The Nuclear Option

 

Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate adopted the so-called “Nuclear Option” on November 21, 2013.  That’s a date America will have cause to remember in years to come.   It will work to the advantage of the Progressives in the near run.  They will be able to obtain a quick approval of all the ultra-liberal justices that have been nominated for Federal courts by President Obama.  It will be only a formality to bring those nominees before the Senate for confirmation hearings.  No Democrat Senator has yet had the courage to vote against Harry Reid without the Leader's explicit permission—that would be to vote against something that is a shoo-in so that they can tell their constituents, “I voted against gun control”. This is specifically permitted by Reid so that Progressives can hang onto the seat that might otherwise be threatened.  

No, in this instance, why not just bring in a list of the names of nominees for a quick vote of approval?  Maybe the 50 Progressives and so-called “Independents” (who hold quorum with the Progressives; indeed, one “Independent” is an avowed Socialist) can just give Harry a proxy to vote for them.  That would shorten the confirmation hearings to a few minutes for the whole group.  Read the names, have Harry Reid say, “I and the other 50 members whose votes I am authorized to cast approve the nominations of these 120 judges.”  As was the case in the drafting of the ACA, Republicans need not attend, because you will not be allowed to have an input.  

As always, there is method behind Reid’s madness.  Or Obama’s genius—whoever came up with this idea.  You see, some challenges to the (Un) Affordable Care Act will be brought before the second-most powerful court in the United States—The Appellate Court of the District of Columbia.  It is imperative that the three extremely liberal justices Obama has selected to fill openings on that court be confirmed soon, so that they can hear appeals of the various supposed illegalities of Obamacare and rule in Obama’s favor BEFORE elections next November, when (hopefully) conservatives can perhaps regain control of the House and Senate. 

Why is employment of the “Nuclear Option” such a departure from the way things have been done since the adoption of the Constitution?  To understand that, we need to be informed as to the rationale behind determining how members of the two houses of the legislature would be selected:

 

Article I, section 3, of the Constitution states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The framers believed that having state legislatures elect senators would strengthen the states' ties to the national government and increase the chances for ratification of the Constitution. They hoped that this arrangement would give state political leaders a sense of participation, calming their fears about a strong central government. They also wanted to provide a filter between the Senate and the passions and pressures of the populace. As the authors of the Federalist Papers explained, election by the state legislatures "is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems" (Federalist No. 62). (Beautiful language—would that our education system made it possible for us to be able to fully comprehend it!)

Question: What is the Great Compromise?

Answer: Two plans were put forth during the Constitutional Convention to create the new branches of government. The Virginia Plan wanted a strong national government with three branches. The legislature would have two houses. One would be directly elected by the people and the second would selected by the first house from people nominated by the state legislatures. Further, the president and national judiciary would be chosen by the national legislature. On the other hand, the New Jersey Plan wanted a more decentralized plan amending the old Articles yet allowing for a somewhat stronger government. Each state would have one vote in Congress.

 



The Great Compromise combined these two plans creating our current legislature with two houses, one based on population and elected by the people and the other house allowing two senators per state being appointed by state legislatures.

Why did the framers of the constitution set up the Senate that way?  The smaller states were afraid of being run over by the more populous.  Virginia was by far the bigger with a population of almost 750,000.  Several states had fewer than 100,000 citizens.  By allowing each state only two senators, regardless of the population, and giving that body responsibility for confirming Presidential appointments, a balance was achieved to protect minority rights. 

Because of abuses by some states of the rules regarding interim appointments of Senators, etc., the 17^th Amendment in 1912 changed the method of choosing Senators from selection by State legislatures to popular election—just like the House.  This change, widely hailed by many when instituted, has the effect of making those Senators more beholden to the Senate Majority (or Minority, for that matter) Leader than to the state that he ostensibly represents.  That leader can be more instrumental in effecting his re-election than close ties to the electorate of his state.

Good move for the states?  What do you think NOW?

Certainly, the Democrats employing the nuclear option makes future elections a great deal more important to each party.

 

Voodoo Mathematics

Bill Brown 

We have been told since before his first race for the presidency how exquisitely brilliant is Barack Obama.  While I am not fully convinced (I say that with tongue firmly in cheek) of our President’s genius status, I am definitely impressed with the figures that his Administration’s mathematicians have put together regarding the cost of Obamacare.

 

Genius is not a strong enough word to describe those who are able to provide  MUCH more coverage than most of us have ever had or felt we needed to at least thirty million MORE people who have not been able to afford insurance before.  Yes, your insurance will include contraceptive coverage—even if you are ninety years old and sex is only a distant memory.  Your wife may be seventy-five years of age, but her coverage will include obstetric and pediatric insurance, in the unlikely event that she should become pregnant.  You never know, right?  But you will get that extra coverage and so much more for LESS money than your more minimal package cost you before Obamacare! Isn’t that remarkable?  How often these days do you get so much more for so much less?

 

But you haven’t heard anything yet.  Do you remember all those for whom the Progressives used to shed crocodile tears—those with pre-existing conditions that made them all but uninsurable; if they were able to find a company that would insure them, the policy was prohibitively expensive?  Well, rejoice!  Those people will now be insured, whether the insurance companies want to cover them or not.  And the best news is—it won’t cost them any more than your policy costs you—even if you are in the pink of health and have never been sick a day in your life!  And of course, they get all this for LESS MONEY than your more minimal coverage cost you under the old system!  While the insurance company that holds the policy of a person whose illnesses can be depended upon to require treatments costing many hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, the cost of their policy will never be more than $25 or $30 a month; maybe slightly more, as Administration spokespersons explain it.

 

I’m waiting on these same geniuses to show life insurance companies how they can insure a seventy-six year old overweight, chronically tired old man who has endured six or seven surgeries, has high blood pressure and HBP (prostate) and a number of other health issues for one million dollars coverage for $25 a month.  Don’t tell me it can’t be done!  If they can figure out how to provide Obamacare to desperately ill people for the amount of money they claim their insurance will cost, figuring the latter problem out will be a snap. It wouldn’t be fair to lump me in with other old geezers with one foot in the grave and the other foot on a banana peel.  I want to be charged what that eighteen-year-old young man pays who is playing football at an extremely high level because his conditioning and health are perfect.  It would be unfair to charge me more for life insurance simply because I’m old and sick.

 

Any problem you want these brilliant people to solve for you?  You don’t doubt that they can do it, do you?

 

 

 

If anything in this article is overstated, it might be because NOBODY knows what is in this monstrosity of a bill, and NOBODY knows how much it will cost.  All I know is, it will cost a hell of a lot more than the Progressives have told you!

How to Steal an Election

 

The race for the United States Senate seat in Illinois took place on November 5, 1996. The Democrat incumbent, PAUL SIMON, chose not to run for a third term, and his party selected DICK DURBIN to run in his stead.  Republicans selected a former Illinois House member, AL SALVI.  The race was projected to be very close.  In fact, DURBIN defeated SALVI with a double-digit margin in a near blow-out.

 

How did Democrat DURBIN build that huge lead over SALVI?  Nothing to it! He filed charges with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against SALVI, alleging something illegal about SALVI’S loaning his campaign about a million dollars of his own money.  Candidates commonly do this, and the 7^th Federal District Court dismissed the case.  The FEC appealed that decision, and the SALVI campaign spent endless hours answering questions submitted to them (sound familiar?) by the FEC and they spent over $100,000 defending that case, which was not dropped until 2000.  Of course, the Chicago newspaper printed many stories about the alleged crooked campaign of SALVI.  As a result, DURBIN won the election handily.

 

Who was the super-aggressive head of the enforcement division of the FEC in 1996?

 

LOIS LERNER—who, according to SALVI, telephoned him at one point to advise if he would drop out of the race and promise not to run for office in the future, the FEC charges would be dropped.

 

Fast forward to late 2010.  This time, it is a presidential election that is supposed to go right down to the wire, in spite of the poor economy and other problems that the sitting president is dealing with.  The Democrats had taken a real shellacking in the November elections; particularly in the house.  With the tremendous interest in the election whipped up mostly by the Tea Party, sentiment was running strong against the administration and its policies.  What are the Progressives and OBAMA to do?

 

Suddenly, Democratic Senators became alarmed about the use by political parties of a PAC for raising money called the 501(c) 4.  These are supposedly “social welfare” groups who are allowed to spend money on elections, provided it does not exceed 50% of the money it raises.  Got that?  So these Democrat Senators petition the IRS to investigate conservative groups who are taking advantage of these PACs to raise more money for their candidates of choice.  No need to look at Progressive groups—they are not cheating.

 

Guess who was Director of Enforcement for that particular branch of the IRS?  Our good friend, LOIS LERNER.  She was the chosen replacement for SARAH HALL INGRAM, who left her job to become Director of the Affordable Care Act implementation—implemented by . . . the IRS!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SARAH INGRAM earned her new promotion by instituting the program that LOIS LERNER developed to a fine art—that of denying 501(c) 4 status to those trying to assist MITT ROMNEY and other Republican candidates—Tea Party applicants.

 

Remember—in the Illinois Senate race in 1996, where the race was thought to be very close, the FEC attack on AL SALVI, with the assistance of media stories about his alleged wrongdoing, created enough of a diversion of effort and money that it made that race a walk-over win by DURBIN. 

 

With that knowledge, and with uber-partisan LERNER no longer working for the FEC but now in the IRS, the temptation was too much for the Progressives to withstand—had they ever thought once of trying to do the right and honest thing—and a two-pronged assault was launched to help OBAMA defeat MITT ROMNEY.

 

First, you smear ROMNEY as a super rich man incapable of understanding what real people have to deal with.  You accuse him of all kinds of wrong-doing, up to and including murder (remember STEPHANIE CUTTER?). 

 

Then you sic the IRS on all applicants for 501(c) 4 status that have the words Tea Party, Patriot, Constitution, etc.—any word conservatives use to identify themselves—and you slow-walk their applications.  More than that, you ask all kinds of personal, sensitive questions and you request mountains of information from these applicants.  In short, you intimidate the hell out of them so that they forget all about trying to raise money for conservative candidates OR participating in efforts to get out the vote.  These underhanded maneuvers absolutely eliminated the Tea Party as a factor in the election of 2012.  That is the long and short of it.  Their success is obvious.

 

CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT, Houston, Texas, formed an association with the menacing title, “True the Vote”—for the stated purpose of monitoring polling places to help ascertain that those who participated in the process were indeed eligible voters.  Not only was she descended upon by the IRS, but the FBI, ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and even OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Agency) also made calls on the ENGELBRECHT’S home and business—all within a single year.  Coincidence, do you suppose?  Are the ENGELBRECHTS just out-and-out criminals?  Or was their one unforgivable sin that they started a group in opposition to the Progressives and President Obama?

 

Now we find that the SEC (Security Exchange Commission) may also have helped the administration put a stranglehold on conservative PACs.  They were certainly asked to do so by Progressives.  Who else might have aided in this nefarious effort?  Well, how many federal agencies are there?  That would be a good place to start.  If they could arrange it, every federal agency in America participated in stealing the election of 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is what the Progressives and Obama did crooked?  Certainly.  Dishonest?  Indubitably.  But it is the sort of bold outright theft of an election that, with the active assistance of the back alley media (once referred to as ‘Mainstream Media’), OBAMA will get away with.

 

I cannot say with any degree of certainty that the plan(s) to steal that election originated with Barack Obama.  Perhaps somebody else came up with the idea.  But if you are naive enough to believe the President had no knowledge of this plan, I have some good bottom land in the Gobi Desert to sell you.  I do believe that he knew about these plans and was very much in favor of them.  After all, this is just Chicago politics as usual.

 

Is there a single individual associated with the OBAMA administration that you would trust in any matter?  I know of none.  And that is a sad commentary on our government.  It is quite apparent that truth, honesty, character—these are words without meaning to today’s Progressives.