Getting Rid Of ObamaCare The Common Sense Way

ObamaCare has been a fiscal disaster as well as a healthcare disaster. The lies and misrepresentations of the Obama Administration and the Democrats to shove it through are common knowledge by now, and so is failure of most of the health exchanges. Most of the people who signed up for ObamaCare were people on MedicAid who were getting health care at no cost anyway, while many people who had functional plans saw their premiums skyrocket, their coverage diminished and their co-pays increase to the point where their coverage was essentially meaningless, especially at the Bronze level. Many workers, especially in small businesses actually saw their hours cut below full time simply because complying with ObamaCare and it's arcane rules and requirements was too expensive and/or too time consuming. Many doctors in private practice refused to accept it for the same reasons. A fair amount of ObamaCare's victims simply chose to pay the mandated penalty instead of the high premiums and hope they never got sick.

 

ObamaCare was simply one of the worst scams ever foisted on the American people, and even many of its original proponents now admit that the flimflam about it being a money saver and deficit reducer were 'overstated.'

Repealing ObamaCare was a campaign promise of President Trump's as well as many Republicans now in Congress. Yet it's been delayed.

The reasons are pretty obvious. First of all, there are a couple of provisions many people like, especially if they work in government, which had the staff and other people's money to tailor their plans so that there was compliance with only a modest increase in co-pays and premiums, most of which ere partially paid for by their employer, or rather, the taxpayers. Particularly popular were the provisions allowing people to keep their children on their plans until age 26 and not allowing insurers to deny people with pre-existing conditions.

Second, insurance is a business based on future projections. Rates are figured on the basis of risk and probable future cost in advance, and a change now would create chaos in the industry. There's also the factor that a lot of the people on ObamaCare who aren't paying anything for coverage anyway like the status quo. And they vote.

That's why you're seeing the dithering going on in congress over getting rid of this costly travesty. A lot of republicans are now talking about 'fixing ' ObamaCare rather than repeal, or not doing anything until a legitimate replacement is created.

Both ideas are seriously flawed. Here's why, and how to get rid of ObamaCare in a commonsense way.

Obamacare was poorly designed and badly constructed from the very beginning. Trying to repair it would be like prettying up a house with shoddy basic construction and materials, a lousy foundation and a bad interior design. Not only that, but right now, ObamaCare is a colossal failure owned by President Obama and the Democrat party. Tinkering with it would allow them to saddle the Trump Administration and the Republican congress with that failure...'it was working fine until you fiddled with it.'

The other idea, of doing nothing until a replacement is constructed is going to take a great deal of time. Meanwhile, the American people are getting justifiably restless, especially since they remember how the Republicans in Congress did nothing about this for 8 years. In the meantime,not only is ObamaCare hemorrhaging money, but because of its tax provisions, not repealing ObamaCare delaying the tax cuts and tax reform badly needed to get the economy rolling again.

There's actually a fairly easy solution to this problem.

President Trump, together with Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should immediately announce the repeal of ObamaCare, especially the individual mandate penalty and name a date in the near future when it will no longer be in effect. This would have a number of benefits.

It would allow insurance companies and health providers lead in time to figure cost and actuarial projections for the coming year and tool up, especially if they were given advance notice of the basics of the new plan. They didn't get that when ObamaCare was unloaded on them, and it cost millions...which of course was transferred to the insured in the form of higher premiums.

It would reassure the American people that congress wasn't going to drop the ball again. a mention in the announcement that the new plan would include an assigned risk provision for pre-existing conditions and retain the provision allowing parents to keep children under 26 on their plans would also be helpful.

It would provide congress and staff members constructing the new plan with that essential prod known as a deadline. With President Trump pushing them along, I can almost guarantee it would be finished on time.

The plan itself? If we're going to have universal health care, I recommend President Trump and his advisors look at the way Israel does this, since it's one of the few government mandated healthcare programs that actually works.

In Israel, health insurance is mandatory and there are five healthcare insurance providers who compete with each other for clients, which effects the size of their government subsidies. Not all five are available in every part of the country, but you are usually sure of having at least three to choose from. In addition, every insurance program is boutique, meaning you only pay for what your particular needs require...a retired couple in their sixties, for instance, would probably not be paying for maternity care or a pediatric care. And since healthcare insurance is mandatory, the issues of pre-existing conditions and adult children being retained on their parents plan don't really exist.

One reason this works so well in Israel is that the litigious climate here in America doesn't really exist there yet. The ratio of doctors and medical personnel to lawyers is the opposite of what we have here in the U.S. which also has the effect of keeping medical care affordable. Israel also doesn't have the illegal migration problem America does. As a result,Israel does quite a nice business in medical tourism, with Europeans fed up with the long wait to have procedures performed flying to Israel to take advantage of the state of the art care at lower prices and the reduced wait time.

I'd recommend that any new national health plan America adopts include these factors...competition between providers, boutique plan and serious tort reform to keep the lawyers at arms length. And perhaps some government provisions to cut down on waste and abuse. Addressing the high cost of medical education so we can produce more doctors and medical personnel wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Interesting Video - Hannity Grills House Speaker Candidate Kevin McCarthy

Sean Hannity does a good job here of grilling House Speaker candidate Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on how he'd be different than John Boehner, and McCarthy actually holds his own fairly well.

He's definitely right about Mitch McConnell and the Senate's primary responsibility in failing to pass a number of good legislation that's made it through the House.

All That’s Needed to Stop Fast Track Is You – Call Congress Monday!

 An important message from my friend Sarah Noble at the Independent Sentinel:


Of three large trade bills passed on Friday, only TPA was crushed, 126-302. TAA  did pass but TPA didn’t. TPA is considered necessary for TAA to work. TPA is the fast-track authority. It’s the process, not the deal itself.

TPA is being brought back on Tuesday and Wednesday. What will the GOP do to make it acceptable if anything?

Stripping TPA out of TPP is unacceptable to Progressives and it is unlikely the conference vote will pass both the House and Senate if TAA remains as is.

All trade deals include a TPA.

If TPA goes down, so does TAA. TAA spends large sums of taxpayer money to compensate workers for lost jobs by way of unemployment and social welfare programs et al. TPA is actually pork barrel spending to get trade deals through and doesn’t really work. The trade deals are usually worth it.
Another alternative to get TPA passed is for the House to reconsider TAA, perhaps putting even more tax dollars into it. It would need 80 votes to pass which would include a large number of Republicans. The pressure is being put on them as I write this.

There was a lot of talk about the Democrats being offended by Barack Obama impugning their character on the day of the vote as he was trying to convince them to vote for it, but what they really want is more money for TAA or a halt to proposed amendments limiting climate change and immigration.

TAA, which is the trade deal Republicans want to boost our economy, shows they can fight for things when they want to.

John Boehner is probably bringing TPA back for a vote Wednesday. He might be confidant it will pass after he presents a better deal for the Democrats.

TPA is fast-tracking a trade bill – TPP – that allegedly sets up a massive Trans-Pacific Union with a treaty that will not need 67 votes in Congress to pass and which will turn over some amount of power to the Union. We don’t know how much because we the people aren’t allowed to read even the draft. It could affect our sovereignty but we don’t know for sure or to what degree. It’s a pig in a poke.
Larry Kudlow  on behalf of the TPA – fast-track authority – and the TPP bill itself on his show Saturday.

Kudlow said TPA is a simple agreement that presidents are routinely given. It’s not new and its merely a process.

He thinks opponents are being revengeful but I don’t believe that. The reason is a lack of trust, not revenge. Kudlow thinks opponents are protectionists and xenophobes only. He said the handful of congressmen against it are trouble makers.

We can’t be protectionists but does that mean we have to be globalists? One of the Sentinel writers, Jim Soviero said that people should consider if Barack Obama is a free trader or a globalist and use that as a benchmark.

Kudlow assured Americans trade is in our best economic interests and the concerns about immigration and climate change are just not true. TPP will go online once it’s finished and there will be an opportunity to vote against it. While it’s a treaty, TPA waves that constitutional requirement of 67 votes however.

One of Kudlow’s callers and a strong supporter – Tom – called Kudlow The Oracle in a complimentary way. He said he was against TPA because he read it and he pointed out number 7 in TPA which he interpreted as saying you cannot back off the environmental stuff that’s in the bill and that Mr. Obama is doing right now in this country. The listener said that to him it means that we are stuck with Mr. Obama’s oppressive regulations.

Kudlow said those words are meaningless because TPA is only a process and that language is to make the left comfortable. Kudlow wasn’t aware of number 7 and had no knowledge of it. He hadn’t read TPA. If he hasn’t read it, why is he discussing it?

The section the caller referred to is probably this one:

(7) to seek provisions in trade agreements under which parties to those agreements ensure that they do not weaken or reduce the protections afforded in domestic environmental and labor laws an encouragement for trade;

This clause likely means we won’t compromise the environment for trade – trading on the environment can’t be used as a bargaining chip. I don’t think the clause is a problem, but, again, in the hands of Barack Obama, who knows. I’ve linked the TPA at the bottom and you can read it and judge for yourself.

Kudlow conceded the words might need to be removed but that could be done.

What Mr. Kudlow (who I also consider an Oracle) is ignoring is the fact that people on the right simply don’t trust Mr. Obama and with good reason. He is adept at twisting words to meet his agenda – words matter and he doesn’t necessarily interpret them the way the rest of us do. Who knows what he will negotiate away and when it comes back to Congress, the Democrats can get it passed if 67 votes are not required.

On Friday, Nancy Pelosi gave a speech on the House floor and I’ve included three sections of interest because it seems possible that Nancy Pelosi will move ahead with TAA and take her followers with her if she gets a better deal.

“Environmental justice – looking at these prohibitions on dealing with climate and 11 other countries in the world, and then our own. [There are GOP amendments to prevent Mr. Obama from negotiating climate change and immigration goals] Now, again, I commend the President, because in the Fast Track bill, there are some good provisions on the environment – issues, I’m talking about an ethic, a responsibility, a comprehensive view of the future. And again, the Pelosi Amendment addressed the indigenous people, all these people who will be not of the first, shall we say, priority for many of these countries as they make their economic decisions.”

[…]

“So while I’m a big supporter of TAA, if TAA slows down the Fast Track, I am prepared to vote against TAA. Because then, its defeat, [I’m] sad to say, is the only way that we will be able to slow down the Fast Track.”

[…]

“For these and other reasons, I will be voting today to slow down the Fast Track, to get a better deal for the American people – bigger paychecks, better infrastructure, help the American people fulfill the American Dream.”

These amendments are very troubling to the left. That doesn’t mean they have ulterior motives but they might.

Nancy Pelosi is right when she says voting against TPA slows the process. That’s all many of us want.

There are a number of items in the draft bill itself that have been leaked. One issue of concern is that foreign governments can sue companies here in the U.S. and the taxpayers would be on the hook for it. While TPA is not the bill itself, it is giving up the 67 votes in the Senate so Mr. Obama can negotiate in secret, publishing TPP only when it’s complete.

Why do we have to fast-track something – the draft of which – most of Congress hasn’t read? What’s the rush?

Contact John Boehner Monday at (202) 225-0600 or Call the Switchboard to contact your representative at (202) 224-3121. Take down the Capitol Hill phone lines. 

Get it? If you want to stop this in its tracks and send a message, here's your opportunity

Breaking: ObamaTrade Dies In The House!!

President Obama's attempt to screw America's workers and promote massive globalization failed in the House, as Democrats on the Left combined in an odd menage' with conservative Republicans to defeat the Obama Administration's secret protocol giving the president executive authority to 'fast track' trade agreements that were more about immigration, global warming and establishing an EU-like bureaucracy than about trade.

President Obama made an exhaustive pitch to Democrats, saying that voting against the bill was 'voting against me.' It failed dismally.

It was also a defeat for the GOP establishment leadership, as John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell did everything but hold a gun to the heads of GOP conservatives to get them to vote in favor of the bill.

A substantial reason this went down is simple. The bill itself was held in a closely guarded secret room, only select members of congress were even allowed to see it, and they were not permitted to take photographs or notes, or even to discuss it with the media. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), one of the few who read the bill, was particularly vociferous about how bad it was, saying that if the American people knew what was in it, the bill "would be dead."

This president, who pledged 'the most transparent administration in history' has been caught lying one too many times, and the same applies to the GOP leadership. No one trusts them any more. And when GOP committee chairman Paul Ryan started echoing Rep. Nancy Pelosi on ObamaCare, essentially saying we had to pass the bill to know what was in it, that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Democrats and Republicans whom voted to flush this nonsense and send it where such items belong deserve our thanks, no matter what their reasons were. And that includes Nancy Pelosi, who performed one of the few worthwhile deeds in her long congressional career by voting to kill this  disgrace ad safeguard American workers.

As for the Republicans, it's long past time they got rid of Boehner, McConnell and the rest of the GOP establishment leadership.

When you lie down with pigs, some of the stench sticks to you no matter what. If the GOP is to continue as a viable party, it's time they drove the thieves out of the Temple.



UPDATE: Here's a list of congress members whom voted against ObamaTrade,

Breaking: NYT Admits Obama Deliberately Manufactured Netanyahu Spat

President Barack Obama and his minions in the White House and the press have had a lot to say about how 'disrespectful' it was for Congress to invite Israeli PM Benyamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of congress without informing the White House. And how wrong it was for Netanyahu to accept when he knew the White  House hadn't been informed.

Read this correction , from Pravda-on-the-Hudson own website.

Correction: January 30, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Omri Ceren first spotted the correction and explained on Twitter:

 NYT tries to promote anti-Netanyahu talking point that #Israel blindsided Obama. They got just 1 tiny detail wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/us/politics/benjamin-netanyahu-is-talking-to-harry-reid-and-leading-democrats-to-little-effect-so-far.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=2

Correction: January 30, 2015 

An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

This correction literally destroys the entire accompanying NYT article, about how Netanyahu was trying to make peace with Democrats in congress and explain why he had cooperated in 'bypassing the White House.'

Let's look at what originally ran, in the print edition:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Thursday that Mr. Netanyahu had called him the previous afternoon to explain why he had accepted an invitation to speak to Congress without first notifying the White House.

Then it was revised in the online edition:

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Thursday that Mr. Netanyahu had called him the previous afternoon to explain why the White House had been circumvented before he was invited to speak before Congress. 

And let's look again the correction at the bottom of this piece of journalistic chicanery, online:

An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Of course, the truth is that the White House was never bypassed or circumvented. Netanyahu only accepted Speaker John Boehner's invitation after he knew the White House had been informed and had a chance to object.

And if the Obama White House had some objection  and had actually communicated it to  Netanyahu, do you think that just maybe, he might have made decision not to accept the speaking invitation?

Instead, the Obama White House said nothing, and Netanyahu, whose country gets threatened with destruction by Iran about every other week  decided to accept Boehner's invitation to speak to congress and help provide an impetus for legislation on Iranian sanctions that's in both Israel and America's interest .

American Thinker (where yours truly has been proud to appear in from time to time) blogged on this and revealed another tidbit :

In 2011, Boehner sent a notice to the WH stating his intention to invite Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. The White House never responded (spite? incompetence?) and Boehner proceeded to extend the invitation to Netanyahu. Netanyahu accepted the invitation and spoke. The White House did not express any outrage in 2011.

So there was a precedent set then, and no reason for Boehner or Netanyahu to assume there was any problem when the White House didn't respond with any objections this time.

The resulting fracus was simply kabuki outrage manufactured to create a negative impression that Israel had somehow 'disrespected' an American president. And of course, to assist Netanyahu's political enemies in the coming election...where the Obama Administration has already sent a crack campaign team and millions in campaign funds for the same purpose. The shotgun wedding of Labor's Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni lost no time in trying to spin this to show that 'Netanyahu was destroying Israel's relationship with the U.S.'

Actually, the reality is that it really doesn't matter what Netanyahu says or what Israel does.If it wasn't this, President Obama would have set up something else, and there will certainly be more of this coming no matter who gets elected in March and no matter how many of Mahmoud Abbas's demands Israel submits to.


This president wants very much to curtail America's alliance with Israel. That's the goal, and it has been ever since President Barack Hussein Obama first entered the White House.

The Fight OnThe Cromnibus Bill Goes To The Senate

The Washington Examiner is reporting that the new 'cromnibus' spending bill passed in the House is sparking a great deal of resistance in the Senate. It's passage as is isn't a done deal by any means.

The two senators leading the charge are Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and David Vitter (R-LA), a staunch conservative, Neither like the corporate carve outs in the bill or the abandonment of campaign finance limits.

The House passed an extension giving the Senate until December 17th to pass the bill and lame duck majority leader Harry Reid is urging them to do so and so is President Obama, but there's is a great deal of resistance from both far Left progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans.

The passage of this bill is by no means a done deal.

Roundup OnThe New 'Cromnibus' Spending Bill...'

The new 'Cromibus' spending bill passed the House yesterday and went to the Democrat dominated Senate. It essentially funds everything through September of 2015, even Michelle Obama's lunch program.

This essentially is an attempt to undercut the incoming GOP congress by removing its main weapon..the power of the purse.

The sole exception is the Department of Homeland Security which is funded until Feb. 27, 2015. That's a bone thrown at GOP conservatives to give the new congress something to work with to try and fight the president amnesty by executive diktat.Expect Boehner and his cronies to fight any attempts to rein in President Obama's amnesty order tooth and nail.

Sarah Palin:It stinks to high heaven. Did arrogant politicians not get the memo that Obama’s agenda was decisively defeated in last month’s historic midterm landslide? Good Lord, America said loud and clear not just “no” but “hell no” to Obama’s failed policies. Americans who pay attention said absolutely no to Obama’s amnesty for illegal aliens.

We also said no to the mother-of-all unfunded mandates, Obamacare, and voters believed promises that they would ratchet down the $18 trillion debt. Well, our bad for apathetically trusting politicians. No, on second thought, it’s not “our bad.” Some of us warned and worked hard to elect candidates who would buck the status quo. Many conscientious Americans did all they could to open the eyes of low-information voters. It was tough going up against Obama’s lapdogs in the media and the power liberals have to play their politics of personal destruction against commonsense conservatives.

But really how out-of-touch do these politicians have to be to misunderstand our recent mandate to stop Barack Obama's fundamental transformation of the greatest nation on earth?

The Republican Leadership in the House just flipped American voters the bird by sidelining the new Congress we just elected.

GOP Rep: House Leaders Made False Promise to Get My Crucial Vote :Representative Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) accused House Republican leadership of reneging on a deal made with him to get his support on a crucial procedural vote that almost killed the $1.1 trillion cromnibus funding bill.

“I was very surprised and even more disappointed to see the cromnibus back on the floor,” Stutzman said in a Thursday evening statement. “The American people deserve better.” [...]

“I supported the rule because I was informed by leadership that the cromnibus was dead and a short term CR would take its place,” Stutzman said.

After President Obama came out in favor of the funding bill, Republican leaders spent the day whipping their members and hoping that Democrats would deliver the requisite number of votes.

“The cromnibus bill, over 1,600 pages long, does many things but what is most important is what it does not do,” he said. “It fails to directly address President Obama’s dangerous executive action on immigration and fails to include many of the solutions that could have been passed in January with a Republican House and Senate in an open process.”

Dave Brat (R-VA) in a statement:“I had two opportunities to try to prevent the omnibus bill from becoming law, and I exercised both of them. Regardless of the many policy disagreements I had with the bill, this vote ultimately wasn’t about policy for me. This bill funds an illegal act. Above all, this vote was about following the law and the Constitution.

“Without the amendment that my House colleagues and I proposed yesterday, this omnibus bill allows funding for President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty for approximately five million illegal immigrants.

“Despite having claimed several times that he didn’t have the authority to enact amnesty without Congress, President Obama acted anyway. Under our Constitution, the president can’t create the law; the president has to follow the law.

“I cannot vote to allow an agency of this government to commit an act that the president and the House leadership on both sides have previously agreed is illegal. Allowing the funding of executive amnesty, even just until the end of February, allows the program to be implemented and amnesty to be enacted.”


John Hayward, Human Events: Anyone who raises the slightest objection to this panicky spending bonanza is denounced as a penny-pinching extremist monster who just wants to kill children, puppies, and kittens for fun, by shutting down the government that keeps them alive. You don’t want Obama to throw up barricades around your national parks and memorials again, do you? No? Then shut up and spend.

The sole reservation in the winder spending festival is the Department of Homeland Security – which, as Fox News explains, is only funded through February, so the GOP leadership can pretend it’s going to stage a huge fight over Obama’s illegal amnesty orders next year. This is supposed to mollify the starchy citizens who still care about antiquated notions like the rule of law, the separation of powers, the value of citizenship, and national security long enough for the Establishment to enjoy its holiday vacation:

The bill finances the day-to-day operations of every Cabinet department except Homeland Security through Sept. 30, 2015, with $521 billion for defense and $492 billion tied to non-defense. Another $64 billion is provided for overseas military operations.

However, the plan would only fund the Department of Homeland Security through Feb. 27, 2015. That is a move by House GOP leaders to tee up a debate in early 2015 over the president’s recent executive action that could suspend deportation for as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.

Some conservatives nevertheless want to wage that battle now, and use the current spending bill as leverage. Though the House voted last week against Obama’s immigration plan, these lawmakers want to do more.

Strong opposition to the House budget plan from the Republicans’ conservative wing could force GOP chamber leaders to rely on Democratic votes to avert a government shutdown. House Speaker John Boehner can afford to lose only 17 caucus votes before he must turn to support from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi, D-Calif., has said her party would be willing to help but has signaled she may make some demands.

Wonderful. Let’s have a big round of applause for the GOP Establishment, ladies and gentlemen! They managed to throw away the most remarkable electoral victory in a generation in only one month, maneuvering themselves into a position where the losers who got crushed will be making demands to win their support for a bill that effectively ratifies their will through half of their sojourn in electoral exile.

There was no reason to give the defeated Democrats anything except a stop-gap bill to fund the government through January, at which point the incoming Republican majorities should have exercised control over everything. If the Democrats don’t like that deal, let them shut down the government in a fit of pique, and tell voters how they party they just threw out of power should be allowed to control their lives for an extra year. Not only would that be smart politics – giving the Republicans more fiscal leverage to stand up for America against Obama’s amnesty, instead of just funding for the Department of Homeland Security – but it would represent more sensible and responsible government. All of this multi-trillion-dollar monstrosity is linked together; all of it should be on the table; the flab should be liposuctioned out of every agency at once in a comprehensive plan for fiscal sanity and increased American liberty.

Drew At Ace of Spades HQ: What we should be focusing on is that the establishment of the GOP was far more interested in cutting deals with the Democrats than they were in exercising the power of their new majorities come January.

Look at the provisions that the GOP included in CrOmnibus that set off the Democratic progressives and some TEA types...

First was an increase the limits donors can give to political parties.

The provision would increase the amount of money a single donor could give to national party committees each year from $97,200 to as much as $777,600 by allowing them to set up different funds for certain expenses. The change would be a huge boost for party committees that have faced steep challenges in recent years from well-funded outside groups.

...

“Conservatives support the First Amendment and believe there should be no limits on political speech,” said Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund. “Unfortunately, the new limits included in the omnibus only increase political speech for party insiders while silencing the majority of Americans who are fed up with Washington.”

The second was a 'reform" of Dodd-Frank. Republicans have been running against Dodd-Frank for years. Normally their critique is that it hurts small businesses that can't afford to comply with a maze of regulations. The reform the GOP stood fast on? A provision literally written by Citigroup.

The derivatives provision would let JPMorgan, Citigroup Inc. (C:US), Bank of America Corp. (BAC:US) and other banks trade almost all swaps in divisions that have government backstops like deposit insurance. It would repeal a requirement that some of the trades be pushed out to separate units, which Wall Street argued would drive up costs for clients and increase risk in the financial system by moving the trades to firms less regulated than banks.

So thanks to the brave leadership of John Boehner, Harry Reid and Barack Obama we made it easier for political parties to fend off outside interest groups and make sure banks can trade derivatives again with the knowledge that if things go south, the taxpayers will foot the bill. The chairman of Citigroup certainly must be pleased with his personal lobbying efforts.

I'm not one to say there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats, that's silly. But it's not nearly enough or as much as they like to pretend.

The story isn't that a minority of the GOP found common cause with some Democrats to oppose these deals, it's that after facing a populist backlash after the failed GOP administration of 2001-2007, the party has successfully weathered the storm and returned to business as usual. Big donors and big business get theirs. Meanwhile voters who thought they voted for spending cuts and opposition to amnesty just six weeks or so ago are told, sorry can't do it. Good luck ever collecting.

Rush Limbaugh: The news is that the Republican Speaker of the House has thrown in with Barack Obama. I don't care what the Democrats are doing. What does that matter? Holy smokes. John Boehner has just squandered the election results before the Republicans even are sworn in to run the Senate, along with the House, if I've got this right.

Yeah, we're supposed to look the other way while our Speaker of the House gets in bed with Obama and advances the Obama agenda, takes care of it, amnesty, Obamacare, fully funded, done deal. The election must not have mattered.

And then we got Elizabeth Warren out there who's staking her claim to the presidency while Mrs. Clinton isn't looking. To show you how out of whack things are, Elizabeth Warren of, "You didn't build that. You didn't make that happen" fame, well known communist socialist Elizabeth Warren is now being credited as practically the only person in Washington standing up for the little guy via her opposition to some of the relaxation of regulations in Dodd-Frank and some of the campaign finance.  By the way, about that campaign finance stuff, that everybody's upset about in the omnibus bill, I'm gonna tell you exactly what that is. 

We had a caller about it yesterday. The lady was fit to be tied. She was angry and she was right to be, because the limits have practically been obliterated, which means that corporate donors can just start giving left and right. It used to be a limit of $37,000. Now it's $737,000, something.  It's incredible.  But the point of it, do you know why it's in there?  You know why?  The Republicans put it in.  You know why it's in there, folks?  This is how corporate America's gonna defeat the Tea Party.  By allowing limitless donations from that crowd under the rubric that it's campaign finance and money is speech and freedom of speech and First Amendment. The theory is that Main Street, Tea Party people can't come close to competing with corporate money. 

So it is a Republican establishment ploy that kind of dovetails nicely with Obama sicking the IRS on the Tea Party to basically eliminate them as a viable threat by relaxing a registration in Dodd-Frank that pretty much permits corporations to spend any kind of money they want on politics.  It's kind of a dichotomy.  It's a dilemma, in terms of figuring out what to think about it. 

Let me tell you about a congressman named Marlin Stutzman.  Marlin Stutzman is a Republican from Indiana, and he is claiming, he's put out a press release on this now.  He's admitting to this publicly. He's not relying on a publication to say it, he's saying it himself that he was lied to; that he was lied to by the Republican leadership; that the Republican leadership reneged on a deal they made with him to get his support for the omnibus bill.  Want the details?  He said, "I was very surprised and even more disappointed to see the cromnibus back on the floor. The American people deserve better."

 Elizabeth Warren, is, for all intents and purposes, threatening to shut down the government.  Now, where this thing is in the Senate's kind of up in the air, but she's threatening to shut down the government.  And the media is praising her.  The media is praising her for principled opposition.  And, as you know, Republican shutdown, why, it's the end of the world, it's the end of everything as we know it.  [...]

 The media is reporting this as, for all intents and purposes, a done deal.  They are reporting that all the action was in the House, and once the House voted for the $1.1 trillion omnibus, since the Democrats run the Senate it's a fait accompli that it's gonna get done.

That's not the case because there's a flamethrower over there named Elizabeth Warren, and she's not happy with what's in the Republican bill -- and neither, for that matter, is Nancy Pelosi.  So the Senate's not done on this.  They did a couple-of-days spending bill, and the Senate's gonna take its time and still argue about it, debate this.  Now, the consensus is that the Senate will ultimately pass it, because that's what Obama wants, and the Democrat Party's still loyal to him

But that's not a fait accompli.[...]

President Obama and John Boehner want a bill that the bases of their respective parties reject.  Boehner is enabling (or did enable) the passage of a bill in the House that the Republican base wants no part of.  They don't want Obamacare fully implemented or funded, and they do not want Obama to get away with this executive amnesty.  Boehner has worked with Obama

And the Republican version of the bill in the House flies in the face of what both the Democrat base and the Republican base want.  The Democrat base doesn't like the relaxation of regulations in Dodd-Frank, which is campaign finance, basically. There's some things the unions don't like about pensions as well, because their pensions are gonna end up being devalued.

There are a couple other things in it that the Democrat base is not happy about.  Another thing being reported is that Elizabeth Warren is taking a stand on an issue that, if successful, would embarrass Obama.  This is being reported.  This is not my opinion.  You can find this story somewhere in the Drive-By Media stash today. The stand that she is taking on the issue is a very populist stand.  It is a stance against Wall Street. 

Wall Street has been given a great gift in the omnibus spending bill: Relaxation of regulations on Dodd-Frank.  Opposing Wall Street... Remember Occupy Wall Street?  Opposing Wall Street is a huge ticket item for Elizabeth Warren, particularly if she wants to run for president.  The presumptive nominee, of course, is Mrs. Clinton.  We're right back where we were 2007 and 2008 with the Washington establishment of both parties concluding that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

We've been there. 

We've done that. 

And out of the blue, in 2007, came Barack Hussein Obama.  Out of the blue this year is coming Elizabeth Warren, and she's got a ready-made entry and a ready-made ticket with her populist opposition to the Wall Street favors that are in the omnibus bill.  Obama is in favor of relaxing those regulations on Wall Street because Obama is in bed with Wall Street and has been from the get-go, but his base is not really aware of that. 

The Democrat Party base has been driven insane with hatred for Wall Street. They've been driven insane with hatred for the US military. They've been driven insane with hatred for the CIA.  The Democrat Party base has been driven insane by the radical nature of what everybody thinks are mainstream Democrats.  Obama is as closely tied and in bed with Wall Street as anybody is, and Elizabeth Warren is not.

And she is distancing herself from the Democrats and particularly from Obama in a major way by taking a stand on that issue regarding Dodd-Frank.  If this bill goes down to smithereens because of this, it would be an embarrassment to Obama.  Again, this is what's being reported.  It is also being reported that Barack Obama is being abandoned by Democrats by the score on this because the Democrats are not happy with a couple of provisions. 

See, the Democrats are not invested in Obamacare to the degree that you would believe.  Remember, Obamacare is why they lost, in their minds -- and you've heard by now the old stat that half the Democrat senators remaining in the Senate who voted for Obamacare, for one reason or another, are gone.  We've had Chuck-U Schumer and Tom Harkin and a number of other Democrats publicly throw Obamacare under the bus claiming it was bad bill.

(summarized) "It was a mistake timing-wise. We shouldn't have done it before we shored up the economy." There are Democrats running away from Obamacare.  It's John Boehner who's in bed with Obama on Obamacare, not the Democrats.  And one of the things we're supposed to be taking great satisfaction from watching is the Democrat fallout over Obamacare. 

But Boehner has picked up the slack there with the Republican omnibus bill, which fully funds it.  So now the Democrats are free to walk away from it, which they wanted to do and have.  So when you see it reported that Democrats are abandoning Obama by the score, one of the things they're abandoning him on is Obamacare.  Look, they have lost big in the last two midterm elections.

This is still... The scope of this defeat is still not accurately reported in the Drive-By Media, although if you keep your radio tuned to this station, you will soon hear that the Washington Post has a story today which fulfills a prophecy of mine back in 2008, 2009. I wasn't the only one, but I might have led the pack on this, as referring to Barack Obama's presidency as Jimmy Carter's second term. 

Today's Washington Post pretty much says that, and they do it with polling data.  They do it on the basis that there is a nationwide malaise among the American people, that they are despondent and depressed and feeling hopeless. There's no opportunity for the American dream. There's no opportunity for economic advancement.  It's not a pretty picture, and it's being painted in the Washington Post.  Jimmy Carter's second term. 

Lisa Lerer, Bloomberg: On one side of the debate are strategists and officials, including some aligned with Clinton, who believe their path to the White House in the post-Obama era rests with wooing centrist, working class voters.  To progressive activists, union members, and other parts of the "professional left," as an Obama aide once called them, victory lies in running on an aggressive, populist economic message.

"Some of the jockeying now is trying to strategically make sure Hillary understands that she can't be an economic moderate without generating pushback," said Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union. "Progressives are anxious that her policies, not her heart, will be too generous toward Wall Street."

 With the Senate soon to be in Republican control, progressives aspire to become their own power center that can force Democrats to stand strong on economic issues. By aligning themselves with Warren, who’s an outspoken advocate of Wall Street regulation, groups like MoveOn not only grow membership lists and bank accounts, they also raise their profile.

While Warren is their billboard, the real target is likely Clinton. A history of pro-business economic policies and a roster of rich Wall Street donors make progressive and union activists anxious about the direction of her leadership and political loyalties. Though she has yet to announce a campaign, they're trying to send the message that their concerns should not be taken for granted.  "I think the fact that people are encouraging a person who probably isn't going to run may just be a manifestation of wanting to make clear that Secretary Clinton is not going to walk in and assume there's a coronation," said Stern. "She's going to have to work it policy-wise, particularly on the economy"

The Hill- Warren Makes Her Mark:Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s crusade against the $1.1 trillion spending bill backed by the White House firmly establishes the Massachusetts populist as a powerful player in Washington.

The freshman Democrat took on President Obama and her party’s leadership, and appeared to inspire an uprising in the House.

The fight earned her comparisons to Texas firebrand Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, another relative newcomer to the Senate who has shown outsized clout in his party.  

Warren lost the battle in the House when the spending bill was approved in a late-night 219-206 vote, and the fight is now moving to Warren’s turf in the Senate.

If she continues to fight hard against the bill, it will pull her into a deeper clash with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who backed the spending deal and has just named Warren to his leadership team.

 “I have to assume Elizabeth Warren is running for president. That’s what you do when you run for president. You get out front,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee who backed the spending bill opposed by Warren.

GOP Caves - Spending Bill Includes Nearly $1 Billion For Illegal Migrants

After America gave the GOP a landslide victory, the Republican leadership is repaying them with what amounts to a total surrender to President Obama's amnesty by diktat.

The new GOP draft 2015 “omnibus” spending bill includes $948 million designated to aid poor and unskilled Central American illegal migrants establish themselves so they can stay in the United States. And there are no restrictions whatsoever on the president's plan to give work permits and other benefits to millions of illegal migrants. Nor is the bill prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security from spending money to implement President Obama's amnesty:

Instead, the leadership, led by House Speaker John Boehner, drafted a bill imposing a 60-day spending limit for Obama’s immigration agencies.

The planned 60-day spending limit is largely symbolic, because the most important immigration agency can operate on fees paid by the illegals.

“Leadership is basically giving in to every facet of Obama’s amnesty. We’re giving up an astonishing amount of leverage on every issue imaginable,” said one Hill aide.

The struggle between Boehner’s business wing and the populist conservative wing, has received little coverage in the established media, even though GOP legislators are calling for the public to protest their leadership’s policies.

Not only does the president's new executive order pretty much make enforcement of our immigration laws irrelevant, it creates new opportunities and encouragement for a brand new surge of illegal migrants to cross the border, expected to start in the summer of 2015.

And why not? Their chances of being allowed to stay have never been better. In 2014, Obama’s agencies accepted something like 56,000 Central American minors, providing them with health screenings and air transport to parents and family members throughout the United States.

The Obama Administration is also spending at least $7 million to provide free lawyers to the migrants so they can win court cases to remain in the United States. Only 1,901 were sent home by October 31st.

If the Republican leadership thinks that they're going to be able to indulge in this kind of treachery to please the Chamber of Commerce and their wealthy donors and still win elections, they're even stupider than I thought. This goes beyond mere politics..it's bad for the country and sets a horrible precedent.

Watch how quickly their majority disappears in 2016, especially if they nominate some RINO like Jeb Bush. The base will stay home, the majority of Latinos whom vote will vote for Hillary or whatever other Democrat promises them more gimmees and the GOP will likely have participated in its last election as a new party forms.

Here's hoping enough Republicans get this to kick Boehner and McConnell out and get new leadership, before they wind up being destroyed as a political entity.

The Rams 'Hands Up' Protest Doesn't Bother Me..But Congress's Is Obscene

There has been a great deal of anger expressed over an incident that happened at a St.Louis Rams football game. Jared Cook, Kenny Britt, Chris Givens, Stedman Bailey and Tavon Austin, all of whom are black and play for the Rams decided to express a blatant political view and use the 'Hands Up,Don't Shoot' gesture before their last game with Oakland to express their solidarity with the Ferguson protesters/rioters.

Leaving aside for a moment how bogus the gesture itself is (there is, after all,plenty of evidence that Michael Brown was not standing still with his hands up when policemen Darren Wilson shot him)it's obvious that this was a political statement and an expression of being down with racialist solidarity. It wasn't some kind of of plea for justice,peace and amity, although it's quite possible the five NFL players didn't see that. They simply did it anyway.

When the calls came for the players to be disciplined, both the St. Louis Rams and the NFL refused,citing the players 'First Amendment rights.'

Here's what Rams coach Jeff Fisher saidto rationalize this, saying it was the player's "choice to exercise their free speech."

"It's my personal opinion, I firmly believe, that it's important that I keep sports and politics separate," Fisher said. "I'm a head coach. I'm not a politician, an activist or an expert on societal issues, so I'm going to answer questions about the game."

Except of course, by allowing this,the team and the NFL are clearly taking a political stand as well.

Imagine five white players had done the same thing, holding up signs saying 'We support Officer Wilson.' Is anyone naive enough to believe that they wouldn't have been fined and disciplined for exercising their First Amendment Rights? And speaking of which, does anyone remember what the NFL did to Rush Limbaugh when he wanted to use money he earned honestly to buy into an NFL franchise as part of a group of investors? The NFL blackballed him and he was forced to leave the investor group..for exercising his First Amendment rights.

So this nonsense about 'First Amendment Rights' obviously just goes one way.

The way the team and the NFL saw it these five players using the 'Hands Up' gesture was a form of insurance that a significant number of their highly paid hired hands were mollified. And that a significant number people who happen to be of a certain racial background got the message that the NFL was 'down for the struggle', thus insuring that their expensive facilities were spared the sort of damage visited on Ferguson's small business owners.

If a few cops in St. Louis got angry about it, if some fans felt uncomfortable over the display of solidarity for the lawlessness went down in Ferguson, well, who cares? They're not going to riot or cause us grief. So that's the decision they made.

Let's move on to another sort of arena, the U.S. House of Representative. There, several members of congress decided to make the “Hands up, don’t shoot,” gesture on the floor of the House.

 

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) made a ranting speech, saying “In community, after community, after community, fed up with police violence in Ferguson, in Brooklyn, in Cleveland, in Oakland, in cities and counties and rural communities all across America.”

Jeffries added that people are fed up with injustice, a broken criminal justice system and “continuing to see young, unarmed African-American men killed as a result of a gunshot fired by a law enforcement officer.”

"Now this is a problem that Congress can’t run away from and the [Congressional Black Caucus] stands here today to make sure that Congress runs toward the problem,” Jeffries said. “That we come up with constructive solutions to breaking this cycle, this epidemic, this scourge of police violence all across America.”

He was joined by Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Al Green (D-Texas), all of whom had their own fuel for the fire as they made the “Hands up, don’t shoot,” gesture.

That little display is very, very different. It makes me catch-a-fire.Can you see why?

The Rams and the NFL are private businesses. And as such, they are allowed to choose what they support as business decisions, however cynical, amoral and wrong headed.

For those of you whom find that kind of racism(there really is no other word for it) and disrespect for the rule of law abhorrent, you too can make choices. Organize. Don't attend the games and don't watch them on TV. Don't buy their paraphernalia and above all, make sure the team and the NFL know why. A few weeks worth of sharply lowered attendance, TV ratings and sales sends a message that can sometimes encourage businesses to make different choices.

Congress, however is a very different animal.

The salaries of the members of congress who made these racially charged, outlandish statements are paid for by the taxpayers. So are their offices, their staffs, even the very building they meet in to do the people's business that they just soiled.And none of us have a choice about paying for it.

The 'scourge of police violence' Rep. Jeffries? Really? You stand there, in the halls of congress and tell me that a young black man is more likely to be murdered by police than by the sort of thug Michael Brown was well on his way to becoming? You really say that in spite of all the physical evidence showing the Michael Brown was the aggressor and assaulted a police officer, he's still some kind of victim? And that by making that stupid gesture and uttering those inflammatory words, you're in solidarity with the looting and rioting that went on in Ferguson and elsewhere?

Remember this, Congressman Jeffries?

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Do you really think the sort of language you and your friends just made jibes remotely with your oath of office?

It won't happen, but every one of these four members on Congress ought to be censured for making political points by stirring the pot in this fashion. They are encouraging violence and actually sanctioning it.

And yes, that is obscene on its face.

The Left And The Midterms..Denial, The First Stage Of Grief

The results of the midterms are in, and the Republican wave election that wasn't supposed to be one is over.

In their own way, the results are even more stunning then in 2010. The Republicans not only retained their control of the House but actually added seats, and took the majority in the senate by eight seats. The senate races that were supposed to be close, or result in Democrat wins - in Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Iowa and North Carolina - ended up being decisive Republican victories, And that included the governor's races,where Republicans held on to nine seats they were supposedly in danger of losing. In the end, Scott Walker, Rick Scott in Florida, Rick Snyder in Michigan, Sam Brownback in Kansas,and Terry Branstad in Iowa all won, and the GOP actually elected governors in three solid blue states, Massachusetts, Maryland and Illinois.

Considering the amount of voter fraud that undoubtedly occurred in some of these races, the real margin of Republican victory was likely even larger than reported.

The Left's 'war on women' tactic largely fizzled out, and some of the candidates that attempted it, like Wendy Davis in Texas and Colorado's Mark Udall (mocked as 'Mark Uterus' in the normally Democrat-friendly Denver Post)went down to defeat. While Republicans carried the majority of married women, the Democrats still led when it came to unmarried women but nowhere near what they previously managed to get. Overall, according to the exit polls Democrats managed to take the vote among woman by a mere 5%, 52% versus 47% for Republicans, while the GOP won male voters by 56% to 42%.

The Latino turnout was nowhere near what the Democrats needed, and while blacks turned out in places like Georgia and North Carolina, the numbers there were insufficient to win in those states as well as nationally.

These trends indicate something just as the professional Left's reaction - and the president's - to last night tells us what to expect in the next two years.

In looking at how the Left responded, there are several things they mostly had in common.All of them talked about the midterm electorate being whiter and older than a normal presidential election and about what a 'tough map' it was for Democrats. Few if any of them mentioned the fact that this was a referendum on President Obama and his policies, as the president himself stated frequently in his efforts to gin up turn out.

Supposing that this "young non-white electorate" these people are talking about favors Democrats or simply favored Obama in the past is a rather interesting question when you consider that the likely Democrat nominee in 2016 will be the really old white lady who they rejected in 2008.

Anyone who's actually being honest knows that President Obama won the majority of the black vote and continues to enjoy their support (at least on paper) based to a significant extent on racial grounds. The president and the Democrats spent considerable effort wooing this group by telling them that President Obama was indeed on the ballot and that he was in danger of being impeached if they didn't turn out en masse. Posters featuring a lynching that took place in the 1920's and telling black voters that if they didn't turn out those days would be returning were circulated throughout the South. The fact they mostly didn't is a sign that perhaps enough of them actually took a look at this president's policies and the way they have disproportionally hurt black America to have some second thoughts.

The same is true of women in general, even unmarried women. Married women are generally women with families, and among their primary concerns is security at home and opportunities for themselves and their children. To a lesser extent the same is true of unmarried woman, many whom know that the fairy tales about Republicans wanting to ban contraception are nonsense. What both groups see for themselves is this president's failure to deal with threats abroad or even potential epidemics as well as the increased cost of living and their own reduced economic opportunities.The old story about this being 'Bush's fault' is simply past its sell by date, and it smells worse the longer it continues to be thrown out there.

This is going to affect the 'Democrat coalition', especially as out of the record 100 women in the new congress, the majority are Republicans. The new face of American women might very well be reflected by Iowa Senator Joni Ernst and Mia love, the new GOP congresswoman from Utah.



And speaking of which, the other thing the exit polls don't quite explain is the historic level of Republican seats in the house. The GOP at the grass roots level in the congressional districts is now stronger than it has been at any point going back all the way to the 1920s.

Avoid it however they wish, the Left can't avoid the fact that this election was a referendum on Barack Obama's dysfunctional presidency.Yes, denial, with a healthy helping of sour grapes.

Not even the president can avoid this reality, although he continues to do so.

The president, in a fit of temper refused to send the usual congratulatory messages to GOP leaders Mitch McConnell and instead gave a desultory press conference today. Here's what he said:

"On Friday, I look forward to hosting the entire Republican and Democratic leadership at the White House to chart a new course forward. Obviously, Republicans had a good night, and they deserve credit for running good campaigns. Beyond that I'll leave it to all of you and the professional pundits to pick through the results.

What stands out to me though, is the American people sent a message, one they've sent for several elections now. They expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do. They expect us to focus on their ambitions and not ours. They want us to get the job done. All of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment. Still, as president, I have a unique responsibility to make this town work.

To everyone that voted, I want you to know that I heard you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too. All of us have to give more Americans a reason to feel like the ground is stable beneath their feet, that the future is secure, there's a path for young people to succeed, and folks in Washington are concerned about them. So I plan on spending every moment of the next two plus years doing the my job the best I can to keep this country safe and make sure more Americans share in its prosperity. "

OK, the actual turnout in the midterms is estimated to be in the mid 40's rather than one third, but what's one more fairy tale from this president? What the actual message the president sent was that the GOP wave - a 'good night' as he phrased it - had nothing to do with him or his policies, but was simply because people are dissatisfied with things 'not getting done'. Which of course is solely due to GOP obstructionism!

Just compare this to what Speaker John Boehner had to say, that he was "humbled by the responsibility the American people have placed with us."

"But this is not a time for celebration," he said. "It's time for government to start getting results and implementing solutions to the challenges facing our country, starting with our still-struggling economy."

For all the president's talk about 'working together', it's pretty obvious this president has no intention of doing so. For instance, he has already signaled that he's going ahead with amnesty for illegal aliens by executive order during the lame duck session as well as pushing through whatever appointments he can..such as a new, radical attorney general like Thomas Perez.

A real leader, of course would abstain from such tactics, obey the will of the people and try to work out an acceptable compromise with the new congress. That's not what we're dealing with here.

Columnist Peggy Noonan, hardly a right wing Republican, had a column in the Wall Street Journal this week that examined how past presidents like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton dealt with this situation

She referred to their responses as "the sound of political graciousness" and said "it would be nice to hear it from Mr. Obama on Wednesday." Needless to say, we didn't nor will we. Instead, the president will go ahead with actions sure to infuriate the incoming congress and torpedo any ideas they have about working with him before they even take their seats.

Another thing a lot of the professional Left had in common in their responses was a call for the president to use his veto and for the Democrats to use the filibuster to stop the new GOP majorities from using their new clout to accomplish anything. The strategy is obvious...to keep things in gridlock which they will later attempt to blame on Republicans in 2016.

The Republicans need to remember that what happened last night wasn't so much an endorsement of the GOP as a realization that the democrats have failed to govern, that the country is very much on the wrong track and that this is a last chance to get it right.

They were, after all, elected to stop President Obama's agenda and reverse it.

Harry Reid effectively eliminated the use of the filibuster and changed the rules of the senate to please himself. He exercised total contempt for the GOP minority and Republicans were actually locked out of the room when it came to drawing up major legislation like the bogus Stimulus and ObamaCare, something unprecedented in American history. The Republicans should utilize Reid's 'innovations' as a guide and do the same. And a good place to start would be to explain to the American people that they are bringing to a vote over 200 pieces of legislation passed by the House that Senator Reid exercised a one man veto over and kept from ever even coming to the floor.

They are there to govern, and if they fail to demonstrate their ability to do so, the door swings both ways. Here's hoping they take that to heart and proceed to act on it.

Pelosi Refusing To Appoint Democrats To Benghazi Committee As Investigation Begins

Thus far, Democrat House Leader Nancy Pelosi has refused to appoint any Democrats to the House select committee on Benghazi as the committee, headed by Rep.Trey Gowdy ( R-SC) begins its work.

The always entertaining former Speaker first demanded that the committee be 'evenly split' between Republicans and Democrats, something she would have rejected outright when she was Speaker after she stopped cackling.Actually no select committee in history has ever been set up in that manner.

Then, she rejected the operating rules of the committee, which would allow Chairman Trey Gowdy to unilaterally issue subpoenas without the approval of the Democrats on the committee and the Republican members to interview witnesses separately.These kinds of rules are by no means unheard of, and are fairly standard.

Considering that Rep. Elijah Cummings (D- MD)is now facing ethics charges over his behavior on Chairman Issa's House Oversight Committee and the fact that deliberations and investigative strategy were leaked from committee meetings to the very people and agencies the committee was supposed to be investigating, such rules make sense unless the idea is simply to obstruct and stonewall.

Among most Democrats, the latest talking point has been to deride the need for 'just another investigation' at all. They make much of the fact that there have been seven investigations, so his must be just another partisan witch hunt. What they're not mentioning is that the White House has repeatedly lied about how the talking points blaming the attack on a spontaneous demonstration and a video were deliberately constructed for partisan political purposes, and about releasing all of the documentation to Congressional committees. Nor do they mention that the Benghazi survivors are still prevented from speaking congress by the Obama Administration and that all of the security videos as well as the telephone recordings and transcripts of conversations between the White House, the consulate and the CIA annex are all still classified and hidden away from congress as well.

Even basic questions about what happened, why the US was unprepared for a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11, and why security assets less than two hours away weren't allowed to intervene to save American lives remain unanswered.Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has never been questioned under oath, and we still have sharply different accounts of what President Obama was doing while all this was going on.

These are the things the select committee is designed to find out once and for all, and it's understandable that 7 Democrats voted along with their Republican colleagues to get to the bottom of it. of course, it's equally understandable why the majority of Democrats want this whitewashed and abandoned.

Meanwhile Speaker John Boehner has already named the Republican members of the committee; Aside from Trey Gowdey, there's Rep.Jim Jordan, Rep. Peter Roskam, Rep. Martha Roby, Rep. Susan Brooks, Rep. Mike Pompeo, and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland.

Gowdey and Brooks are experienced former federal prosecutors, Jordan, Roskam, Roby and Pompeo are all successful attorneys who serve, respectively on the Oversight committee, as Deputy Whip and on the House Oversight subcommittee, on the Armed Services Committee, and on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

These are people whom understand law, the rules of evidence and how process works.There's no doubt in my mind that they're going to make every effort to uncover the truth no matter where it leads.

Pelosi and the House Democrats have a choice to make. They can stay removed, continue to snipe from the outside and hope that the committee doesn't uncover anything awkward. They can have a change of heasrt and try to appoint the most knowledgeable and able people they can to work on getting to the bottom of this, as Boehner appears to have done. Or, they can participate, but appoint partisan hacks to the committee in an effort to sabotage things and keep what happened that night in Benghazi a question mark.

I'm guessing they pick number three.

IRS-Gate..All Roads Lead To The Same Cesspool

Today, the House Ways And Means Committee voted along party lines to refer former IRS official Lois Lerner to Attorney General Eric Holder and request him to file criminal charges:

“The Ways and Means Committee, led by Chairman [Dave] Camp [R-Mich.], has conducted a serious and thorough investigation of the IRS, uncovering abuses and criminal acts that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of the referral. "As I've said, if Lois Lerner continues to refuse to testify, then the House will hold her in contempt. And we will continue to shine the light on the administration's abusive actions and use every tool at our disposal to expose the truth and ensure the American people get the answers they deserve.”

OK, now that you've stopped laughing, what's going on here is a sort of ritual dance. No one seriously believes Holder is actually going to investigate one of his minions for selectively targeting the president's political enemies in something that could very well end up not working out to well for our AG and the president if the truth came to light, which is why they've been stonewalling. No one expects him seriously to file any charges.Let's remember that Eric Holder is the only attorney general in our history to be held in contempt of congress, and he has essentially laughed it off.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was our attorney general himself who talked to Lois Lerner after the nasty stuff hit the fan and worked out a deal from the Regime in exchange for her keeping her mouth shut. That's mere speculation on my part, but there are elements of Holder's work history - shilling for fugitive and Democrat donor Marc Rich, for example during Mr. Bill's final days - that shows he at least is an experienced hand at this kind of thing.

The committee is referring it to Holder because that's process, it's how things are done in DC. Holder can do his own mickey mouse investigation and say he finds no grounds for charges (the most likely scenario, IMO), he can simply ignore the request of the committee or he can appoint a special prosecutor from an office totally controlled by the Department of Justice, since President Clinton got rid of the Independent Prosecutor's office as one of his last tricks he turned in office.

As a sideshow, House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa openly accused ranking Democrat member Elijah Cummings of colluding with the Internal Revenue Service in its targeting of the conservative nonprofit group True the Vote.

Cummings, (who deserves one of President Obama's presidential medals of freedom for his service to the Regime in delaying the committee's attempt to perform its legal function) apparently made a special project out of True The Vote.

Issa on Wednesday accused the Maryland Democrat of colluding with the Internal Revenue Service in its targeting of the conservative nonprofit group True the Vote, whose founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, said she received multiple letters from Cummings in 2012 and personal visits from the IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Explosives. Engelbrecht’s True the Vote is one of the many conservative groups that claims to have been improperly targeted by the IRS while it scrutinized the applications of tea-party groups.

In a letter signed by his five subcommittee chairmen, Issa raised the possibility that Cummings coordinated with the IRS, “surreptitiously” contacting the agency to request information about True the Vote.

E-mails unearthed in the course of Issa’s investigation into the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of right-leaning groups show that in January 2013, a member of Cummings’s staff contacted the IRS asking for any publicly available information on True the Vote. The matter was discussed by IRS officials that included Lois Lerner, the former exempt-organizations chief who retired in the wake of the targeting scandal.

The bottom line? It's patently obvious that President Obama used the IRS as his personal hit squad to go after those he perceived as his political enemies.The House can initiate legal proceedings on its own, but going through the courts takes years. Realistically congress has one remedy, the House's “inherent contempt” authority under the Constitution, which could put Lois Lerner in the slammer until 2015 when the new congress sits, after which a new subpoena can be issued to toss her in jail again for another two years if she still refuses to testify.

The nuclear option if that happens is a presidential pardon, which the president can issue any time he feels like it for any reason he wants to.They're almost always issued in a president's last days in office, so as not to affect election prospects ala' Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. But President Barack Hussein Obama can issue a pardon for Lerner, Eric Holder or anyone else he deems necessary if things get hot. And it's solid gold, inviolate.

Normally, the check on presidents pardoning associates of theirs who might have been involved in criminal proceedings is media fallout that generates public outrage and bad PR. Given the state of much of the media today, that won't happen. The media won't even mention that our attorney general and our president aren't exactly neutral when investigating their tools or themselves.

Our Founders envisioned a lot of what a democratic republic would have to face, and made provisions for it. They unfortunately had no idea how dumbed down and dependent on government patronage and welfare a portion of the electorate would become, and they certainly never imagined anyone as corrupt and utterly lawless as President Obama sitting in the Oval Office.They never dreamed that we would someday have an attorney general boasting about how he and the president he served were only going to uphold the laws they felt like enforcing and ignore any others they didn't, based on their political agenda.

They did, however leave us a remedy. It's called impeachment.And if we're unable to at least bring charges and examine them honestly after the blatant way this sort of thing has been foisted upon us,  perhaps we're no longer worthy of the gift our Founders bequeathed to us.

If I were Speaker John Boehner, I'd be filing charges right now, voting on them in the House and forcing Democrats to go on record as voting against them in the House and Senate. Come next January, when there might just be enough senators in office willing to vote for something other than their opwn partisan values, things might be different. But Boehner owes it to the country to at least make an attempt and get the numerous high crimes and misdemeanors of President Obama on the record.

Needless to say, he's not that kind of man and certainly not that kind of Speaker. But we'll see what happens in November.

Epic Fail -Boehner And RINOs Cave, Join Dems to Push Through 'Clean' Debt Ceiling Increase

 


Republican Speaker John Boehner, and his allies in the House have made an astonishing and disgraceful retreat. After President Obama and congressional Democrats had said they weren't even open to discussing spending cuts in exchange for Republicans in the House agreeing to  raise the debt ceiling, Boehner  caved in and presented a 'clean' debt ceiling increase to the House for a vote.

Boehner and his allies in the GOP caucus originally were thinking about tacking on something modest like approval of the Keystone pipeline in exchange for the debt ceiling increase, but conservatives in the House appear to be tired of this game and wanted Boehner to insist that the White give up a lot more in exchange for raising the limits on the federal credit card.

So instead, the Speaker decided to throw in the towel, and he and Only 18 Republicans, many of them retiring after this term voted with the 200 House Democrats to push this through  and raise the debt ceiling without any quid pro quo.That essentially destroys the so-called 'Boehner rule' that pledged to quash any bills that didn't have the support of the majority of the Republican caucus. It also destroys his speakership, for all intents and purposes.

As a contrast, when the disgraceful House bill went to the Senate, it was Senator Ted Cruz who forced a vote to end cloture  by 60 votes before voting on  approval of the bill, thus forcing a lot of gutless GOP senators, some facing primary challenges out into the open. Once the vote for cloture was passed, approval was automatic since the Democrats control the Senate. And of course, some of the same Republican senators who voted to end cloture tried their usual trick and cast a cosmetic vote against the bill. But thanks to Ted Cruz, they were forced to out themselves.

President Obama and the Democrats weren't even willing to allow the GOP to add on a provision to reverse the veterans' benefits cuts that were in the Ryan-Murray budget deal. Remember that the next time our commander-in-chief mouths all those fine sounding platitudes in one of his interminable speeches about vets and the military.

Instead, the House will hold a largely cosmetic vote on this item separately, and will have to bargain hard with the White House to even have a chance of getting it through. Speaker Boehner is proposing
additional sequester cuts in 2024 as an opening gambit..otherwise know,  for those whom remember the old Popeye cartoons, an offer to pay Thursday for a hamburger today.

This really is the end of an era, when a GOP-led House would abdicate its constitutionally mandated power in such a craven fashion.It really is all about leadership and strategy, and Republican leadership that understood that  would have been bringing relevant bills  out almost weekly and forcing Democrats to vote against it, ready made campaign fodder for November. Instead, we get this cowardly, clueless headlong retreat.

As for John Boehner, it's the end of his speakership as well. The Obama Administration has no respect for him whatsoever, and neither does the majority of his caucus. If he had any real regard for the country and his party, he'd either resign as Speaker right now or at least announce his intention to resign, so the House could begin vetting someone to replace him. 

The reason Boehner even became Speaker in the first place  is because Republican conservatives and the Tea Party elected a House majority that they had every right to expect to represent those views.Instead, the man who began his tenure as Speaker by reading the Constitution on the House floor betrayed them, as well as the basic precepts of that document. Whether he did it intentionally or out of weakness and fear doesn't matter at this point.

Get you gone, Cataline, get you gone.

The ObamaCare Xmas Present Obama Plans - Single Payer And A Taxpayer Bailout

Unfortunately, here's a nasty lump of coal for your stocking, courtesy of President Obama and his Democrats.For al the talk about ObamaCare crashing and burning on its own, did you really think our Dear Leader and his friends were going to let that happen just because it's dysfunctional and the American people are finally on to what a plundering of the nation's wealth it is?

Regular readers of these pages will know that I have always said that ObamaCare was merely intended as a gateway to force single payer, government run healthcare on the nation, like it or not. Harry Reid and others have admitted as much. As Dr. Charles Krauthammer explains above, the pathway to single payer was baked into this destructive piece of tyranny from the start, with provisions for a massive, mandated taxpayer bailout if not enough people sign up for the exchanges...exactly what's happening now.

Insurance companies will become government-controlled lackeys, you and your family will be shaken down to pay ultra high rates for rationed, inferior health care and yet another one of those quasi-independent occupations that used to provide Americans with a middle class living will disappear as insurance agents are replaced by ObamaCare navigators.

The president and his team will try to shove this through by executive order if need be, citing massive damage to the insurance industry unless they bail it out. They will, of course, not mention that this is damage they willfully caused.Or that simply revoking ObamaCare would allow the industry to rebuild over time.

One possible prevention is a bill passed in congress that prevents a bailout of the insurance companies in exchange for raising the debt ceiling...if the Republicans unite behind it, a big if. Marco Rubio is pushing for just such a bill right now in the Senate, and provided Boehner and the House go along there might be enough vulnerable Democrats in congress to support it as well.

As an alternative, the House could simply stand up to the president for once, do the job the Constitution mandated them to do and refuse to allocate funds for the bailout.

In any event, you need to contact your members of congress and insist on no bailout for insurance companies. Now.

The House Passes The Budget, 332-94

The budget deal crafted by Paul Ryan and Democrat Senator Patty Murray passed the house with both parties split on the matter.Republicans were split 169-62, while Democrats divided themselves 163-32.

Oddly enough, many Tea Party conservatives were joined in voting no by a number of far Left Democrats, who were upset because they felt the deal didn't create enough new spending, and was not tied to an extension of emergency unemployment insurance aid, set to expire before the end of the year.

In the end,party leadership in both parties shoved this through, with as Ryan counseled “not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., telling Democrats to “embrace the suck” of the agreement.

I think I've already been pretty clear about what I think of this budget deal...I think it stinks to high heaven. It allows a large increase more discretionary spending now in exchange for a paltry $23 billion in cuts much later...maybe.

I especially like what David Stockman, President Reagan's former budget director had to say about this nonsense:



The political rationale for the GOP in crafting our first budget in five years is that they want to avoid a government shutdown becoming the main topic of conversation rather than the failure of ObamaCare. I reject that utterly... first of all because it says implicitly that there isn't a Republican in the house or senate capable of explaining to the American people what kind of road to ruin we're on, and why they threat of a shutdown is necessary to make President Obama and his party institute some kind of fiscal sanity, and second because ObamaCare is going to continue to be the gift that keeps on giving as employer offered plans are targeted starting January 2014.

 Even if that wasn't true, it is no excuse for congressmen and congresswomen to totally abandon their responsibility because of what the consultant class is telling them. They are, after all, there to govern. Here, by the way are the names of those in the house who voted against this, with the Republicans in the non-italicized print.

I have no idea at this point what to make of Paul Ryan. He's obviously a smart guy, but what are we to make of someone who claims to champion fiscal responsibility on the one hand while endorsing budget busting amnesty for illegal aliens on the other?

As for John Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership, the sooner they're gone, the better.

Democrats Torpedo Iran Sanctions

The House had finished a resolution calling for increased Iran sanctions, a bi-partisan effort crafted by
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), along with Reps. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), the chairman and Elliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

It called for Iran to allow “no-notice inspections of all suspect sites, including military facilities, and to allow full access by by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials to all Iranian personnel, scientists, and technicians associated with Iran’s nuclear program” .

It also called on Iran to release U.S. citizens “held unjustly in Iran".

This was supposed to be released Wednesday night for a vote. Instead, Hoyer apparently got called on the carpet by the White House and withdrew support from a resolution he helped craft. Followed, of course, by a number of his fellow Democrats.

At present, the resolution is in limbo, and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already signaled that he will table any senate action on the matter.

Meanwhile, the countdown on Iran's so-called nuclear freeze hasn't even started yet, and the Obama Administration has admitted that the Iranian regime has already received $20 billion in sanctions relief
.....with nothing in exchange except the privilege of talking to them.

The Israelis, of course, had briefed members of the senate about what was actually going on, but Secretary Kerry in his briefing instructed them repeatedly to “disbelieve everything that the Israelis
say."

As I told you before, the sanctions regime is history, and this is by direct design of President Obama and his team.They're perfectly fine with a nuclear armed Iran.