Thursday, April 20, 2017

Obamacare showdown round 2 coming soon?

Well, after the unwarranted RINO backlash against conservatives for daring the GOP to keep a campaign promise towards substantive REPEAL of Obamacare, something more than Obamacare with an extra letter or the next iteration of Swampcare 2.0, it looks like a new proposal is being brokered. Will it be worth it? Perhaps...
TheResurgent: Get ready for round two of the Obamacare replacement battle. Following the embarrassing legislation fondly remembered as “Swampcare” offered by House Republicans — less replacement than a reupholstering of something structurally unsound — President Trump shelved his attempt to repeal and replace for the foreseeable future.

Now White House officials have announced that the fight will continue next week, Politico reports, apparently as an attempt to keep Trump’s promise to repeal and replace the so-called Affordable Care Act within his first 100 days — a deadline that is fast approaching.

The text of the bill will circulate if not Friday, then by the weekend. Will we see Swampcare 2.0 or a plan focused on free markets, rather than the sorry premises on which Obamacare was fabricated? So far, all that is known for certain regarding the details, is that, according to the Politico report,
"the deal…proposes giving states more flexibility to opt out of major Obamacare provisions, while at the same time preserving popular protections like the law’s ban on discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions."
Rather than offend the principles of the Freedom Caucus, this bill is the product of centrist Tom MacArthur and Freedom Caucus head Mark Meadows, which suggests a greater likelihood that members will back the proposal. However, if the bill shifts too far to the right, it may lose moderates. For its part, the White House believes they are “close” to having the votes, but “people don’t want to commit without seeing the text.” In other words, wait and see.
This doesn't have to be a 'fight' if Republicans would stand united behind Principle instead of cowardice and lies. And the mention of moderates...please, just say what we all know it means, liberal Republicans. Constantly having to appease these old bulls throwing obstacles in the way of getting a conservative agenda pushed through, when the other side marches lockstep towards Commieville. If only they had moderates in their midst!

It is a good sign, though, that the Freedom Caucus has finally been invited to the table. We shall surely see what comes of this. Pray that it looks closer to what we were promised.

Related links: REPORT: Pence has negotiated Obamacare replacement amendment with Freedom Caucus!
Bill signed by President Trump will allow veterans to seek healthcare outside of VA system

“This is a win-win!” – Freedom Caucus member says health care compromise WILL pass soon
Freedom Caucus leader Brat predicts health care passage within weeks
Trump: Health Care Reform Before Tax Reform

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Out of office...

Sorry, folks, but I've taken the week off from politics in observance of...


...see ya back soon enough. God Bless.

Friday, April 7, 2017

Gorsuch officially confirmed to SCOTUS

Tit for tat. Following a series of procedural votes yesterday to invoke the so-called 'nuclear option', the Senate has voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch as the 113th justice to serve on the Supreme Court.
ZeroHedge: After weeks of endless rhetoric and party bickering over the controversial usage of the 'nuclear option', Neil Gorsuch has officially been confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States with a largely partisan vote of 54-45.

Done! One promise kept.

Related link: How Senators Voted on the Gorsuch Confirmation

ADDENDUM: Confirmed on Friday, sworn in on Monday...

TheBlaze: Neil Gorsuch was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice on Monday, filling the vacancy left on the nation’s highest court by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year.

Gorsuch took two oaths in order to serve on the court, the first constitutional oath in a private ceremony at the Supreme Court, the second judicial oath during a ceremony at the White House.

Syria: WMD all over again?

As Admiral Ackbar aptly stated, "It's a trap!" I hope that this is just a one-off like Reagan with Libya or Clinton in Sudan, but it's difficult not to think a few things: Could this be a wag the dog moment? Or is this gonna escalate into something bigger? Or as UK Daily Mail blogger Peter Hitchens seems to think, It's WMD all over again. Why don't you see it?
Actually knowing something, remembering history or having experience of the world is becoming a disadvantage. How much easier it would be to join in with the flow of opinion about Syria, to listen happily to, and read contentedly, media reports on the subject.

As it is, I feel something close to physical pain as I do this.

Today’s frenzy over alleged use of poison gas in Syria is the 2017 version of Anthony Blair’s WMD in Iraq. Why can you not see it? Did you think they would do it in exactly the same way again? You are being assailed through your emotions, to act first and think long after, and far too late.
A lot of ifs still out there with little-to-no substantiated confirmations, but just after 9pm Thursday night, it began (again). I fail to see how this is helpful towards the success of the president's first 100 days or an America First agenda. The rinse/repeat is frustrating, folks.

Related links: PolitiFact Retracts ‘Mostly True’ Ruling That U.S. Removed ‘100 Percent’ of Syria’s Chemical Weapons
Susan Rice Pushed False Claim About Obama Admin Getting Rid Of Chemical Weapons In Syria
Syria strike reactions: what top Republicans and Democrats in Congress are saying
‘Where will it end?’ Nigel Farage casts doubt on pal Donald Trump's strike on Syria

ADDENDUM: With the passage of a week, a constitutional conservative stalwart sees the impossible options this engagement faces...

“We are trapped between impossible options,” Cruz said. “On one hand, Bashar al-Assad is a monster … on the other hand, the opposition … are radical Islamic terrorists. They are people like al-Qaida, al-Nusra terrorists. They are even worse … The worst outcome would be to topple Assad and to see those chemical weapons fall into the hands of ISIS or al-Qaida”. ...

“I look forward to the commander-in-chief laying out a vision, presenting a plan to the American people, to Congress about how we go forward and protect our national security interests.”

Cruz did, however, lay some basic groundwork for how he believes that vision should be developed, saying, “the central lodestar for any U.S. military involvement must be protecting the vital national security interests of the United States.”

Behind the 'RussiaGate' subterfuge

Skip all the BS reporting out there. Here's an exceptional summary of what we actually know to date on the so-called 'RussiaGate' via caller Rob to Thursday's Chris Salcedo Show on WBAP (4/6/17 podcast @10am segment):
"We know that Susan Rice cannot be trusted. We know that John Podesta was not hacked, he was fished. We know that our intelligence agencies did not look at the DNC server or Podesta's server. We know that Hillary Clinton trafficked in classified information. We know that Trump reset relations and sold them 20% of our uranium, oh no, I'm sorry, that was Obama and Hillary! We know that President Trump has been surveilled whether indirectly, incidentally or directly for eight months. We know that Americans were unmasked. We know that through Vault 7 and WikiLeaks, our spies are capable of attacks leaving breadcrumbs of other foreign states. We know that Obama's homeland security made a play for our voting apparatus as critical infrastructure. These people did not believe for one moment that they were gonna lose this election. They thought they had it in the bag. And with all that said, what if RussiaGate is the subterfuge for the ObamaGate espionage?"
For thinking folks, there's little doubt as to what this is all about and how the Obama regime throughout its eight years bent our country over to placate and appease Russia. Democrats know it. And if that message could break through a Democratic-controlled media propaganda machine, it'd be extremely damaging to the Democratic Party, but that's a huge IF. Salsedo went on to describe the Democrats history of colluding with the Soviet Union and the Russians, pointing out Ted Kennedy's collusion with the Soviet Union to oust Ronald Reagan! So this is nothing new with the Democrats.

Related links: HUGE: Fox News Reports Intelligence Community ‘Stonewalling’ Investigation Into Obama Administration Leaks About Trump
Cover-Up: 11 Things the Media Won't Tell You About Obama Spying On Trump

Friday, March 31, 2017

WTH is up with Trump attacking conservatives? Analysis and advice...

It appears that President Trump considers conservatives to be the deplorables. Millions and millions of conservatives have embraced the principles of federalism, limited government and the Constitution long before Trump became president. If Trump takes conservatives for granted he does so at his own risk, and if he embraces Paul Ryan and the RINOs then he will fail. If Trump tries to wipe out conservatives in the primary, we will not only defend them, but we will try and wipe out the liberal and more moderate elements in the Republican Party. The President sounds like Richard Nixon, and every other moderate, establishment Republican who has ever walked the Earth hating conservatives. ~ MLS, 3/30/17
I sat back throughout the week to see how this would play out, and I see my fears have come to fruition in regards to our new president's direction. I know those who've pledge allegiance to Trump won't like anything that I'm about to point out, but it nevertheless must be said...

First, with a valid question from Ben Shapiro: When does Trump become the Establishment? This is all prefaced on the pretense of what if Jeb Bush had won the presidency? How would Republicans feel if he'd pushed a bill that would supposedly repeal and replace Obamacare, but instead, while making significant changes to Medicaid, re-enshrined the central provisions of Obamacare, thus creating a new entitlement program? You wouldn't like it a damn bit!
… if Bush and his top surrogates had then spent the weekend talking about dumping the Freedom Caucus to work with Democrats, who thinks conservatives would have resignedly nodded along?
Of course not. But Bush isn't president. Donald Trump is.
And because Trump played an anti-establishment figure on TV, too many conservatives assume he is one.

He isn't. President Trump is anti-establishment when it comes to persona, of course -- he thinks that every governmental Gordian knot can be cut, that he can simply bulldoze his opposition, that deals are for sissies and that tough guys finish first. But the deals he wants to cut look a lot more like former President George W. Bush's “compassionate conservatism” than they do like the Tea Party agenda.

And yet, many Americans keep treating Trump like an outsider. He isn't. He's the most powerful man on Earth, the head of the executive branch. He can't just keep yelling at Ryan and McConnell publicly while dealing with them on legislation that Jeb Bush would endorse in a heartbeat, and then rip conservatives who disagree. That doesn't make him anti-establishment. It just makes him a blowhard.

If Trump wants to represent the outsider, it's about time for him to represent those outside of government. And that means minimizing government power, not maximizing it. But that's the dirty little secret: Trump isn't anti-establishment; he's pro-establishment so long as he's the establishment.
Related links: Party and purity be damned: Repealing Obamacare is about keeping promises
GOP establishment purists already surrendered April budget fight … with control of all 3 branches!

Told you this won't be easy for Trump supporters to hear. But when you're tired and disgusted with the Establishment in D.C., and you supposedly voted for an outsider, you want him to act like an outsider...NOT like the establishment you thought you were draining!

As Steve Deace observes: So much for Trump beating the establishment!
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

A previously moderate-to-liberal politician calls himself a Republican, but spent most of his time in politics actually cozying up to or supporting Democrats instead. Up until prepping to run for higher office that is. Then, once the race begins, he instantly transforms himself into a tough talking campaign conservative. Finally, should he be fortunate enough to get elected, all that conservative talk suddenly goes out the window as he betrays the very people that got him where he’s at.

This has been the plight of the conservative in the Republican Party for far too long.

However, Donald Trump was supposed to be a paradigm-shifter. He was supposed to be a populist, who would serve the people rather than serve the system. He was supposed to be anti-establishment; a threat to the traditional GOP power structure. He was supposed to be the alpha male, capable of getting results a generation of Republican girlie men lacked the testicular fortitude to achieve.

“The time for talk is over,” Trump is fond of saying. “The time for action is at hand.”

Turns out talk is all Trump can do, and his talk is cheap at that. Because when you strip away his reality show shtick and fake bravado, all last week’s healthcare debacle proved is Trump ironically is the very embodiment of the derogatory term his cult coined last year for useless Republicans.
Related links: Give freedom a chance: The health care debate America never had
Treating the symptoms and not the disease: Tennessee RINOs introduce Obamacare bailout plan

Chris Pandolfo pointed out that there was a time when Trump once lambasted guys like Karl Rove for not supporting the Tea Party. Trump once loved the Tea Party. Now he’s declared war on it!
Back in 2013, Karl Rove and his allies in the Republican Establishment sought to destroy Tea Party conservatives. ...

Rove wanted to defeat conservative candidates in Republican primaries — candidates like Chris McDaniel in Mississippi. In 2013, Donald Trump was still a businessman, and back then he fought to defend the Tea Party.
Trump objected to Rove’s targeting of Tea Party candidates in the 2014 primary elections.
He even blamed Rove and the Republican Establishment for helping the Democratic agenda.
Trump even went on “The Mark Levin Show” to discuss Rove’s mismanagement of the Republican Party.



“The Tea Party, these people are great,” Trump said. “When I see Karl Rove go and demean the Tea Party after what he did with his lousy record, I was just really angry.”

And Trump swore the Tea Party would fight on.
There's still nearly a half dozen other tweets that recalled Trump's then seemingly staunch support for the Tea Party. The instances above as well as many others are the arguments he once used against Karl Rove. Now, in attacking the Freedom Caucus, in threatening to primary them, Trump has effectively become Rove!
In one swift stroke, President Donald Trump has become the establishment he ran against. The president is attacking the Freedom Caucus again, this time suggesting that they need to be fought in 2018 primary elections.

Mr. President, what is the Republican agenda? Is it a liberty agenda? Is it an agenda that will make life better for the American people? Is it an agenda that supports anything you stood for on the campaign trail?

In the first major test of “the Republican agenda,” Speaker Paul Ryan presented an horrendous health care bill that completely neglected to fulfill your promise to repeal Obamacare.

In its next test, the upcoming budget fight, Republicans in Congress are communicating that border wall funds will not be included in the continuing resolution. And those cuts to government spending you proposed, Mr. President? Republicans are attacking them to defend their favorite pet government programs.

The Freedom Caucus members are your allies. They are the anti-establishment lawmakers that actually want to change the way Washington D.C. works, just like you campaigned, Mr. President.

And you’re attacking them. In doing so, you are empowering the people you incessantly claimed were the problem. You are breaking your promise to drain the swamp.

You are becoming the establishment you said you would oppose.
Related link: Mitch McConnell’s bucket of suck

This leads right back to Levin's Thursday evening topic that I began this post with: If Trump channels Nixon’s hatred for conservatives, he will FAIL.
“Well fellow conservatives, it appears that President Trump considers us to be the deplorables,” Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin said to open Thursday's radio program.

The president has launched an assault on conservative Republicans in the Freedom Caucus, and the Tea Party patriots they represent. Levin said that Trump sounds like Richard Nixon, and every other moderate, establishment Republican who has ever walked the Earth hating conservatives.



“Now Mr. President, if you go out and try and wipe out conservatives in the primary, I can tell you right now, sir, we’re not only going to defend them, but we’re going to try and wipe out the liberal and more moderate elements in the Republican Party,” Levin said.

“Let me be quite blunt about this,” Levin continued. “There are tens of millions of conservatives in this country, many of whom supported you in the Republican primary. They will turn on you in a second.”

“You take the conservatives for granted, you do so at your own risk. You play footsie with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, you’re liable to get burned. You embrace the RINOs like Paul Ryan, you will fail.”
Related link: Purists, low expectations, and the triumph of New York values – The Conservative Conscience Ep102

The Freedom Caucus is NOT backing down. These patriotic Statesmen are standing strong amid attacks from their own president, who first suggested that the Freedom Caucus saved Planned Parenthood funding and Obamacare, and later announced that if conservatives don’t hop aboard the establishment Republican agenda they will be fought in 2018!
Though the Freedom Caucus is under assault from all sides, some of its members who have spoken to the media or made public statements are standing strong — insisting that they are willing to work with President Trump to keep the GOP’s promise to repeal Obamacare.

The media has used the failure of the American Health Care Act — Republican leadership’s phony repeal bill — as an excuse to attack conservatives in Congress.
Related links: Leading Conservative Groups Stand With Freedom Caucus After Trump Attacks
Freedom Caucus SLAMS Trump After Trump Bashes Them


I don't know if the staunchest of Trump supporters have made it this far, but if so, and if there's a willingness to take advice, please, take this: Trump’s agenda won’t be bold or robust if you trust it to RINOs and Democrats!
If the president likes his agenda, he can keep his agenda; he simply needs to stop smearing the few people who are actually dedicated to a bold and robust agenda. ...

If you really want to pursue a bold and robust “America First” agenda, it might help not to carpet bomb the small group of people who are fighting to keep it bold and robust in the first place.
Related links: While Trump attacks conservatives, his immigration agenda burns
Trump is completely wrong on the trade deficit. Let Levin, Sowell, and Friedman explain [VIDEO]

Monday, March 27, 2017

The Establishment Strikes Back! The post-RINOcare war on conservatives

Didn't take two seconds for the post-RINOcare war on conservatives to commence...
CR: Seven years of campaign promises to repeal Obamacare were broken when the Republican Party rolled out the American Health Care Act. But somehow, the Freedom Caucus is now taking the brunt of the abuse for the bill’s failure to launch.

Everyone but House leadership seemed to recognize the bill was bad. The chief complaint of conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus was the bill’s failure to repeal mandated essential health benefits – those insurance regulations responsible for increasing premiums and high deductibles. Still, moderates thought the bill went too far and sought to protect Medicaid expansion in their states. Voters across the political spectrum were unhappy, with the AHCA polling at only 17 percent public approval.

When those concerns were brought to the president from the Freedom Caucus, he reportedly told them to “forget about the little shit.” What the president failed to understand was that the “little shit” would break this bill. House Conservatives were on the cusp of supporting the legislation if Speaker Paul Ryan and leadership agreed to repeal the fundamental insurance regulation problems. Moderates in the party balked at that proposition and the Speaker Ryan pulled the bill Friday.
Related link: 6 best Freedom Caucus smackdowns of GOP leadership's RINOcare lies

And now the spin, begun by establishment Repubs and heartily advanced by progressive media, left and right alike, blames conservatives...
Now the spin has begun. Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., declared it was Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who “betrayed” the American people.

The media has latched on to that narrative. The Wall Street Journal lambasted the Freedom Caucus as “the Obamacare Republicans.” Politico published a hit piece over the weekend detailing insider frustrations with the “far-right” members who sunk the bill, insisting that if fulfill seven years of campaign promises.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., is running around insisting that the Freedom Caucus just saved Obamacare, and pledging to work with Democrats to overcome conservative opposition to future legislation.
Run and work with the Democrats before EVER attempting to work with conservatives of your own party?! Sheesh.

Related link: 3 questions Ryan needs to answer before running to the LEFT on RINOcare

I'm reminded of the excellent points Dana Loesch made this morning in NAILING the problems with fixing health care...
"This compromise still funded Planned Parenthood. It was a one year bait and switch; we were still going to fund Planned Parenthood. The regulatory structure was still in place. The penalty was still in place. The subsidies were still in place. It was like Paul Ryan rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and telling America that the hole’s been fixed!"


...but it's interesting towards the end of that interview how even the host has bought into the 'but it never would've passed the Senate' argument, when Speaker Ryan explicitly told us back in 2016 that 'there is a path to repealing Obamacare without 60 votes in the Senate' multiple times!




What gives? Damn lies then? Or damn lies now? This thing could be financially ripped apart with reconciliation, but suddenly, that's no longer on the table? The path seemed pretty clear in 2016...why is that different now that Republicans own the House, Senate and Presidency in 2017? I thought that's what we needed to make this happen? Instead, we're not only presented with a bill produced in secret that doesn't explicitly dismantle Obamacare, but we're met with the unfeasible expectation of solving such a major landmark legislation in a mere 18 days? Nothing about this passes the smell test.

Related links: Paul Ryan's bait-and-switch Obamacare promise
The Freedom Caucus is right. Paul Ryan said so himself


Folks, The Freedom Caucus just did the American people a FAVOR in defeating this piece o' crap new entitlement. If only Republicans had the wherewithal to now craft a true repeal plan!

They're out there. Mo Brooks just proved it today! But it has to have a united Republican Party and President behind it to make honest repeal and market solutions a reality. So far, that's not been the case. They'd rather throw conservatives under the bus yet again, and lean leftward into Democratic statism.

If this is the direction of a new Republican Party, it won't end well. Principle needs to be recovered, and recovered quickly.

Related links: These People Saved the GOP and the Nation. Tell Them Thank You.
It’s the Freedom Caucus, NOT Ryan and Trump, standing for the forgotten man

ADDENDUM: Levin gave the statists HELL tonight for attempting to beat down the Freedom Caucus...
CR: On Monday night’s radio program, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin had a simple message for Republicans in Congress:

Stop whining and keep your promises!



Why is it that the only Republicans interested in keeping their Obamacare repeal promises are “those eighteen brave patriots in the Freedom Caucus?”

CR: In hour two of Monday night’s radio program, Conservative Review Senior Editor Daniel Horowitz stopped by “The Mark Levin Show” to explain everything you’ll ever need to know about RINOcare and why its failure is great for America.

Horowitz answers Levin’s questions and shows how passing RINOcare would have been WORSE than doing nothing.



Horowitz also explained why President Trump’s senior adviser Jared Kushner is wrong when he says the government should be run like a company and the American people are its “customers.”

We’re not customers, we’re shareholders! We OWN the American government and they report to US!

Friday, March 24, 2017

You had one job! A message for Ryan on RINOcare, a lesson for Trump, and a THANK YOU to the Freedom Caucus!

Looks like conservatives are FIGHTING where RINOs are not. The Obamacare 2.0 vote has stalled out...THANK YOU, Freedom Caucus! Here's a pretty good tally of how this has all played out over the week:
And by Friday afternoon, Mark Levin had had enough of the RINOs' CRAP, particularly that of the Speaker's...
CR: Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief took to Facebook to share his immediate reaction to the demise of RINOCare. He put the blame squarely at the feet of Speaker Paul Ryan.

BOOM!

Related link: Mark Levin: The failure to govern belongs to the GOP leadership!

More from Levin Friday evening...
CR: “I want to congratulate the Freedom Caucus, the true constitutional conservatives, the true patriots, for stopping this disastrous bill from passing,” Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin said Friday evening on the radio.

The American Health Care Act, or RINOcare, was defeated today as Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. pulled the bill from the floor of the House of Representatives before it could go up for a vote. The Obamacare repeal-in-name-only bill didn’t have enough votes to pass, largely because of the Freedom Caucus’ refusal to break their promise to the American people.



The bill ultimately failed, Levin explained, because too many Republicans do not want to repeal Obamacare and conservatives won’t have it.

“The problem is, ladies and gentlemen, a big part of the Republican party is progressive. That is, they are utopian statists,” Levin said.

“This bill was written by cowards. Cowards who were afraid that if they dared to touch what Obama had built in any significant way, that they’d lose at the ballot box.”
And the RINOcare lesson for President Trump:


But with tweets like this, it hardly looks like he got the message...
Straw men & red herrings abound, cast towards conservatives for trying to save a party, a presidency, and most importantly a Populace from deeper entitlement bondage. I think the discerning reader can acknowledge who those are that apparently don't want to save themselves.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

LEE: "Senate parliamentarian told me it's possible to push harder on repealing Obamacare regulations"

Encouraging...
WashingtonExaminer: Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said on Wednesday that the Senate parliamentarian has told him that it may be possible for Republicans to push harder on repealing Obamacare's regulations than the current House bill, which contradicts the assertion by House leadership that the legislation goes after Obamacare as aggressively as possible under Senate rules.

"What I understood her to be saying is that there's no reason why an Obamacare repeal bill necessarily could not have provisions repealing the health insurance regulations," Lee said in an interview with the Washington Examiner, relating a conversation with parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough about reconciliation he had on Tuesday.

Lee also said that the parliamentarian told him it wasn't until very recently, after the unveiling of the House bill, that any Republican even asked her about the possibility of repealing regulations with a simple majority.

With a House vote currently expected on Thursday, Republican leadership is scrambling for votes, trying to stave off a backlash from conservatives that could sink the bill. One of the issues conservatives have raised is that the House bill leaves most of the regulations in place, thus not combatting one of the main complaints about Obamacare – its skyrocketing premiums and limited choice.
The rest is well worth the read, but just from Sen. Lee's pull quotes, it's even clearer who should be running point on such an important piece of legislation...
"One of the things we've been told over and over again is the bill was no more aggressive than it has been... in part because of Senate rules. And the Senate rules are something those defending the bill have repeatedly pointed to in defense of why they wrote it the way they wrote it. The parliamentarian said, there's not necessarily any reason that would categorically preclude you from doing more, both on the repeal front and the replacement front, all sorts of things are possible."

"What matters is how it's done, how it's written up. There are ways it's written up that perhaps make it not subject to passage through reconciliation, but there are other ways you could write it that might make it work."

"There's no reason categorically to conclude you couldn't."

"She was also saying until very recently, nobody had even asked her about it. And yet one of the arguments consistently used by those behind the bill is, 'This thing is the most aggressive we can pass and can get through Senate rules.' And it's just not true."

"That's one of the things that I find so stunning about this House bill. It still does include things that could be really problematic, and that some have suggested could even be fatal. So it's not as if they have crafted it in the most cautious manner possible relative to the reconciliation rules."
If the House does manage to pass this half-ass'd Obamacare 2.0 patch tomorrow, it'll be left to Lee and the handful of other conservatives in the Senate to not only force these regulatory matters under reconciliation, but also push for a corrective rewrite to send back to the House (one of which is the first related link below).

Here was a great interview that covers this & more from Wednesday's Mark Levin Show...



Related links: Immigration provision cut from Obamacare rollback, angering conservatives
Don’t Stop. We’re Winning on Swampcare
BURN. Mike Lee Scorches House Leadership Over SwampCare

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Tyranny much? Observing an 'honest' preference for 'Rule of Men' to originalism's Rule of Law

The purpose of the Constitution is to defend the individual and his or her liberty and create a government that supports that. The phrase, “living and breathing Constitution”, is always promoted by progressives. An activist court that upheld Plessy vs. Ferguson believed in a living and breathing Constitution, so did FDR with the internment of Japanese Americans and the court that upheld the Roe vs Wade decision. You want judges to apply the facts, not a living and breathing ideology. Having an originalist interpretation of the Constitution like Neil Gorsuch has nothing to do with supporting slavery, or being anti woman. ~ MLS, 3/20/17
Despite that it's more than likely Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed, Democrats continue to scheme on his nomination, lending one to better understand Jeffrey Lord's assessment that over the years Democrats have played games with the nomination process until finally rigging judicial confirmations for the Left's benefit.

Nevertheless, it's remains refreshing to clearly observe throughout this process their honest preference for judicial oligarchy (for the breadth of it leaning leftward, that is), as well as an abundant disdain for Americanism, constitutionality and the Rule of Law in general, in their own words! (H/t: TheDailyWire)
“Judge Gorsuch has also stated that he believes judges should look to the original public meaning of the Constitution when they decide what a provision of the Constitution means. This is personal, but I find this originalist judicial philosophy to be really troubling. In essence, it means that judges and courts should evaluate our constitutional rights and privileges as they were understood in 1789. However, to do so would so would not only ignore the intent of the Framers, that the Constitution would be a framework on which to build, but it severely limits the genius of what our Constitution upholds. I firmly believe the American Constitution is a living document intended to evolve as our country evolves. In 1789, the population of the United States was under four million. Today, we're 325 million and growing. At the time of our founding, African-Americans were enslaved. It was not so long after women had been burned at the stake for witchcraft, and the idea of an automobile, let alone the internet, was unfathomable. In fact, if we were to dogmatically adhere to originalist interpretations, then we would still have segregated schools, and bans on interracial marriage. Women wouldn’t be entitled to equal protection under the law, and government discrimination against LGBT Americans would be permitted. So I am concerned when I hear that Judge Gorsuch is an originalist and a strict constructionist.”


At no point did Feinstein articulate constitutionally codified rights as timeless. Also ignored were legal options for change via constitutional amendment or the passage of constitutionally-compatible legislation.

Leahy described originalism as a judicial philosophy “outside the mainstream” or contemporary jurisprudence
“Judge Gorsuch appears to have a comprehensive originalist philosophy. It’s the approach taken by jurists such as Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, or former Judge Bork. While it has gained some popularity within conservative circles, originalism, I believe, remains outside the mainstream of modern constitutional jurisprudence. It’s been twenty-five years since an originalist has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Given what we’ve seen from Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, and Judge Gorsuch’s own record, I worry that it goes beyond being a philosophy and becomes an agenda.”


Feinstein, Leahy, and other Senate Democrats pushed Marxist themes of class warfare thoughout their monologues, framing the Supreme Court's primary role as being an avenue through which wealthy, powerful and elite individuals are to be punished for oppressing the proletariat.
Related link: Leahy Tells Gorsuch: ‘Originalism…Remains Outside Mainstream’

Let's look at the word and its definition more closely:


In rejecting originalism, it's little doubt that they reject our founding, but unmistakable is their rejection of our Framers' clear intent for both then-present citizens and future generations ("to ourselves and our Posterity"). Their unrelenting pursuit of a 'living and breathing' redefining ultimately culminates in their desire for unlimited power (i.e., 'Rule of Men'), and if ever fully achieved, would spell the end for the Rule of Law. Tyranny much?
"Therefore, he who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire." ~ Aristotle (384-322 BC), “Politics.”

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." ~ James Madison (1788), "The Federalist No. 51"


Related link: The Originalist Perspective

ADDENDUM: A masterful rebuttal from Sen. Cruz addressing the Dem derangement...
"The voters had a direct choice. The voters understood the twenty-one men and women from whom the President would pick. And they had a very different vision of a Supreme Court justice that was put forth by Hillary Clinton. And in November, the People spoke. In what was essentially a referendum on the kind of justice that should replace Justice Scalia, the People chose originalism, textualism and rule of law. The People chose judicial humility. The People chose protecting the Bill of Rights, our free speech, our religious liberty, our Second Amendment, rather than handing policy making authority over to judges on the Supreme Court."
"A decade ago, Judge Gorsuch was confirmed by this committee for the Federal Court of Appeals by a voice vote. He was likewise confirmed by the entire United States Senate by a voice vote without a single Democrat speaking a word of opposition. Not a word of opposition from minority leader Chuck Schumer. Not from Harry Reid or Ted Kennedy or John Kerry. Not from Senators Feinstein, Leahy or Durbin, who still sit on this committee. Not even from Senators Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Not a one of them spoke a word against Judge Gorsuch's nomination a decade ago. And the question this hearing poses to our Democratic colleagues is what has changed? What has changed, ten years ago Judge Gorsuch was so unobjectionable he didn't merit even a whisper of disapproval? In the decades since, he has had an objectively exemplary record. By any measure, he has shown himself to be even more worthy of the bipartisan support he received back then. Unfortunately, modern reality suggests that's probably not something my Democratic colleagues feel they can do in today's political environment. Many probably believe they have no choice but to try to manufacture attacks against Judge Gorsuch, whether they want to or not, just to preserve their own political future..."
Sen. Cruz continued to dig into the baseless attacks (which can be heard above), but unquestionably put Dems on notice that the sideshow wasn’t gonna fly. Bravo, sir!

Related links: Ted Cruz: If criticizing judges is so awful, why are Dems gleefully trashing Neil Gorsuch?
Chuck Schumer Confirms the Gorsuch Hearings Are For Show

Democrats Plan to Filibuster to Thwart Gorsuch Nomination
Gorsuch and Precedent: Democrats Want It Both Ways