pay a homosexual couple up to $150,000 as penalty.  The New Mexico Supreme Court held that a photographer violated the state’s anti-discrimination statutes by refusing to photograph a gay wedding.  Newspapers likely will be forced to publish homosexual wedding announcements, in violation of their existing editorial control over what they publish.

Even pro-same sex marriage, libertarian, John Stossel has said that the gay marriage movement “has moved from tolerance to totalitarianism.”

To homosexual activists and their political supporters, it matters not one whit that homosexuality is not consistent with Biblical sexual morality. 

In this brave, new, homosexual-friendly world, every licensed professional would be required to embrace the new orthodoxy – to bow down to the idol of “non-discrimination,” or be cast out of his profession.  I was co-counsel on an amicus brief against same-sex marriage in the Obergefell case; the Texas Attorney General also filed an amicus brief on behalf of the State of Texas against same-sex marriage.  Does that put us in violation of the ethics rule previously quoted?

If the U.S. Supreme Court forces same-sex marriage on the states, unless the states resist such a ruling, the legal system will be employed to squash resistance to the new order.  Lawyers who oppose this not-so-brave new world will begin to lose their right to practice law for violation of the new so-called “ethics” of the profession.  An Obama Department of Health and Human Services will push for all physicians who stand up for Christian morality to be stripped of their hospital privileges and medical licenses.

According to the advocates of homosexual marriage in the U.S. Supreme Court, the right to a homosexual way of life is enshrined in the penumbras and emanations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection – or is it Due Process – or both.  (Apparently, this even explains why the Civil War itself was fought.)  In fact, this new right is said by these advocates to be so deeply embedded in the Constitution that it trumps the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.  And it empowers government to run aspects of our lives that it has no business controlling.

The same people who first claimed to only want tolerance of their behavior will allow no toleration for other views.  Will a physician be forced to perform an artificial insemination for a lesbian couple?  Will a lawyer be forced to take a case defending gay marriage?  Lawyers are already losing their “traditional prerogative to exercise absolute discretion in the selection of clients … .”  Provisions designed to advance the homosexual agenda have been incorporated into many state legal ethics codes.  In California, for example, it is unethical to “discriminat[e] on the basis of … sexual orientation [in] employment … or [client] representation … .”  State Bar of California, Rules of Professional Conduct:  Rule 2-400B.  If you doubt this view of the future, read R. Beg, “License to Discriminate Revoked:  How a Dentist Put Teeth In New York’s Anti-Discrimination Disciplinary Rule,” 64 Albany L. Rev. 154 (2000). 

I fear that the legal system has lost its way, and the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court could well lay the groundwork for government to assume the sort of totalitarian powers required to force everyone to yield to what most of us hopefully still believe to be immoral.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.  Instead, right-thinking people can and should not be afraid to assert their God-given rights.  They should not – must not – fail in their duty to teach Biblical sexual morality to their children despite state-sponsored interference.  They should accept the challenge and obey their conscience – even if that means refusing totalitarian orders to bow down at the altar of homosexuality.  We did not seek this war, but if it comes, we must not shirk from it. 

I find your lack of faith disturbing….

The brutal business of The Elite Agenda that doesn’t give a shit what the American People want or need. It’s what THEY want.

A Secret Deal, that you have to pass before you get any details…sound familiar??

President Obama won a big victory for his trade agenda Friday with the Senate’s approval of fast-track legislation that could make it easier for him to complete a wide-ranging trade deal that would include 11 Pacific Rim nations.

A coalition of 48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for Trade Promotion Authority late Friday, sending the legislation to a difficult fight in the House, where it faces more entrenched opposition from Democrats.

The Senate coalition fought off several attempts by opponents to undermine the legislation, defeating amendments that were politically popular but potentially poisonous to Obama’s bid to secure the trade deal.

“This is an important bill, likely the most important bill we will pass this year. It’s important to President Obama,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and primary author of the bill, said at the close of debate.

Way more important than the Executive Amnesty or the Iran Nuke Bill or ISIS, or even Climate Change (that is the more important, after all, according to our King).

The Barons have spoken! The peasants are revolting…They stink on ice.

Want to know how out of whack this whole thing is?

This is from the Super-Liberal Progressives at The Daily Kos:

Senators are forced to go into a classified viewing room in order to read the full text of the document, but are not allowed to bring in key staff or take notes on what is included in the bill text.  Not only this, but as you would assume for classified documents, elected officials are unable to speak to anyone without proper security clearance about the specific details of the trade negotiations without suffering potential criminal legal ramifications. This becomes a serious issue when dealing with complicated and technical negotiations regarding the largest trade deal in American history.  It also raises serious questions about the legislative process and democracy generally when the public is unable to view the content of a bill introduced in Congress, but foreign government officials and private corporations are.

The Democrats are mad about secrecy from the group that gave us “You have to pass it to find out what’s in it”!!!!

Really?

It’s hilarious that the Progressives who gave us NAFTA and ObamaCare , that continue to hide Hillary Clinton from the truth, are so bend out of shape NOW!

Wow, thanks to “Jar Jar” Boehner and his Dumber Cousin Mitch for their “leadership” in ‘fighting’ the Obama Agenda.

(man my fingers nearly snapped off trying to right that sentence without a complete mental breakdown).

Sith Lords in Disguise? Or they’ve just been in DC so long they are converts to The Dark Side.

The Elite Republicans have now shown that re-electing them is virtually no different than re-electing Progressives, they just dress it up nicer.

Gee, why am I not surprised? 🙂

Politics really is about strange bedfellows.

What is especially significant is that the poll shows this anger is bipartisan. Only 41% of Republicans approve of the performance of the GOP congressional leadership. This is much lower than the 60% approval rating GOP leaders received in 2011 and the 78% approval rating they received from Republicans in 1995, months after the party took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Now ask yourself if Boehner & Co actually care what you think?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, are typical establishment Republicans who have been on Capitol Hill too long. They are opposed to the Tea Party and true conservatives and have no interest in real reform or following the wishes of grassroots Republicans.

Just four months after the Republicans took control of the Senate and House, most of the GOP electorate has lost faith in congressional leadership. It is no surprise since nothing has been accomplished except the Keystone Pipeline bill, which President Obama vetoed, and the House-passed bill ending abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. On almost everything else, there has been rhetoric, but no action.

Despite the fact that almost every Republican congressional candidate campaigned against Obamacare and the President’s executive amnesty for five million illegal aliens, Congress voted to fund both programs. The Senate approved the radical nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General and just gave Obama a major victory by approving legislation giving him more power to enact trade deals.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, are typical establishment Republicans who have been on Capitol Hill too long. They are opposed to the Tea Party and true conservatives and have no interest in real reform or following the wishes of grassroots Republicans.

Just four months after the Republicans took control of the Senate and House, most of the GOP electorate has lost faith in congressional leadership. It is no surprise since nothing has been accomplished except the Keystone Pipeline bill, which President Obama vetoed, and the House-passed bill ending abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. On almost everything else, there has been rhetoric, but no action.

Despite the fact that almost every Republican congressional candidate campaigned against Obamacare and the President’s executive amnesty for five million illegal aliens, Congress voted to fund both programs. The Senate approved the radical nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General and just gave Obama a major victory by approving legislation giving him more power to enact trade deals. (Townhall.com)

BUT THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA, right? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Shhh..It’s A Secret

It has come to the attention of some members of Congress that data and research used to justify Environmental Protection Agency regulations have been hidden, unavailable for review even by congressional committees with oversight of the EPA.

The Agenda’s foot soldiers are the Stasi (secret police) along with The IRS, the Jackboots are a comin’ for YOU! 🙂

The Environmental Protection Agency is for protect the Progressive Agency agenda, not the actual environment. The Political environment is all that matters.

The agency’s refusal to provide this information is simply unacceptable.

But wholly within the SOP of The Obama Administration.

Thousands of pages of new regulations are written each year, imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in costs upon American households.

And those regulations might all be worthwhile. To the extent they are constitutional (a subject for another column) and save lives or prevent illness, improve product or workplace safety, or prevent fraud or disaster, regulations may be perfectly justified.

But to know whether a regulation actually can achieve such lofty goals, we must be able to evaluate whether the research used to justify it is sound.

When researchers announce a breakthrough or a new study comes out, it is only through the sharing of assumptions, data and methodologies that other scientists can test the claims and verify or falsify the results.

Replicability is the hallmark of science. Trust may be key to interpersonal relationships, and faith is critical to religion, but transparency, replicability and verification are central to science. Studies used by regulatory agencies to impose rules costing millions and sometimes billions of dollars are no exception.

If the government is going to use a rule to restrict peoples’ freedom and cost them money, the public has a right to know that the findings are sound and the savings or public health benefits the study claims the rules would produce are likely to materialize.

Regulatory agencies don’t get to say, “Trust us!” and expect legislators or the public to do so.

Secrecy in science is especially offensive when one considers that federal and state governments (that is, the public) pay for most of the research used to justify regulations — directly, through grants, scholarships and awards, or indirectly, by funding university science departments and research endeavors.

The rule should be, if the public pays for it, the public has the right to know the study’s methodologies, assumptions and raw data.

This shouldn’t even be controversial, and for most regulatory agencies it isn’t. They adhere to the rule of transparency, testing and replicability. Increasingly, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not do so.

In each of the past few sessions of Congress, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that, in the words of the most recent version, H.R. 4012, would “prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.”

But fits The Agenda!

The bill requires the EPA to disclose all the science, research, models and data used to justify regulations, and the results would have to be reproducible by independent researchers.

That’ll never happen. The Liberals want what they want when they want it and you’re just a partisan “denier” if you don’t let them do whatever they want to do.

Plus, Trust them, they know what they are doing! 🙂

Here’s what the legislation’s sponsor, David Schweikert, R-Ariz., chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s subcommittee on the environment, said when introducing the bill:

“The Secret Science Reform Act ends costly EPA rule making from happening behind closed doors and out of public view. Public policy should come from public data.

The Ministry of Truth disagrees.

“For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country without public evidence to justify all their actions.”

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the Democrat caucus never allowed a vote on the bill in the Senate. With Republicans now in control, the bill cleared its first hurdle, passing out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on a strict party-line vote of 11 to 9.

No bias there. 🙂

President Obama has threatened to veto the bill. Why would Obama, who promised to run the most transparent presidential administration in history, want to hide from scientific scrutiny and public view the science used to justify his environmental agency’s key programs? These aren’t state secrets or issues of national security.

Well, of course he’d veto it, it’s not on his Agenda. Keeping Secrets and “pas before you know what’s in it” is the hallmark of this “most transparent” President. It’s just what he’s transparent about that is disturbing.

The only ones who benefit from keeping science secret are: researchers whose fraudulent, flawed or otherwise unverifiable results were predetermined by the need to make the Obama administration agencies who fund them happy; and the regulatory agencies that are exercising mission creep, who can’t justify their call for increased authority and larger budgets without ginning up fear of a public health threat.

The Agenda Warriors, who call you “deniers”, “racists” aqnd “bigots” for not bowing to their superiority.

They are holier than thou and they are above your petty need to know what they are up to, right?

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

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…

The Rubber Stamp

How do you think Republicans would have done in the 2014 elections if they had told the truth about what they intended to do when they took over the Senate? What if they had campaigned on working hand-in-hand with Obama to enact his illegal alien amnesty while supporting his budget priorities, confirming a new Attorney General who thinks everything Obama is doing is fine and promised they would do nothing while he illegally bans ammo, cripples the Internet, and lets the EPA run wild? Republicans are even gearing up to SAVE OBAMACARE if the Supreme Court guts the subsidies.

But they are just doing what Democrats do, Tell a Lie often enough and people will believe you. 🙂

Conservatives complain endlessly, with good reason, that Barack Obama is acting like a dictator. What’s left unsaid is that he’s only able to do it because Republicans in the House and Senate are standing by impotently and allowing him to do whatever he wants. Despite winning two huge victories in 2010 and 2014 by promising to fight against Obama, the GOP has shown nothing but rank cowardice in every confrontation with him. It’s hard to understand how men like John McCain, who showed such great courage in war, can be so cowardly when they’re asked to stand up for America against the Democrats. What kind of Republicans would rather fight their own supporters and constituents than stand up to Barack Obama?

In fact, we should consider ourselves lucky that Obama hasn’t gone even farther, because who’s going to stop him? The Republican Leadership in the House and Senate?

Please.

Why would Prince John wanna do that?

Barack Obama could declare that he is going to tear down the Lincoln Memorial to make room for a giant statue of himself and Republicans would end up funding it because they’re so petrified the media would blame them for the shutdown that would ensue if they didn’t go along to get along.

True. Surprised he hasn’t.

John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers are our leaders in the House and Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, John Thune and John Barrasso are our leaders in the Senate. These are the sort of people C.S. Lewis spoke of when he wrote, “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

Expecting people without a spine to suddenly go one.

Conservatives all know that our leaders in Congress are yellow; they can’t talk, can’t strategize, can’t tell the truth or do anything else that most of us expect from men worthy to lead. However, the “traitors” part of that quote is apt as well because they just betrayed their constituents, conservatives, and the Republican Party to help Obama implement his illegal, unconstitutional amnesty.

Back in late 2014, conservatives were begging the GOP leadership to pass a short-term continuing resolution so that the GOP would have more leverage after we controlled the House and the Senate. They refused to do it, but conservative complaints about Obama’s amnesty were so loud that the GOP Leadership couldn’t immediately capitulate and were forced to do something. So, they declared that the DHS wouldn’t be funded unless Obama buckled on amnesty and they gave their solemn oaths that they’d fight tooth and nail once the GOP controlled the House and the Senate.

They lied. Just like Obama does. “well he said 22 he couldn’t do it and he did” so we’ll repeat over and over again that we’ll fight it, but we won’t.

The tell tale signs were there. After 2010 when the Tea Party helped the Republican win the biggest change over in 80 years the Democrats acted like it never happened and the new “leadership” almost immediately ostracized the Tea Party Republicans. They used them again 2014 by lying about how “conservative” and “principled” they were going to be even though the last 4 years they hadn’t even come close to that. It was down with “well what else are you going to do, let the Democrats win?” in a very cynical ploy very much out of the Democrats play book.

Then predictably, when Obama refused to give in, the GOP Leadership barely put up a fight before they caved in and gave him exactly what he wanted. Mitch McConnell worked with Harry Reid and John Boehner worked with Nancy Pelosi to fund millions of work permits and tax rebates for illegal aliens. They also effectively signed off on 5 million illegal aliens getting Social Security cards and drivers’ licenses that they could very possibly use to VOTE in our elections! The GOP Leadership called it illegal, they called it unconstitutional, they claimed to oppose it – yet they fought to fund it! If a judge in Texas hadn’t unexpectedly blocked DHS from carrying out the amnesty, something that could end at any time, Obama would be moving full speed ahead with the blessing of the Republican Leadership in Congress.

Don’t just take my word for it on how the GOP leadership sold you out; listen to Ted Cruz.

“Since December, the outcome has been baked in the cake. It was abundantly clear to anyone watching that leadership in both houses intended to capitulate on the fight against amnesty,” Cruz said, adding, “It was a strategy doomed to failure. It’s an old adage in Washington: Never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot.”

And they are prepared to shoot everyone of you out there, for their own survival.

“There was no chance, zero, that Republicans were going to fail to fund the Department of Homeland Security because Republicans care deeply about homeland security,” Cruz continued.

“If we had been serious about this fight, and we should have been, the continuing resolution [under which DHS funding expired in February 2015] should have focused on the EPA, or the IRS or the Department of Labor,” Cruz said. “Now, those are departments which a majority would be prepared to allow funding to temporarily expire in order to use as leverage.”

Conservatives so opposed amnesty that the GOP leadership couldn’t pass it themselves; so this was their attempt to help Barack Obama implement it. It was a dishonorable, rank betrayal of conservatives. All members of the GOP leadership along with every Republican who voted for a clean DHS bill deserve to be publicly horsewhipped for what they did.

Sadly, we can’t get away with horsewhipping public officials any more, no matter how much they may deserve it, but we don’t have to vote for them. We don’t have to fund their campaigns. In fact, we can primary them, we can protest their donor meetings, boo them in public, leak information that hurts them to the press and undermine them at every opportunity. We can demand that our representatives vote against Boehner and McConnell if they want our support. We can do everything we can within the law to make life rough for them.

Then they’ll take the millions in booty they got for betraying us and tell you more lies and you’ll believe them, right? 🙂

There are a lot of Republicans who will vote for anyone with an “R” beside his name, no matter what he does on the theory that he’s better than the Democrat. There is a lot of merit to that thinking and I have argued for it myself on many occasions, but we’ve gotten to the point where Republicans in D.C. are taking advantage of it to such a ridiculous degree that it should no longer apply.

Agreed.

They lie to us, they think we’re stupid, they trash groups who represent us, they hold us in complete contempt and then they mock us by saying, “Ha, where else are they going to go?” That’s bad enough, but we’re now getting to the point where it’s like we’re being asked to vote for Benedict Arnold on the theory that he’s better than voting for the British.

It’s precisely what the Democrats do. It’s straight out of THEIR playbook. It has been said in the past that there is no difference between them, well, now that is absolutely true.

Difficult though it may be to hear, the God’s honest truth is that it’s not enough to get rid of Obama and replace him with a Republican. At a minimum, we need changes in the leadership of the Republican Party in the House and Senate to have any hope of making progress.

You think we’re going to repeal Obamacare with Boehner, McConnell and their cronies in charge? You think we’re going to crack down on illegal immigration and control our borders? You think this nation will be able to stave off bankruptcy with men in command who can’t lead, can’t talk and won’t fight anyone but conservatives?

I don’t.

Prince John and company, the Sith Lords in Training, not a chance. They are already (or will be) Progressives in Elephants suits just to save themselves (or they really aren’t even conservatives to begin with).

I think Barack Obama is on track to fundamentally transform America, not because what he’s doing is right, popular, or successful, but because conservatives aren’t willing to DEMAND that their representatives in Congress stand up, speak out and stop him. The time for playing nice with the GOP’s incompetent, ineffective, disloyal leadership in Congress is at an end. The only way the country has a bright future is if the current Republican Party Leadership in Congress has no future in politics. (John Hawkins)

AMEN!