Conservatives Would Be Better Off If Harry Reid Still Ran The Senate

Screen Shot 2015-05-11 at 11.11.36 AM

BY JOHN HAWKINS

The whole case for reelecting mediocre Republicans has been, “Sure, they stink, but do you want a Democrat in office? They’re the lesser of two evils.” That’s an argument I’ve used many times myself. However, what happens when it’s no longer true? What happens if conservatives realize that they would be better off RIGHT NOW if Harry Reid were still running the Senate?

Because we would be.

Instead of reflexively saying, “That’s ridiculous,” think about what happened during the last congressional cycle.

Democrats refused to compromise with Republicans on anything and the GOP was desperate to show its opposition to Barack Obama’s unpopular agenda; so Republicans had little incentive to vote for bad legislation. That led to complete gridlock. Now that might not be the ideal outcome, but conservatives believe that no legislation is preferable to bad legislation.

Instead we now have a situation in America where Democrats pass far left wing legislation when they’re in charge, nothing happens when Congress is split and Republicans pass moderately liberal legislation to show they can “get something done” when they’re in charge.

Just look at what has happened since Republicans took over the Senate after spending the entire campaign cycle promising that they would fight Obama tooth and nail.

* After swearing that they’d stop Obama’s illegal executive amnesty by blocking DHS funds, the GOP Leadership in the House and Senate caved and worked with the Democrats to fund Obama’s amnesty despite the fact that the majority of House Republicans opposed it. The promise to fight executive amnesty was as important as George W. Bush’s “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge and the GOP didn’t even hold out for TWO MONTHS before it broke it.

* Despite the fact that they’ve PUBLICLY railed against Obama’s terrible nuke deal, Senate Republicans just voted to strip Congress of its ability to block Obama’s treaty with Iran. Publicly, they’re claiming that they’re holding Obama accountable, but in actuality, the bill they’re supporting will in effect allow him to do whatever he wants in Iran. Not only is it bad legislation that turns the Constitution on its ear, it’s insulting. They think everyone is so stupid that we can’t figure out what they’re doing.

* Even though Loretta Lynch said she agreed with Obama’s illegal executive orders, she couldn’t name any differences she had with Eric Holder, and she essentially said that she thought Obama had no limits under the law, she was confirmed as Attorney General with Republican votes.

* Republicans, including RAND PAUL – let me repeat that, RAND PAUL – are blocking an investigation that’s designed to kill fraudulent OBAMACARE subsidies to Congress. When even Rand Paul wants his fraudulent Obamacare subsidy more than he wants to protect the taxpayers, it doesn’t bode well for the country.

* The GOP is about to shove through a secret Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Not only have the details of the trade deal been withheld from the public (Remember how well it worked out the last time we had to “pass a bill to see what’s in it?”), but what we do know about it is disturbing. According to Jeff Sessions, it limits the power of Congress to amend all international trade agreements during the deal, it allows the President to change the deal after the fact without the approval of Congress and it is likely to massively increase the number of foreign workers coming into the U.S. Perhaps worst of all, it would provide a backdoor method to limit American sovereignty because a signed treaty supersedes American law. In effect, it gives the President the power to adopt certain foreign laws related to the trade agreement without getting the approval of Congress. This bill is a Frankenstein’s monster waiting to happen and the Republican Party is working with Obama in secret to bring it to life.

* If the Supreme Court kills the Obamacare subsidies (which is entirely possible), it will in effect kill Obamacare. Without the subsidies, the whole program will collapse. Instead of saying, “We didn’t vote for it and we told you it was unconstitutional from day 1,” Republicans are openly acknowledging that they plan to save Obamacare. After all these phony promises to repeal Obamacare, after all these votes, after all the polls showing that it’s unpopular, the GOP Leadership wants to buy into Obamacare so Americans can now blame BOTH PARTIES for the disastrous legislation.

Everything the Republicans have done since they won in November has been one long “Screw you” to the people who voted for them. They’re like a 0-16 football team that gets angry with their fans for failing to appreciate how wonderful they are despite the fact that they lose every game.

We live in a Bizarro world where the Republican politicians don’t work for the voters who put them in office. In the real world, the GOP Leadership in Congress along with most of the Republicans in the Senate work for whatever lobbyist is willing to give them the most money while the voters are treated like THEIR employees. They’re for sale and the voters have been sold out because our pockets aren’t deep enough to compete with the people giving them campaign contributions.

Well, in 2016 there will be an awful lot of Republican senators up for reelection and they’re certainly not going to have much of a record to brag about. Couple that with the fact that even the French in WWII put up a bigger fight than John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republican “leadership” have so far and there’s really not going to be much of a reason for conservatives to vote for Republican senators. In fact, the only thing they ever seem to be able to offer is that, “Well, it’s better to have us in charge than the Democrats.” What happens if people realize that’s not even true anymore?

HARRY REID QUICKLY PASSES TORCH TO CHUCK SCHUMER FOR DEMOCRATIC LEADER

Screen Shot 2015-03-27 at 7.07.07 PM

Durbin is also supporting Schumer and won’t seek the top spot

by SAHIL KAPUR | READ MORE | MARCH 27, 2015

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) caused a political earthquake on Friday by announcing he won’t seek reelection in 2016, opening up the coveted perch of Democratic leader that he has held since 2005.

Before the jockeying could begin to succeed the mild-mannered political brawler as the chief caucus leader, Reid endorsed New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat, within hours of his announcement.

“I think Schumer should be able to succeed me,” Reid told the Washington Post, predicting that Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat, would stand down. Reid said he spoke to Durbin by phone before the interview.

Indeed, it turns out Durbin is also supporting Schumer and won’t seek the top spot.

“Senator Durbin told Senator Schumer late last night that he wasn’t running for Leader, and that Schumer has his support,” a Durbin spokesman told TPM. “Durbin intends to run again for Whip and has Senator Reid’s support. He’s been speaking with senators this morning.”

Schumer would have been the clear favorite to win a race, multiple Democratic sources said.

“Schumer is clearly the frontrunner,” said one Democratic Senate aide, who is unaffiliated with each of the three senators. “He’s just positioned himself that way both publicly and privately. He’s worked very hard to earn the loyalty of the caucus, certainly in a way that Durbin just hasn’t. He tries to engage directly and be a resource and an asset to individual members, to stick up for them and fight for them in leadership meetings.”

Read more

Mark Levin says GOP has ‘no guts’

http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=91690&siteSection=thehilldotcom&videoId=28660666

Capture

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Saturday, Levin dubbed Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) “one of the most despicable, dumbest men to ever be leader in the Senate,” but added that Reid is “running circles around the Republicans.”

“That’s what happens when you have no principles, no strategy and no guts,” Levin said of Congressional Republicans. “It’s time for a new Republican Party.”

“No more excuses. No more whining. No more lying to get you elected. No more crony deals with the U.S. Chamber of crony capitalism,” Levin said, taking a political shot at the business community powerhouse U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Levin made clear his opposition to likely 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

“We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of citizens,” Levin said to applause. “I am sick and tired of the American citizen being demeaned and treated as a second-class citizen while anybody who crosses the border is treated as the most virtuous human being on the face of the earth.”

Levin said some GOP presidential candidates have referred “to us as essentially lazy and racist and themselves rejecting the belief of American exceptionalism, insisting that the nation owes its current and future greatness, if not existence, to uninterrupted massive waves of low-skilled and unskilled aliens from the third world.”

“This has never been the American experience. Immigration is to be managed, limited, gradual to allow for assimilation and Americanization,” Levin said. “You see, Mr. Bush, we love our country, too.”

Top Republican donors and strategists have argued presidential candidates should strike a more inclusive tone on immigration reform, noting that Hispanics are an important constituency needed to win elections.

President Obama’s immigration policies have been a hot-button issue in recent days as lawmakers barely agreed to avert a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Tea Party conservatives had hoped to block DHS funding unless it came with language to defund President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

With just two hours left until a shutdown took hold, lawmakers reached a one-week stopgap funding deal late Friday night.

Senate Democrats Choosing Illegal Immigrants Over Border Patrol Agents

Screen Shot 2015-02-18 at 3.14.28 PM

Allow funding for the Department of Homeland Security to lapse or engage in the legislative process.

Those are the only two options Senate Democrats have at this point. Everything else transcribed in the press or recited by television pundits is nothing more than a distraction. Senate Democrats, of course, deny that binary choice, but their denials are only accepted by those who can’t — or won’t — understand the wonderfully complex rules of the United States Senate.

Before diving into the process, it is worth taking a minute to understand the politics.

Obama and Senate Democrats are trying to give illegal immigrants a $24,000 check while border patrol agents will have their paychecks withheld.

The implication of the Democrat-led filibuster is that Homeland Security funding will lapse and our nation’s border patrol agents will have their paychecks withheld after Feb. 27. While those fine men and women continue to work without pay, the Department of Homeland Security will be preparing to grant legal status and work permits to those who are in the country illegally. To make matters worse, some of these individuals will use their newly issued Social Security numbers to claim four years’ worth of tax credits.

For those looking for a 30-second campaign ad, this is political gold: President Obama and Senate Democrats are trying to give illegal immigrants a $24,000 check while border patrol agents will have their paychecks withheld. It also has the added benefit of being true.

(Warning: here comes the procedural tutorial.)

Before the Senate can begin debating and amending the House-passed bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, they must first vote to proceed to that bill. By refusing to proceed to the bill, Senate Democrats are blocking senators from debating and amending the bill. A new report from the Congressional Research Service lays out procedural options for “ending consideration of a motion to proceed.”

Democrats have zero procedural options for moving off the current motion to proceed to the House-passed Homeland Security funding bill. They have just two options: 1) continue blocking consideration of the bill; or 2) agree to the motion to proceed and begin the promised amendment process.

Here again Democrats say, no, that isn’t true. They have a bill to pay border patrol agents and allow illegal immigrants to collect their amnesty bonus. Setting aside the obvious policy concerns, their solution runs into two problems. First, as mentioned previously, they cannot simply call up their bill. Second, as a standalone measure that bill is unconstitutional.

The Constitution is quite clear on this point. So clear that even Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) understands — or understood. In 2007 he declared, “Everyone knows, even in elementary school, that under our Constitution revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives.”

If Senate Democrats believe their alternative can prevail, they should vote to proceed to the House-passed bill and offer it as an amendment. There simply is no other way, no matter what anyone else suggests. Left unsaid by most is that Democrats are well aware they would lose a vote on their amendment, so they are hiding behind procedural hurdles.

There is likely to be some temptation to avoid this fight now that a Fifth Circuit judge has issued an injunction and the administration announced it would halt implementation of the president’s amnesty. While Obama’s actions are clearly unconstitutional, conservatives have little reason to trust the courts to make the right decision. What’s more, the administration said they will prevail in court and begin implementing and expanding the amnesty program.

Even with the stunning news out of Texas, Democrats have just two options. They can deny paychecks to border patrol agents or they can engage in the legislative process. It is that simple.

It Was Unconstitutional Before It Wasn’t: Democrats in Their Own Words

Screen Shot 2015-02-18 at 3.04.46 PM

Hypocrisy is a given in Washington.

So much so that Senate Democrats must believe no one notices just how much of it they are guilty of in their attempts to prevent Congress from funding the Department of Homeland Security.

First, Democrats say they want to fund Homeland Security–yet they have filibustered any and all attempts by Republicans to even bring the bill up for debate.

Second, while numerous Democratic senators have made public statements saying President Obama was wrong to take executive action to change the country’s immigration laws without consent from Congress, none of these folks now appear willing to vote for or even discuss the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would prevent Obama’s executive amnesty plans from taking place.

And then late last week, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) made the suggestion that the Senate do something he said just a few years ago was unconstitutional.  He recommended the Senate create its own Homeland Security funding bill, pass it, and send it to the House.  But back in 2007, Durbin was emphatic that the Constitution required all spending measures to begin in the House.  During a debate with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) over appropriations, he said the following:

This is a Senate appropriations bill. As the senator from Texas knows, the Constitution requires that spending bills originate in the House. So the House would either object or ignore this bill or blue slip the bill in a way that would mean that whatever we would do here would not achieve the result asked for by the senator from Texas. (Durbin, Congressional Record, 12/11/07)

http://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c4528387

On another occasion, but making the same “all spending bills must originate in the House” argument, another Democrat, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) put it this way:

Not only is this vote unnecessary, it is totally meaningless. It is a motion to proceed to a Senate appropriations bill. Let me repeat that it is a motion to proceed to a Senate appropriations bill. Everyone knows, even in elementary school, that under our Constitution revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. So even if the Senate were to pass his bill, the House would refuse to act on it. This would be the case regardless of which party controls the House of Representatives. (Reid, 11/16/07)

http://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?c4528458

And that is perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy.  Senate Democrats are asking to do something unconstitutional while calling it constitutional in order to allow something unconstitutional to happen.  If you can follow that logic, you should apply for a job in Washington.