Tag: Congress

Speaker John Boehner Resigned, He was not Ousted.

In a transcript from the Rush Limbaugh radio show dated Sept 28th, 2016, Mr. Limbaugh says that John Boehner was ousted from the third most powerful position in the United States.  As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Boehner, according to the US Constitution, was third in line of succession to the Presidency.

The cause for the Speaker to resign was not stated by the Mr. Boehner.  But the headline to Rush Limbaugh’s transcript is that the third most powerful man in America was ousted by forces lead by Senator Ted Cruz.  According to this theory, Senator Ted Cruz was an instigator and advocate for conservative Republican congressmen to consistently and persistently oppose Speaker Boehner’s leadership.  He did this, according to Limbaugh, because Senator Cruz had no support for his conservative views among fellow senators.  Therefore, he decided to go to the other house, Mr. Boehner’s house, and spoil it.

The quote from the transcript is the following:

“The point is, Ted Cruz was aware of all this, and he decided there was no way since he was so vastly outnumbered in the Senate, that what he instead did was to work with the conservative members in the House to strengthen them, to focus them. Not that they needed it, but just to form some unity and have a coordinated effort that was aimed at Boehner’s resignation, since Cruz was not gonna be able to engineer a similar thing in the Senate because he was basically a party of one.”

The transcript relates how Mr. Limbaugh rationalizes all of this as being a good thing.  He has his opinion.  Why not, he gets paid millions of dollars to tell us what he thinks.  But if he is correct in his opinion of this event, I do not see it as credit to Senator Cruz but a shame.  I guess you could credit Cruz with being savvy in understanding, as Limbaugh says, that in the Senate he is a party of one among 100 elected Senators.  I guess you could praise him for being smart enough to know that he could gather the discontented, unhappy, miserable conservative congressmen  who did not like Speaker Boehner and form them into a focused, united group of mostly freshmen congressmen who in their disgruntlement could work in a coordinated effort to oust the Speaker.  I guess you can compliment him for subverting the  office of Speaker of the House of Representative instead of fighting and winning better credibility in his own house, the Senate.  But if Mr. Limbaugh is correct and according to the transcript,  ” So there’s any number of people who you might…if you want to consider this in a doling-out-of-credit sense, Cruz is right there at the top.”

All of us wonder about the resignation of Speaker Boehner.  He also will not stand for election to his congressional seat.  He is retiring.  It seems to me that there was a day not long ago when powerful forces were in motion to do something or other. The accomplishment of it, back then, may have involved the resignation or the retirement of some powerful person. However, I seem to remember, that there was a sense of grace and largeness on the part of the winners over the vanquished.  It may have been called, back then, a sense of class or classiness.  The winners were the first ones to come out and congratulate the defeated with words of praise for their service, and with a reminder of their many accomplishments and the excellence of their career and the honorable and praiseworthy things for which they stood.  But according to Mr. Limbaugh, this sense of class and honorable victory is not true of the Value Voter’s Summit in Washington (DC) where, as Limbaugh states, (Senator Rubio is speaking) and says:  …Just a few minutes ago Speaker Boehner announced that he will be resigning..AUDIENCE (wild Applause)  Rush:  Now, that (applause) went on and on and on.  It was over the top.  And this was something that a number of people have been attempting to make happen for months now going into years.

This writer is aware of the advertisements on Facebook and Internet to get rid of Speaker Boehner.  I have always wondered who these disgruntled and discontented people were.  I even imagined that the advertisements were planted by Democrats to defeat the Republicans.  Now, I know that it is something (as Limbaugh states) ” a number of people have been attempting to do for years.”  Really!?  Is there a secret group of political outsiders trying to subvert the political process?  Were there powerful people, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Senator Cruz, trying to revolt and oust the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  I am not one of them.  In fact, I get very nervous around discontented, disgruntled, malcontents who are in positions of power and are fighting against their fellows who are in positions of power.

Are they so sure that they would do a better job?  Are they so sure that if their man gets the power he will not use that power against the revolutionaries who put him or her there?  Do they want the power for themselves?  Are they willing to blame the so called leadership for their own inability to cooperate and focus on passing meaningful solutions to the nation’s problems- preferring to blame, as Mr. Limbaugh does, ” The …insider class, or ruling class or whatever you call it elite mind-set.”  I wonder about people who are willing to subvert and collaborate in a focused, united, cooperative campaign against someone else, are they going to be better or worse than those they ousted?  After all, they got to the top by subverting the authority of those they replaced.  They can expect the same for themselves, unless they are the first to attack and remove the attackers.

Limbaugh goes on to state his agenda for the ouster of Majority Leader McConnell.  He uses a quote from somebody else to hide behind, Gerald Selb, of the Wall Street Journal, who claims that the so called Tea Party forces are increasing their power and loosening the Republican (so called) establishment’s  grip. So, after all, this transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show is actually a self proclaimed testimonial to Rush Limbuagh’s success at fostering the take over of the Republican party by his brand of conservatives?

New Jersey Congressman Votes not to Allow Medical Care for Infants Born Alive

It is very alarming to this writer than any US Representative could vote against a law that would require that a baby who survived an abortion at an Abortion Clinic or elsewhere, and is outside the womb alive, should receive the same level of care as any other infant.  To vote against the bill is to legally allow infanticide by neglect.  The delivered infant is allowed to lie in a basin, unattended, until it dies.  Further, non enforcement  of required medical care to live born infants denies their status as babies alive outside the body of the mother.  It denies their rights as a living human being.  Even worse, it allows  that since the living infant outside the womb of the mother is not a person, therefore, it can be treated as a thing.  While still breathing and with heart beating, it can be butchered to remove its vital organs.

Yes, there are some who will defend those who voted against passage of this bill.  They will say that the vote tally already indicated that the bill would pass and that Representatives merely voted “no” in order to play the Democrat party line or to cater to the whims of their several constituencies.  So what.!  To vote that a living infant outside the womb of its mother does not require mandatory medical attention by those performing the abortion is a vote in favor of murder.

Failed Abortions — Passage – Vote Passed (248-177, 1 Present, 8 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would require health care practitioners to give the same level of care to an infant born alive during a failed abortion as they would give to any other infant born at the same gestational age. The bill also would require health care practitioners to ensure that these infants are immediately sent to a hospital.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

Planned Parenthood Funding Moratorium — Passage – Vote Passed (241-187, 1 Present, 5 Not Voting)

The House passed a bill that would bar, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates unless they certify that, during that period, they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. The prohibition would apply to all federal funds, including Medicaid. The bill would provide exceptions for abortions provided in the case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. voted NO

Why Donald Trump?

Why is so much attention being focused on Mr. Donald Trump? The other candidates are barely getting any press coverage. It is not because they do not have something to say. It is not because they do not have programs and solutions to offer. It is not because they do not have excellent campaign organizations. It is because the press and the major media are giving Mr. Trump so much coverage. Why do they do this? Mr. Trump is a flashy candidate who they find entertaining and therefore as someone who will help them sell their news. The other candidates with more political knowledge and experience are forced out of the news by the antics of the often clownish antics of Mr. Trump. That is too bad. It would be an injustice to America to promote one political upstart just because he is entertaining while ignoring the others who may have things of more substance and importance to contribute.

My Ideal Candidate for President

Frankly, it is myself. But that is not reality. So, I decided to think about my ideal candidate. WARNING: My choice for President is Senator Rand Paul. Why? I think of Senator Rand Paul as a principled leader who has a solid principle of government, and will be guided by high morality and the ethical principles of a Judeao/Christian heritage.
But this is about a blending of candidates into the ideal President. For me, it would start with the qualities I admire in Senator Paul. He is a moderate conservative in government philosophy viewing the federal government as too large to be effective and too big to be considerate of the needs of individual citizens. His foreign policy is a philosophy of applying the same freedoms and principles of governance to other nations as we apply to ourselves. Senator Paul, unlike some others, does not consider it a virtue to bomb and drone other nations under the pretext of defending freedom. He understands that bombs kill innocent people and that even targeted drones have been used to kill fifty men, women, and children under the idea that one of them may be a terrorist.
The second candidate whose qualities I admire is Dr. Ben Carson. Like Senator Rand Paul, Dr. Carson lives by the principle ethical imperative of all doctors, namely, do no harm. Dr. Ben Carson is a quintessential American who’s exemplary life highlights him, as it does Dr. Rand Paul, as a person who’s pro life stand is not just anti Planned Parenthood, but forcefully affirmative of all that America and Western civilization has always held dear, namely, the freedom of the individual to chose and the freedom of the person to move forward into the future under the warm light of God’s sun.
Thirdly, I sincerely appreciate the passionate convictions and forthright honesty of Senator Ted. Cruz. He is a pioneer who has been helped by Senator Rand Paul to find his place in the spectrum of political life and who has distinguished himself as a shining beacon of light in a sea of tumult and storm.
Fourthly, I admire the stamina, intellect and language ability of Governor Jeb Bush. He speaks fluent Spanish and I admire his ability at a second language. But Secretary of State Kerry speaks fluent French and I do not admire him. So, I am forced to wonder if a President Jeb Bush will hold his press conferences and deliver his State of the Union addresses in English and in Spanish? The languages spoken in the USA are many and all are good. However, for this citizen, the language of America is English. It is not Arabic. It is not Korean. It is not Hebrew. It is not Spanish. The people who speak two or more languages are to appreciated. But the language of America for Koreans, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs and all others, is English.
Fifthly I admire Governors Walker and Kasich. They are administrators and leaders of sovereign states within our federal union. As governors, they are responsive to the needs of large citizen populations and their elected representative in the state legislatures. This, all by itself, indicates leaders who fully understand and support the principles of freedom for which our founders fought the American Revolution.
Sixth , I have a deep appreciation for Governor Huckabee. He is a gentleman through and through who exemplifies the values, culture and morals of Christian faith and its daily application to life.
Seventh, I like Donald Trump. He is forthright, candid and brutally opinionated. I believe that his brand of angry opinion reflects the frustration, anger and disappointment of Americans who are on the verge of giving up on the American dream and the principles of American freedom. But I do not believe we should select a leader because he reflects our anger. I do not believe we should follow the lead of someone because he represents our frustration. I do not feel comfortable empowering a man who’s demeanor is one that says, “You’re fired”. As ventilating as that demeanor may be, it is not a characteristic under which I want to live four years.
Can we get all of this in one President. I pray that we could. However, short of that, I pray that our next President will call upon the talents, experiences, abilities and insights of all the many candidates, appointing them to positions of power so that America will be served not by one excellent candidate who knows how to win elections but by many candidates who love America and will spend their lives making America better tomorrow than it is today.

Rand Paul is a Brave Senator who Defends Persecuted Christians

http://visiontoamerica.com/16061/sen-paul-worldwide-war-on-christians-is-being-waged-by-a-fanatical-element-of-islam/

Senator Rand Paul is courageous to stand up and stand out attempting to stop persecution of Christians. Senator Paul is a man of conviction and a man of courage who is bold in his defense of people, like the Christian minories in Moslem countries, who are being murdered, displaced and forced to flee for their lives. -Sadly, the ELCA, the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod are silent.  Maybe America based Lutherans don’t care about the welfare or fate of other Christians.  The silence of the Churches further weakens their moral authority in an age where it is almost non existent anyway.  However, Senator Rand Paul, who is only tolerated by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Marc Levin, is a brave, honest and outstanding political leader who is not beholding to the talk show pundits.  Seems, Rush, Sean and Marc prefer Ted Cruz to anyone else.  Yet, it has been Rand Paul who had led the fight for fairness in government. Senator Rand Paul should be recognized by the major conservative radio hosts as the best candidate for President there is. Senator Paul however is viewed by them with suspicion because he refuses to mouth the same words they do.   I guess, Senator Rand Paul does not EXACTLY fit their definition of Republican or Conservative.  And that is to their discredit because they define too narrowly the people with whom they are willing to work.

Rand Paul and Paul Ryan

I still think the team of Romney and Ryan was a wonderful opportunity for America. As of now I think it could be Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. I know a lot of people are angry at Congressman Ryan for budget matters. But the key is that he wanted to pass a budget in order to get control of spending back to the Congress. The Democrats have succeeded in using the Continuing Resolutions process to NOT pass a budget and thereby hand over complete control of spending to President Obama. That is why Obama was able to spend so much money. Now that we have a budget, imperfect though it be, the congress and budget committees can control and reign in the spending and President Obama no longer has a blank check to write. They have already corrected the mistake about military retirement pensions. They will do more. As for Rand Paul’s libertarian leanings, so what?! He doesn’t want war? Great. He believes in the rule of reason and law? Good. He thinks that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted? Fantastic. He thinks that government must be reduced in size and more actual power returned to State and Local governments. Bravo. He loves America and does not seek to fundamentally transform it into a socialist welfare state? Awesome. Let’s get behind the Republican candidate and not do the Gingrich, Santorum, even Ron Paul (Father to Rand) and fight till the convention and then go home to Va. Pa. and Tx. without giving wholehearted support to the candidate (Romney and Ryan.) I believe that we lost because those three groups fought too long, refused to donate to the candidate, refused to work for him, and stayed home on election day. I also blame Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin for seeking a so called PURE Conservative instead of supporting the best team we could field. Let’s not do it to ourselves again. By the way I like the sound of the two names, Rand Paul ( a R and a P ) and Paul Ryan (a P and a R ).

Why the Republicans Lost in 2012

Rick Santorum and the conservative right are the reason the GOP lost the last election.  They refused to back the agreed upon front-runner.  They did not work for him after he was chosen and they refused to vote for him on election day.  The conservative right complains that the left will not cooperate but it is equally true of them.  Santorum attacked Romney so viciously that Rick couldn’t honestly overcome the visceral nature of his attacks.  So, he and his followers and moneyed backers simply licked their wounds and went home sulking to come out and fight again this time.  The same is true of Gingrich, Ron Paul, (not Rand) and of most other conservatives.  Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin never really backed the agreed upon candidate.  Limbaugh eventually agreed that although Romney was not really a Limbaugh conservative (and therefore, not really conservative enough) nonetheless, Limbaugh agreed that Romney was the best Republicans had.  It was a veiled rejection of Romney, I believe.  Hannity, never really backed Romney until the very end, and then only with the same caveats as Limbaugh.  Levin, the same.  I guess, you need to believe, like Obama does, that you are the only person who is right and pure and righteous.  I guess you need to believe that the 595 members elected to the Congress by the people are the enemy.  And, like Obama, you can rule the nation with your selected ideas, subjecting the people to your imperial will.  So, here we go again with various factions of the electorate rallying to their narrowly defined “preferred” candidates…all good,  that is the American way….but if the Republicans agree to one of them at the convention and then the factions refuse to work for the candidate, refuse to donate and just go home, sulk and refuse to vote, then the Republicans will lose again.

The good news is that the Republican party is a society of thinkers, poets, progressives, moderates, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and many others.  It is not a party of single minded thinking and locked in step obedience to the leader.  The Republican party is a true reflection of the American people who are themselves a people with varying opinions, religions and political philosophies.  The Republican party are fighters for their beliefs.  This also is good news because we need people of conviction willing to wrestle for their positions in the public square of ideas.  Sadly, this writer believes, that the Democrat party is of one mind.  It is the mind that is defined by the leadership and to which all Democrats bow.  The Democrat party is not reflective of the variety of positions within the populace.  Oh yes, individual Democrats may personally believe this or that idea, or think that this or that method is better than the one officially endorsed by the party.  But the Democrat will always support the official position of the party no matter their own personal beliefs.  This locked in step obedience to the party is why Democrat Senators and Congress persons were willing to pass Obama- care without reading it.  They were told by “you cannot know what is in the bill until you pass it…” Nancy Pelosi and “Dead on Arrival if it does not agree with me” Harry Reid…that they must vote yes.  And all Democrats did as they were told to do.  Obama and the Democrat party leadership said to jump and they responded, “how high and how fast?”.  It didn’t matter if the Democrat person thought that Obama-care was good or bad.  The only thing that mattered was the decision of the Democrat party leadership.  That decision was to be obeyed without question.

Too bad for America that our people seem to think that absolute obedience to the Democrat party leaders is better than public debate, public wrestling and public disagreement.  We are a people growing too willing to live in the cartoon world of Barney and Dora and the Disneyland of fairy tales without any difficult characters. Is that the result of the Disney iszation (I know it is not a word) of our society?  Some say, we are becoming too soft minded, all messy inside our heads.  Some say, that males are being tamed and “feminized” and that the wilderness character of people like Davey Crochett, Kit Carson, Abraham Lincoln, Lewis and Clarke is lost.  In response, the tea party movement has tried to revive interest in our founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison- seeing in them the successful nation that arose from their religious, philosophical and political struggles.

America today is facing an election for the House and Senate.  Hopefully, there will be lively and vibrant debate.  However, it must be a debate about ideas.  The presentations must be cogent, coherent and convincing.  The facts must be true and not created by “talking point” mentors who tell our politicians what to say to which group today, only to slightly modify it for the next group tomorrow.  And there absolutely must be an end to name calling, stereotyping, and feigned co-opting which has been so readily apparent with Obama, who says that Republicans must cooperate with him because he wants to cooperate with them, but, the same day, he tells the crowds that the Republicans are recalcitrant, red necked, backward and obstructionist who are to be blamed for everything from the state of the economy to the state of the weather.  (Did you notice how adroitly the Democrat party crafted the narrative that hurricane Katrina was the fault of the Republicans.  Katrina was President Bush’s hurricane and by careful inference, they said that all of results of Katrina were his fault.  And have you noticed that Mayor Nagin, the Democrat hero of Katrina, fled to Texas during the storm and is now under Louisiana and federal indictment for criminal activity before, during and after Katrina?  Amazing, to this writer, that Nagin’s  indictment is getting meager coverage by the major news media!!)

The run up to the 2014 election must reject the prevalent immorality of our Obama administration which evidently knew that Benghazi was a well planned terrorist attack against our embassy with the intention of murdering our ambassador, yet went to the United Nations and blamed it on an amateur You Tube video.  The 2014 election debates must refuse to accept the concept that our UN Ambassador must be promoted to the  National Security Council  because she obediently went on the Sunday Talk Shows and repeated the lie that the Obama Administration wanted all of us to believe.  We must reject political advertising that portrays people like Congressman Ryan as pushing our wheel-chaired grandmothers over the cliff.  And most certainly, we must reject the guilt be association that blames Hilary for President Clinton’s having oral sex with a young female White House intern. And we must also reject life style morality debates, especially over gay and lesbian and transgender issues.  However, as least for this writer, I do think that the place of these issues in the public school curriculum and the methods and age appropriateness of what is taught about these issues,- I believe, these to be legitimate issues for research and high level discussion and debate.  Yes, even political debate, although it is all too often not high level.

Finally, I’d like to make a simple statement about the race issue.  It should be a non issue.  As long as we keep it in the forefront as an issue, then racism continues.  Do we see a yellow man or a man who’s ancestry is Asian?  Do we see a black woman, or a woman who’s ancestry is black skinned.  What is an African anyway?  Egyptians, Libyans, Moroccan’s, Tunisians are Africans but they are not black.  Is African a racial characteristic?  Do we really want to say that it is?  Is it accurate?  Is Africa a continent or a country?  Is a Nigerian the same ethnicity as a Congolese? What is black, anyway?  Is it a racial characteristic?  Do we really want to say that it is?  Is it accurate? New Guinea aboriginals are black but they are not African.  Many peoples in India are dark brown or even black skinned but they too are not Africans.  I know Italian friends who get really dark skinned in the Summer.   The race debate is meaningless and President Obama, who thinks that many American citizens reject him because he is black skinned, is not helping.  I remember when the Cambridge Massachusetts police arrested a university professor.  President Obama said openly that the white policeman acted wrongly.  Obviously, our President saw it as a racial issue because he cast it as a white policeman acting wrongly against a black university professor.  That was the start of racial division politics from then till now.

Ok, I think I have wandered a little in this blog.  But at least it is out there for you to read, ponder and respond, if you care to engage.

There is a lot a stake in our nation.  We are under going a national wrestling match which may result in a “pin” or a technical win.  But to use another metaphor, it will not result in a knock out punch.  Nor should it.  Because a pin in wrestling is a win of strength that does not unduly hurt nor seek to destroy the opponent.  A knock out is a knock out. ( Yes, I know this is not the best analogy. If you care for another share it.!  I just hope you get the idea.)  I think we need to wrestle with each other but we do not need a fist fight  and definitely not a brawl.

Are all Liberals Prejudiced? One Wonders!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-15/boehner-to-tea-party-shut-yourself-down.html?cmpid=yhoo

“…one-sided, overwhelmingly white, aging, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, science-denying districts want.” A person does not need to read any further than this in order to see that the author is herself a narrow-minded, prejudiced bigot with an amazing amount of self-righteous confidence who claims to be analyzing.  However, this article is full of one-sided, myopic stereotypes which discredit her supposed analysis and reveal it to be nothing more than a rant.

Only Obama Can Cause Default

http://visiontoamerica.com/16051/house-republicans-schedule-obama-impeachment-hearings/

Marc Levin broadcast Monday Oct 14th that only Obama can cause a default.  According to Levin, the US Constitution charges the President with the responsibility to pay all the debts of the USA.  It seems that Congress has the power of the purse but the President is the actual writer of the check.  Levin stated that under Article One of the USA Constitution the President is required to prioritize the accounts payable to assure that the government does not default.  Therefore, Levin stated, it is President Obama and Obama alone who decides whether the USA defaults.  Furthermore, Levin said that there is enough money presently in the USA checking account with billions coming in daily plus the end of year payments which can easily fund payments to our creditors.

The President, however, is constantly stating that it is the House of Representatives who will cause the USA to default.  Obama has broadcast again and again that Congress, namely, the House of Representatives, that is causing default and should be held responsible.  Levin, however, said that the Congress is powerless over default because the Constitution specifically states that the payment of our accounts payable is solely the duty of the President.  If the President refuses to pay the debts of the USA he is not carrying out his legal responsibilities, and he is not keeping his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the USA.

Levin made one power filled comment during his three hour program, namely, that the only job of the President of the USA is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the USA against its enemies, both foreign and domestic.  That is it.  Nothing else, at least in this matter of the credit of the USA, matters!

Marc Levin went on to say that he believes the Obama government is trying to usurp the power of the House of Representatives by insisting on seizing for the President the power of the purse and of passing laws and of raising taxes.  These explicitly enumerated powers are given exclusively to the Congress by the Constitution.  If the President tries to seize these powers for himself, he is acting against the Constitution and his oath of office and should be indicted by the House of Representatives by articles of impeachment.

Levin’s comments are very informative.  Unlike the above citied news article which accuses Obama of all sorts of egregious behavior, the Levin argument is based solely on the Constitution and the potential accusation that the President is not upholding, defending and protecting the Constitution.

Additionally, the present actions of Obama put him in the position of antagonist and enemy of the House of Representatives and by his many statements that the House is hostage to the so-called Tea Party adherents, who Obama claims are to be rejected, the President positions himself to illegally seize the powers of the House for himself, thereby abolishing the House and becoming a ruler.  This kind of ruler would not be checked or balanced by the House of Representative and would be ruling by presidential directive also called a dictate.  Obama would then be a dictator.

This writer is not putting this before you because I have any desire impeach Obama.  However, if Marc Levin’s interpretations are correct, and if future days play out a scenario such as he envisions, I also would strongly state that the House is required by the Constitution to present articles of impeachment against such a seizure of power by the President.