Showing posts with label United States Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States Senate. Show all posts

Thursday, January 28, 2010

This direct statement, issued by Democrat Ike Skelton (D, MO), chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee, before Obama had finished his address...
"Somewhere along the line, the White House lost its way,"

"Instead of focusing on solutions to help America's families wade through the wreckage of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, Washington has wasted valuable time wrestling with partisan politics in an effort to rush through drastic reforms that do not directly address our most immediate needs."
Ouch, and without a band-aid.

NOT TRUE replaces YOU LIE!

Very noticeable and much more significant was Supreme Court Judge Robert Alito's reaction, as seen in this composite photo from the video below...


As reported by AP, and seen in this video...

WASHINGTON -- The man in the House chamber openly disagreeing with President Barack Obama as he spoke to Congress wasn't an over-the-top Republican or a seething Democrat. He was a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito.

Obama had taken the unusual step of scolding the high court in his State of the Union address Wednesday. "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he began, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words "not true" or possibly "simply not true."
I would've preferred another resounding "YOU LIE!", but Joe Wilson was "stonefaced" during this speech.

Obama had it coming: there is a separation of powers, and he should not have run his piehole about a Supreme Court decision. Good for Justice Alito! A good man, there.

Did Obama tell much truth? A fact-check article written by Calvin Woodward finds some truth-stretching and avoidance, including
  • Obama's proposed three-year 'government spending freeze' would only save less than 1% of the deficit. He's proposed spending more than he'll ever save.
  • His 'bipartisan special commission', denied by the Senate but created by his own executive order, won't have any effect. His executive order is 'toothless'.
  • More unbelievable spins on his Health Care debacle. Obama's claims that we'll be able to keep our current doctors and plans doesn't mention that these plans, pinched by his newly-created taxes, would be free to limit services or 'pinch benefits'. Oh, and Medicare recipients (you old retired duffers) would find your benefits cut.
  • Obama bashes lobbyists, but fails to bash his own lobbyists. He just hates organizations like the NRA (a collective of "Community Organized" citizens who would spend to stop Democrats) and others who exist to protect the Constitution, but lurvs him questionable lobbying organizations such as the SEIU and ACORN (collectives of "Community Organized" citizens who would spend much cash to elect more and more Democrats (the LOOTERS), who then push for more and more taxes to pay for handouts to their voting base (the MOOCHERS). No U.S. Constitution will be allowed to stand in the way.
  • How many jobs created or saved, Mr. Prezzidint? YOU LIE! You've likely caused job loss; you can't prove otherwise. Unless of course you've hired more government employees (oh, and you have done that).
  • Obama actually stood up there calling for 'more openness' ("to do our work openly, and to give our people the government they deserve.". This would've been perfect opportunity for anyone in the audience to scream "WHAT ABOUT THE C-SPAN CAMERAS IN THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE, MR. PREZZIDINT????///??" But, strangely, the crowd was silent.
I could barely stand watching VP Joe Biden sitting up there, with his improperly medicated random eye twitches and random movements and gestures. Nuthouse, you're missing an inmate.

And Nancy Pelosi?

Worshipful, awestruck gazes. Just, wow.

This President doesn't need an intern to bring the pizza. Just send for Nancy, and close the doors.

Update:
Best written work I've yet seen on Obama's failed SOTU speech: The Daily Caller

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

From Erick Erickson at RedState...

The Senate of the United States just voted to table Jim DeMint’s proposed amendment that would prevent cash for cloture compromises.

As you will recall, Ben Nelson was bribed by Harry Reid to vote for the health care bill via targeted earmarks that will only benefit Nebraska.
DeMint asked for the Senate to suspend its rules to consider his amendment, which would prohibit such deals in the future.

Ben Nelson voted against Jim DeMint’s amendment, but when he realized the Democrats already had the votes to kill it, he raced back up to the clerk and changed his vote so the final record shows Nelson sided with DeMint.
Unfortunately for Ben Nelson, I have obtained the actual factual roll call sheet.

Click here to see the actual roll call vote Senator Ben (Cheap Date or Whore?) Nelson changed to save face.

I don't think good Nebraskans will keep this hairpiece in office any longer than necessary.

Do we have any U.S. Senators who aren't crooked to some degree?

Seems every time I read and learn more about our current political system, I'm less and less impressed.

It's time for a constitutional convention, to return State's Rights, and to heel this massive, bloated, out-of-control Federal government.  A remarkable concept, espoused in the Wall Street Journal...
The States Can Check Washington's Power

For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.

There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.

But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments?
In essence, 2/3rds of the states could summon a constitutional convention, to propose an amendment whereby states could propose constitutional amendments without having to call a constitutional convention. In theory, the several states could amend the constitution to thwart the power of the obviously out-of-control federal powers; returning at least some of these powers to the states.

Think of that...power returned to the states, closer to...home. Closer to the citizens.

There's fear of what might happen if we ever have another constitutional convention. Most of that fear comes from the federal level, because these beauracrats love their powers. However...
Even to propose such a course might seem imprudent—but then again, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution never thought the balance of powers between states and the federal government would ever get so profoundly distorted. James Madison dismissed claims that the new federal government could displace the states as "chimerical fears," assuring his readers in The Federalist Papers that "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite." Indeed, the Framers considered a "vertical" separation of powers—between federal and state authority—just as important as guaranteeing the success of liberty as the "horizontal" separation of powers between the president, Congress and the courts.

True enough, re-establishing a proper balance—where, as Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, Washington is responsible "principally [for] external objects" and the states for "all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people"—will not be easy.

The gain will be substantial. Although it seems that permitting the states to propose amendments is a small thing, especially because ratification would still require three-fourths of the states to agree, it would shift the power calculus—and create a potential for action that the president, Congress and courts could never ignore as they consider the proper boundaries of their own authority.

Moreover, the effort to enable the states to check Washington's power would provide a constructive outlet for much of the growing anger—specially evident in phenomena such as the "tea party" movement—toward the political elites of both parties. It is not a partisan proposal and is difficult to oppose. The purpose is to move significant authority closer to the electorate, but in a measured, "conservative" manner that is in no sense "populist."
Yes, there's much growing anger.

Summon a constitutional convention. Let's get this mess straightened out, restore power to the states, strengthen the weakened constitution, and end the dirty socialist takeover of our little country!



This Democrat sold his vote for $100 Million (estimated cost for 10 years of medicaid expansion exemption for Nebraska) just weeks after saying "My vote is not for sale. Period."

What a lying whore you are, Senator Ben Nelson (D), Nebraska.

You should've asked for more. The upkeep on that hairpiece must cost you hundreds of dollars a month. You could've added a line or two to get that covered, couldn't you?




No rest for the wicked, Senator. Get yourself cleaned up pronto, you'll have another date to service soon enough.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

This e-mail to me from the RNC, Michael Steele...




The e-post card is here.  My (deleted on arrival) card...



Go send the bastiche Hairy Reid a postcard. Or throw a bale of arugula at him, whichever is more convenient.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Senator Gregg is described as "a leading fiscal mind on Capitol Hill and a one-time Obama Cabinet pick", so he's no volcanic partisan. Speaking of the projected $1.42 trillion US Operating deficit for 2009 alone, Sen. Gregg:
This deficit is driven by us,” [Congress of the United States,] “that we’re creating these massive debts which we’re passing on to our children. We’re going to undermine fundamentally the quality of life for our children by doing this.

Now you can’t blame that on George Bush,

[The figures] “mean we’re basically on the path to a banana-republic-type of financial situation in this country. And you just can’t do that. You can’t keep running these [federal] programs out [into the future] and not paying for them. And you can’t keep throwing debt on top of debt.”

“Standards of living will drop if we keep this up,

[Health care options mean] “a huge expansion of government.

You’re talking about taking the government and increasing it by $1-$2 trillion over the next ten years,

Fiscal conservatism. Sort of a rare thing to hear in the U.S. Senate, and never dared spoken by Democrats.

Listen to Judd Gregg speak with Fred Thompson.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009










 

FREE HOT BODYPAINTING | HOT GIRL GALERRY