Don’t Ignore Next Congress During Presidential Horse Race

Don’t Ignore Next Congress During Presidential Horse Race


“Are the House GOP leaders principled?  Are they smart?  Do conservatives want to work to get those leaders changed in 2013? Earlier?”


By Guest Blogger Richard Falknor on 21 Nov 2011                
                                
“Republican stalwarts want to elect one of their own as president in November 2012. Conservatives (those within the GOP, and some without) want to change the course and size of government starting in January 2013.  Many independents — including voters who gave up on the GOP because of that party’s flirtation with  governmentalism over much of the last decade–  want to see president Barack Obama voted out of office in November 2012.
 
All these groups share the essential goal of replacing Mr. Obama in the White House.

For conservatives and some independents, however, replacing Mr. Obama in the White House is just the beginning of the journey toward smaller, right-sized government.  A newly elected Republican president is unlikely to change the course and size of government without a principled and smart GOP leadership in the Congress.

Do we have such GOP Congressional leadership now?

Here is today’s Wall Street Journal editorial “Balanced-Budget Bust: The House GOP loses its constitutional amendment ploy.”

The WSJ declares –

“Symbolic gambits rarely work in politics, and so it went Friday for House Republicans on their balanced-budget amendment. Not only did they fail to pass the amendment, but they succeeded in giving Blue Dog Democrats political cover as fiscal conservatives. Other than that, Speaker Boehner, how was the ploy?

Republicans had hoped to be able to put Senate Democrats on the spot by passing a balanced-budget amendment in the House without any spending or tax limitation provisions.  Instead, Democratic leaders whipped against the vote, and Republicans fell 23 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution.”

(Underscoring Forum’s.)

Conservative organizations, moreover, had written the speaker
“A vote on either a strong BBA or a weak one would meet the requirement of the Budget Control Act. Neither might pass, but a vote for a weak one would give cover to Members who have no intention of stopping the growth of government.  That would deprive the voters in 2012 of the ability to hold accountable Members who are not prepared to vote for a strong BBA with teeth sufficient to take real bites out of big government.

Therefore, the undersigned organizations and conservative leaders urge you, the House Republican Leadership, to make sure that House vote on a balanced budget amendment required by the Budget Control Act be on a strong BBA, not on a weak one.

Grassroots conservatives across America will be watching carefully to see how you handle this opportunity.” (Underscoring Forum’s.)
Representative Paul Ryan was one of only four Republicans who voted against the Boehner Balanced Budget Amendment.

CNS quotes House budget panel chief Ryan –

“’I’m concerned that this version will lead to a much bigger government fueled by more taxes,’ Ryan said. ‘Spending is the problem, yet this version of the BBA makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished.’

‘Without a limit on government spending, I cannot support this amendment,’ he said.”

Are the House GOP leaders principled?  Are they smart?  Do conservatives want to work to get those leaders changed in 2013? Earlier?”

Dell’s Two Cents Worth:  

I certainly agree with Richard and strongly encourage our readers to keep a keen eye focused on your state’s senate race.  A gain of three senators, plus a Republican Vice President, would swing the balance of power in the upper chamber and give Republicans control of all three branches.

ZETA Mexican Drug Cartel Open For Business in Chicago (Imagine that!)

ZETA Mexican Drug Cartel Open For Business in Chicago (Imagine that!)

Dallas Mules Uncovered, Too



By Dell Hill via Doug Ross

Add Doug Ross to your “must read” list - if you haven’t already - for stories like this...That you won’t hear much about from the LMS!

“Courtesy of the peerless Borderland Beat, may I present more evidence that our beloved baritone DHS chief -- Janet Napolitano -- was correct when she asserted that the border was "as secure as it's ever been"?

Which is to say, it's as insecure as ever, thanks to a very public campaign to promote illegal immigration by the Holder Justice Department and the Obama administration.

• Mexican Zeta Cartel Members Arrested in Chicago on Various Drug Trafficking Charges:

CHICAGO – Twenty defendants are facing federal narcotics charges here, including five alleged members of a Chicago-based cell of the Zetas Mexican drug cartel who were responsible for transporting millions of dollars in drug proceeds between Chicago and Mexico, federal law enforcement officials announced today...
$12.4 million cash and approximately 250 kilograms of cocaine in the Chicago area...

• Drug Cartels Operating out of Dallas:


Federal agents say Dallas is a hub for the Mexican drug cartels... "We've listened, through wire taps, and we know the organizations' commanding control cell are talking to commanding control cells in Mexico - directly to the trafficking cartel heads," says Drug Enforcement Agency Agent James Capra.

Capra says the Gulf Cartel, La Familia, and the Sinaloa Cartel all have a presence in Dallas... The drug mules who carried loads in for the cartels are living in Dallas as well. Moises Albino Castillo was one of those mules... "I traveled as a drug mule three times. I brought in 15 kilos of marijuana on my back two times," he says.

...Capra tells us drug dealers are willing to establish themselves through violence in Dallas... "We do know that in the past two years, there's been 12 different homicides that we've actually tracked back to drug trafficking groups," he says... It's all part of the cartels' plans to move their drugs through the Valley to Dallas and then to the rest of America.

Now I'd like you to consider these stories with the following context, as reported little more than a week ago:

• Immigration agents ordered not to arrest illegal aliens, even those caught committing felonies:

Chris Crane, president of the union that represents the nation’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, has provided the House Judiciary Committee [with] internal ICE emails [that] verbally ordered officers in the field not to arrest illegal aliens who did not have prior criminal convictions--even if they were fugitives evading deportation orders or were individuals who had illegally re-entered the United States after being deported and were thus committing a felony.

“Increasingly, ICE headquarters leadership refuses to put directives to supervisors, agents and officers in the field regarding law enforcement operations in writing... Orders and directives are given orally to prevent the activities of ICE's leadership from becoming public,” Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118, testified. “Agents and officers in the field are frequently under orders not to arrest persons suspected of being in the United States illegally.

And our border remains wide open with states that dare to enforce existing immigration law targeted by the Obama administration.

There's something very sickening about this perversion of the American legal system. And someday, hopefully very soon, Eric Holder will be facing the criminal charges he so richly deserves.”

Sen. Schumer’s Deed Shall Live In Infamy

By Dell Hill
Via The Admiral

I totally agree with Smitty over at Stacy McCain’s blog, every voter should see this video and then make that call!

Today's 'Toon from Tony!

Spot On...As Usual!

See All Of Tony Branco's Political Cartoon By Clicking Here

Debating A Liberal Is Like Beating Your Head Against The Wall Because It Feels So Good When You Stop!

Debating A Liberal Is Like Beating Your Head Against The Wall Because It Feels So Good When You Stop!


The federal budget requires only a majority vote to pass, and its consideration is one of the few actions that cannot be filibustered in the Senate.


By Dell Hill

I’m not sure how I got into the middle of a very heated political debate, but I did...and - as usual - there’s just no convincing Liberals that they don’t know diddly-squat about the federal political process - especially as it relates to federal budgets and the process that is supposed to be followed.

One Liberal participant declared, “I don’t care if you do win the Senate next year, we’re (Democrats) going to filibuster every f...ing budget you put on the floor of the Senate!....and you won’t win 60 seats anyway, so it will never pass”.

As politely as possible (and it’s not easy when you dealing with people who have never spent a minute in Civics classes), I said, “Sorry...but budgets are not subject to any Senate filibuster and it only takes a simple majority of 51 votes (or just 50 if the Vice President is from your party and votes to break the tie).  

Well, that went over like a lead balloon.  And after being told by several Liberals that I didn’t know what I was talking about and “..you’re making all this up”, I decided to set the record straight.  I also invited them to this blog to read it and weep.

Step One: The President's Budget Request

“On or before the first Monday in February, the President submits to Congress a detailed budget request for the coming federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1. (In years where there is a change in administration, the budget is submitted later.) This budget request, developed by the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), plays three important roles.  First, it tells Congress what the President recommends for overall federal fiscal policy, as established by three main components: (1) how much money the federal government should spend on public purposes; (2) how much it should take in as tax revenues; and (3) how much of a deficit (or surplus) the federal government should run, which is simply the difference between (1) and (2).  In most years, federal spending exceeds tax revenues and the resulting deficit is financed through borrowing.”

[.]

“After receiving the President's budget request, Congress generally holds hearings to question Administration officials about their requests and then develops its own budget resolution. This work is done by the House and Senate Budget Committees, whose primary function is to draft and enforce the budget resolution. Once the committees are done, their budget resolutions go to the House and Senate floors, where they can be amended (by a majority vote). A House-Senate conference then resolves any differences, and a conference report is passed by both houses.
The budget resolution is a "concurrent" congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, and therefore does not go to the President for his signature or veto. It also requires only a majority vote to pass, and its consideration is one of the few actions that cannot be filibustered in the Senate.”   (Emphasis Added)

There’s my answer, boys.

But don’t take my word for it.  Contact your Senator’s office and ask him/her.

Support The New Media - Don’t Click On LMS Sites

Support The New Media - Don’t Click On LMS Sites

“I believe that most conservatives are smart enough to understand what’s at stake and will support those who support them.”


By Dell Hill

To paraphrase the old Emergency Broadcast System dialogue; “This is a suggestion.  It’s only a suggestion.  If this had been an actual emergency, I would be underscoring every word of this suggestion”.

I’ve been thinking about this suggestion for some time...and just hope and pray I’ve chosen the right words, so as not to upset a great group of people.

Facebook users, in particular, and Americans generally speaking, are still still depending on the lamestream media for far too much of their “news”.  I’m seeing dozens of links every day that lead the reader right to the LSM trough of liberal political views.  That’s not good.

Over the past three years there has been a massive increase in the number of “new media” news reporters, primarily centered on Internet blogs as well as streaming audio and video presentations, which are far more in keeping with what’s actually taking place on the national and international stage.  I’m proud to be a card-carrying member of that new media.

When the new media members link or refer to a LMS item, we generally do so to present the conservative side of that report.  And the conservative viewpoint is almost always left out!

And, I’m not trying to pick on Facebook users, but we need to pay attention to the dates associated with everything we post or “share”.  I’ve seen posts of items - presented as news - that are as much as a year old.  That’s not good.  Even new media posts that are a week old are simply not news - they’re old news and have been posted many, many times.

In this day and age of the Internet, where fresh news items are posted almost instantly, we need to stay focused on today’s events...not yesterday’s or last week’s.  We also need to avoid presenting the constant viewpoints of the Liberal media.  Hammer home the conservative viewpoints and leave the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo, AOL and alphabet networks to sit wanting for hits.

There’s one other critical point to stress:

Advertising agencies place ads based on numbers.  Every time you click on a LMS link you add to that media members numbers.  If no one clicks, no advertising dollars will fill their till.  If no advertising dollars fill their till, they go out of business.  If you don’t believe that, just look at what happened to America Online.  They became desperate for funding and wound up buying the Huffington Post blog for $325 million dollars, just to offset on-going losses of advertising money.

Why not click on new media sites and send those advertising dollars to the people busting their butts to advance your own thoughts, ideas and opinions?

At the risk of being labeled a “blog whore”, I’ve purposely not included a link to my blog, nor will I include the URL.  I believe that most conservatives are smart enough to understand what’s at stake and will support those who support them.

“This concludes this suggestion....We now resume regular programming”

It’s Not Easy Leading A Nation From The Golf Course

It’s Not Easy Leading A Nation From The Golf Course

“Get the focus back where it should be - On a president’s administration and congress that are less popular than genital warts.”


By Dell Hill

With the distraction of the “occupy” protests taking center-stage, few have paid much of any attention to the work(?) of the president’s failed super committee.  A committee that had literally no chance of agreeing on the time of day, much less how the United States was going to regain control of its fiscal crisis.

It would be wise to refocus our attention to that which - in the grand scheme of things - is truly important.  Leave the occupy protest to the cities and states involved.  With the Obama administration and unions supporting it, there’s no need in any of us being too concerned.  And if the cities and states are willing to stand around with their thumbs jammed up their butts while acres of public property is destroyed, why should we even care?

Yes, I’m fully aware that their actions will cost a small fortune to repair, but those repairs pale by comparison to what’s taking place inside the Beltway.

Get the focus back where it should be - On a president’s administration and congress that are less popular than genital warts.

Here’s a synopsis, as of today.

“Consider the impact -- the Super Committee co-chairs still have not agreed on a way to put this whole debt reduction effort out of its misery (and that's the expectation now: failure). But the ramifications of failure so far have largely gone unnoticed.

The thinking now seems to be to announce something after the markets close Monday, even though the markets don't seem to care and have already absorbed this failure.

But here at the end of the congressional session, Congress has only approved three of 13 annual spending bills. They'll be focused on that even more-so now, especially given that the current continuing resolution that keeps government running expires on Dec. 16.

Congress is also going to need to deal with extending the expiring payroll tax holiday that was in the original stimulus bill. It will need to renew expiring unemployment insurance benefits, though some conservative Republicans have called for reforming that system first.

It will need to stop the doctors receiving Medicare payments from being hit with a whopping cut  -- something on the order of 25 percent -- to their federal government reimbursement payments. (This is the annual "doctor fix" fight.)

As well, Congress will need to "patch" the Alternative Minimum Tax, so middle class taxpayers aren't swallowed up by it.

And if that weren't a long enough list, Congress must also deal with a host of other tax breaks that need to be extended (research and development and other items critical to businesses). This is the so-called "tax extenders" fight that happens each year.

Here's the clincher -- since the Super Committee's debt deal bill was supposed to be the legislative vehicle for all of this -- uh, what now?

Technically, Congress cannot legislate on appropriations bills, but high vote hurdles could be overcome to do this. If enough members want to block something, they stand a better chance here.

Lawmakers could turn to a defense policy bill -- called the defense authorization bill that's currently on the Senate floor -- to deal with some of the backup, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can't afford to spend much time on that bill.

Add to that the lawmakers who insist on finding offsets for all this. Though many inside and outside the Super Committee, namely Republicans, were willing to go along with using a war account called the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO -- called "oko" like Yoko) -- money from winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they'll be less willing to do so now.  Republicans and some Democrats generally refer to that kind of budget savings as "gimmicks."

With about one month to go on the legislative calendar, the Super Committee's failure is an even bigger deal than it would seem on its face.”

And let’s get something clearly understood.  Obama and the Democrats held a sold majority in Washington for two solid years.  They could have passed any legislation - including a budget! - they wanted, but chose to kick the financial can down the road for fear that the electorate would discover the exact costs of such legislation and head for D.C. with pitchforks.  Meanwhile, the spending continues to the point where a second downgrade of the countries credit rating is being threatened.

The big shots will spend hours playing the “blame game”, but the important thing right now is to forget playing political games and right the ship.  The country is dancing perilously close to the precipice of financial disaster.

Such action will take leadership, and at present there is no leadership.  Your president leads from the golf course or whatever re-election tour he happens to be on at the moment, so you can forget about any direction coming from the top.  The Senate Majority Leader is so politically bent that his mental competency is being called into question.  The Speaker of the House steps into obvious political traps every time he takes a step and the entire Republican party seems more interested in made-for-TV campaign debates than what’s taking place right under their noses.   

Apparently, the message sent to Washington in 2010 has fallen on deaf ears at every level....and that includes Republicans and Democrats alike.

It’s a shame we didn’t get the chance to go to the polls THIS November to register our disdain.

Positive action is needed now; not next year.  It’s entirely possible that next year will be too late.

UPDATE:  From today's Washington Post:

The Post’s Robert Samuelson echoes that view: “He has the bully pulpit, but he hasn’t used it.” Quoting from an Obama interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, Samuelson calls the president’s responses to specific questions on his plans for debt reduction “noncommittal gibberish.”

The supercommittee is not so much a failure of the legislative branch as it is of the president's ability to lead the country. Each side in Congress represented its constituents well. It is, however, a very good argument indeed for dumping Obama. As Samuelson puts it, “The president won’t talk specifics, but government consists of specifics. The reason we cannot have a large budget deal is that Americans haven’t been prepared for one. The president hasn’t educated them, and so they can’t support what they don’t understand.”

Republicans and Democrats in Congress should be crystal-clear: The president’s been AWOL from the most important domestic challenge we face. Frankly, I suspect that a stronger Democratic president would have been able to broker a deal. Actually, a stronger and more courageous president would have embraced Simpson-Bowles. But not Obama. Maybe we should get a president who doesn’t run overseas or finger-point but who leads."