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.

 

PROGRESSIVES LOVE for AMERICA – Part One

 

When is the last time you have heard a Progressive say, “I love America”?  No, no—I’m not asking when you last heard a Progressive say that he is “just as patriotic as (fill in the blank) is”.  When did you last hear someone who wears the designation ‘Democrat’ say, unashamedly and without embarrassment, “I love America”?

 

While you are thinking about that, let me recount a few nuggets for you which provide fairly conclusive proof, as far as I’m concerned, that many of the Progressive leaders, and by implication, their followers as well, do not love and respect this country.  I’ll cite a few examples from the Democrat administration before this one.

 

Wall Street Journal 4/14/98 Editorial "…President Clinton approved the transfer of missile guidance technology to China at the behest of the largest personal contributor to the Democratic Party. He granted the needed waiver despite an ongoing Department of Justice criminal investigation of the same company's earlier transfer of similar technology: a Pentagon study concluding that in the earlier episode "United States national security has been harmed." That is the essence of a report yesterday by Jeff Gerth of the New York Times (who also reported the original Whitewater story in 1992) concerning satellite launch technology provided by Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics, a subsidiary of General Motors. Loral Chairman Bernard L. Schwartz topped the personal contributions list in 1997; his 1994 trip to China with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown was quickly followed by a memo to the President from Harold Ickes saying Mr. Schwartz "is prepared to do anything he can for the Administration." Lobbying jointly with Hughes Chairman C. Michael Armstrong, who has gone on to head AT&T, Mr. Schwartz succeeded in softening licensing requirements for export of guidance technology to China…."

 

Insight 4/19/99 Timothy Maier "… But Clinton and Gore have much explaining to do. Both knew about the Los Alamos espionage in 1995, yet they continued to entertain Chinese generals by allowing them to tour nuclear facilities and gladly received financial donations from Beijing and its friends. A year after the theft of nuclear secrets was discovered, instead of exposing the spies, Clinton made it easier for Beijing agents. He transferred licensing requirements from the (Department of) State to the sales-oriented Commerce Department. This accelerated the pace at which Beijing obtained dual-use technology to build nuclear weapons and missiles... Next came the most significant damage to U.S. security since the days of the Rosenbergs (convicted in 1951 of selling nuclear secrets to the Soviets). Dr. Wah Lim, then a Loral Space and Communications scientist, headed a team of scientists studying Beijing's rocket failures when he called his assistant to fax to China a sensitive accident-analysis report that intelligence agents say greatly enhanced the accuracy of Beijing's missiles.….."For the longest time U.S. analysts on China have emphasized how small China's nuclear forces have been and how they have remained that way," says (Henry) Sokolski, (a former Pentagon nonproliferation official).  Not any more!!!

 

According to reports, on February 6, 1996, a Chinese long march rocket, carrying a $200 million Loral satellite, exploded shortly after lift-off from a satellite launch center in China. Loral and the Hughes Corporation went to work on an accident review for the insurance companies that insured that flight and the loss of Loral’s equipment.
 

First of all, we need to understand that it is illegal for American corporations to transfer weapons and rocket technology to a foreign company, period.  Hughes and Loral used the excuse of helping with an accident investigation that involved only the blow-up of a Chinese rocket, with which they had no involvement—not the malfunction of a satellite system which sat atop that rocket. Hughes and Loral should not have been involved in this matter. By the way, a secret coded circuit board was missing from the American (Loral) satellite aboard that Chinese rocket when it was recovered.  Congress suspects that China stole it.  Or did Loral give that circuit board to China?  We’ll never know.  This was a very important circuit board for guidance systems; advanced technology far above China’s capability.

The Chinese Government, once Loral and Hughes jumped into analyzing what had gone wrong with this launch, requested Chinese-born Loral executive Dr. Wah Lim be put in charge of this accident investigation. Loral complied with this request, and replaced an experienced American U.S. Air Force Colonel, who was at that time responsible for launch security, with Dr. Lim, per request.  One wonders what justification there could be for that change.

In May 1996, the 200-page accident review that dealt with this rocket's performance was finished.  Remember, this had nothing to do with Loral’s satellite. It had to do with the explosion of the rocket. This report, which was in reality a blueprint of everything that had gone wrong with the rocket and how to correct it, was unlawfully faxed directly to the Chinese Communists by an assistant acting upon directions from Dr. Lim--without either a State Department or Defense Department approval.  Interesting question:  Did Bernard L. Schwartz obtain President Clinton’s approval before allowing Dr. Lim to send that extraordinary blueprint to the Chinese Communists? Remember, Schwartz is the man Harold Ickes told Clinton “would do anything he can for the Administration”.

One year later, when the Pentagon completed an assessment of what had happened regarding the report supplied to the Chinese, they concluded, quote `The United States national security has been harmed,' end of quote.  Really?

Now millions of Americans live under the threat of being incinerated by a nuclear weapon launched at the United States from China—made more accurate and more reliable by our own aerospace industry.

Of course, the fact that Schwartz was the largest single contributor to the Clinton/Gore campaign did not influence in any way Clinton’s decision to allow this technology transfer to China; of that I am confident—aren’t you?  I’m equally positive that the Chinese asked for nothing in exchange for the millions that their government officials, military officers and business leaders contributed to the Clinton presidential campaign (see below).  Is it just possible that money from China was a pay-off for the technology that Clinton allowed them to obtain from the U S?  Oh, and even Chinese Buddhist nuns got into the act, contributing at least $45,000 to the campaign in a fund-raiser in California attended by Al Gore.  The nuns destroyed the record of contributors—to avoid “embarrassment”—but did admit that at least $45,000 was raised and turned over to Gore. 

I’m sure that the Chinese would have stolen . . . Oops! . . . would have obtained that information through their own research in another 20 to 30 years, so what’s the big deal?  What if their nuclear-tipped rockets can now reach many of the cities on our western shore?  I’m positive that President Clinton made the Chinese promise not to launch weapons toward the western United States—at least, not until he left office.

How much did the Chinese contribute to the Clinton campaign?  What follows is only a partial listing, which three (3) separate investigations—by the Justice Department (under Attorney General Janet Reno), a House Committee and a Senate committee turned up, but . . .

1) Charlie Trie, Arkansan, born in Taiwan, contributed $450,000 to Clinton Defense fund.  2) Johnny Chung, also Taiwanese, delivered to the White House $300,000 he told Congress came from a Chinese General named Liu Chaoying of Chinese aero-space. 3)John Huang, born in China, raised $3.4 million for the Clinton campaign.  AFTER the campaign, half had to be returned.  4)Maria Hsai, Taiwanese, raised $100,000 at a Buddhist Temple in California for the Clinton  campaign; delivered hand-to-hand to Al Gore, who said he didn’t know the affair he attended was a fund-raiser.

This is only the pocket change.  How much did the campaign raise from foreign sources?  That may never be known.

Let me ask you:  Does President Clinton have a deep and abiding love for America?  Answer: Not nearly as great a love as he has for himself. His perfidy in allowing the Chinese to purchase that advanced guidance and weapons technology placed millions of West Coast American’s lives at risk. It would have taken Communist China twenty or thirty years to have discovered on their own what we sold them—for what?  For the many millions of dollars that the Chinese contributed, through one source or another, to insure Bill Clinton’s victory in the presidential race. No, one doesn’t sell out a country and a people he loves.  Even for the sake of his political career.

Folks, it’s all about being re-elected—period.  No matter the cost.  Regardless of who has to pay the price. Progressives do whatever they have to do to win. Apparently, you can even rationalize treasonous acts in your quest to maintain yourself in office.  In the minds of Progressives, the Chinese and Russians are not nearly as dangerous to the future of our country as are our own nation’s conservatives. 

Can our nation continue to exist with this kind of deep division and betrayal?

Question: Do Progressives love America?

Not my America! 

California, The Leading Nanny State

Well, California is at it again. As a nanny state, California has both figuratively and literally broken the bank. Their record for stupid liberal decisions is well documented here and all across the web. Yet despite the evidence of their continuing stupidity, they keep on keepin’ on.

Just recently, Gov Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed legislation that bans tanning beds for those under the age of eighteen. This is outright ban, regardless of whether there is parental permission. The state of California doesn’t think that someone who is 17 can make good decisions. And as the father of a 17-year old, I happen to agree with that sentiment. However, there is a reason why 16- and 17-year old kids have parents: So they can make informed decisions about the choices their teenagers want to make. Taking away that responsibility from the parents and giving it to the state is what I am have trouble with. Why oh why do liberals and progressive think they are so much smarter than everyone else that they have to pass laws that further whittles away at parental rights? Is it not my responsibility and my right to raise my children how I see best? If I want to allow my teenager to get a suntan via a tanning bed, that is my right. But it also my responsibility to make sure that my kids are not done any harm, so I wouldn’t allow them too anyway. It still galls me that the state of California thinks they can raise my kids better than I can.

Often, the wounds inflicted on California are done by the idiots in Sacramento.

But every once in a while, the citizens themselves act like a bunch of loons.

BACKGROUND: In California, abortion providers are not required to notify parents if their daughter comes in for an abortion or for the treatment of a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Abortion providers are also not required to notify law enforcement (or they are not prosecuted if they neglect to do so) if the underage girl’s pregnancy is due to sex with an adult male, whether consensual or not. And there are toothless and unenforced against abortion providers who cover up these crimes.

From The New American:

The Prop 4 advocates claim: “On a daily basis, older men exploit young girls and use secret abortions to cover up their crimes.” They also point to numerous documented examples in which abortion providers, especially Planned Parenthood, engaged in criminal activity by covering up the rapes and statutory rapes by the adult predators. How serious is the problem? In her testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in June, 2004, Professor Teresa Collett noted:

In a study of over 46,000 pregnancies by school-age girls in California, researchers found that “71%, or over 33,000, were fathered by adult post-high-school men whose mean age was 22.6 years, and average of 5 years older than the mothers… even among junior high school mothers aged 15 or younger, most births are fathered by adult men 6-7 years their senior. Men aged 25 or older father more births among California school-age girls than do boys under 18.” Other studies have found that most teenage pregnancies are the result of predatory practices by men who are substantially older. (Source: The New American)

In the excerpt above was a mention of Proposition 4, which if approved by the voters, would have forced abortion clinics, even those run by Planned Parenthood, to notify the parents if a girl under the age of 18 wanted to receive an abortion.

As for the self-inflicted wounds, voters rejected this proposition. It amazes me that the people of a state that prides itself on its free-wheeling lifestyle and supposed opened-mindedness would allow the state government to further rip away parental rights. But what would expect from a state that forces history classes to teach historical contributions of homosexuals at the exclusion of other more prominent historical figures.

To the people of California: Do you not care that a cadre of progressives has seized your state and turned into a cesspool of intolerance? Do you not see these people are stripping away your rights bit by bit? Do you now see these progressive have spent you into complete oblivion? How can you sit idly by and watch was once a great state turn into such a lousy place to live and raise children.