Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Granholm: "Clinton Campaign Is Saying Not Any Woman, We Wouldn't Say Vote For Sarah Palin"

RealClearPolitics ^ | February 9, 2016 

FMR. GOV. JENNIFER GRANHOLM (D-MI): Young women do not want to be shamed into voting and that's very clear and nobody intended for that to happen. I think what they -- I'm from the next generation after, you know, Gloria and Madeline and we -- I've got their pictures on my wall, I mean, they are just -- they're total heroes. Of course they're going to say that we want to be able to see finally a woman as president after 227 years. But the Clinton campaign is saying not just any woman. We wouldn't say vote for Sarah Palin. (of course not, she'e a Republican)

We want to vote for somebody who shares your values and who is going to fight for those things that you really care about and who has been in the trenches on all of these things that women care about for four decades? It's been Hillary Clinton. Who has been fighting for kids all of her life? It's Hillary Clinton. Who has been fighting to make sure that there is parental leave and children's healthcare? It's Hillary Clinton. so what she wants to convey is don't vote for me solely because i'm a woman. vote for me because i am going to fight for you, i'm the most qualified person to ever run. you need a commander in chief who understands the globe and by the way I would add -- I would add 227 years is long enough.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...

Regardless Of The New Hampshire Outcome The Establishment Republican Party Needs To Be Destroyed!

The Last Refuge ^ | February 9, 2016 | sundance 


Regardless of the outcome in the New Hampshire primary any and every “professionally Republican political candidate” needs to be removed.  Most Americans now refuse to be co-dependents to our own demise.


red_hair

I speak for myself, and only myself.  However, I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m going wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am. The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct in December 2009 we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

scott brown he did it

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

However, from the writing of Jonah Goldberg, an advocate for modern conservative political opinion, you find the following:

[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare.

Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.

Why not? According to Goldberg it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option.  While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet the professional political class speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

TPP trade 2

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people.

This was again exemplified with the passage of TPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.  This is limiting government?  No, this is usurpation of the will of the people.

However, the TPA bill passage provides both an example and a contrast.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required senatorial voting threshold he is apt to do so.  Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s definitions of conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”.  Again, we are not blind; nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing agreement ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.

Yet you question the “principles” of Donald Trump?

A truly representative political body would be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of their leader, Mitch McConnell.  Or questioning Bob Corker.  Both McConnell and Corker working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent.

Of course, you need to remain willfully blind.  You need to keep acting as if we are not aware of these closed door machinations.  If you faced us, if you opened yourself to really being questioned by us, it would force you to admit some uncomfortable truths.  In years past such a confrontation would have included tar and feathers.

conservative quote 2.0

Another example – Lisa Murkowski ? An Alaskan senator who can factually lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, without admonishment from the Republican Party, and the professional political class permit her return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did the RNC, Reince Preibus, or a republican member of senatorial leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?  No, but you damned sure required a pledge from candidate Donald Trump.  Square that circle.

The “protectionism” and “isolationism” you rail against in the few media appearances where you are brave enough to raise your head, is simply projecting your own protecting of your political interests, and your own isolation to retain your status.   We do not forget Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

We do not forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads.  We do not forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel.  We are well aware the “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you chose to think we forget. We do not.

You stand jaw agape in admonition of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.  Intentionally you must refuse to accept how intensely angry we are.  However, specifically because of your refusal, you have now taken yourself further into the bunker and don’t realize the scope of our assembly.

nro cover

Your latest attempt to quell the rising pitchforks is Paul Ryan; now charged with the definitions of who is allowed to call themselves republican, or conservative.

Tell those definitions to the majority of Conservative Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Oh, we understand your definitions.

Where is the historical republican “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli?  They actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet these professional political voices speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?   That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say.

The truth is the “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term our fiscal house is much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

obama_delivers budget_

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs.

Professional DC Republicans focus on “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.  Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes? All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they themselves created on the lower income filers?

This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” DC is defending because they are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO
• Did the GOP even pass a FY 2016 budget with control of the House and Senate? NO.

• Who gave us a $2.5 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in December 2015? The GOP
• Who eliminated, not just raise but eliminated, the debt ceiling? The GOP
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who is working against Donald Trump? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

McConnell and Boehnermcconnell ryan

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back?

Here’s a shock for ya – We are not just pushing back against Obama, Pelosi and Reid,we are also desperate for push back against you.

Inasmuch as Obama is our enemy, so too are Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Paul Ryan.  Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where they opine:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering us “whacko birds” have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we had to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a fiscal strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy?

Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S WAS YOUR GOP STRATEGY?

Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done. And what did the GOP do? They eliminated the entire debt ceiling, passed a $2.5 trillion omnibus spending bill, and kicked the can all the way to March 2017.

That’s a flippin’ solution?

That’s a republican solution?

That’s a conservative solution?

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?


Seriously?


trump lion

2010_01-19-can-you-hear-us-now


Why United States v. Texas is the most important case the Court will decide this year!

SCOTUSblog ^ | 2/9/2016 | Dan Stein 

The Supreme Court has decided to review certain elements in United States v. Texas. The Supreme Court should leave the injunction in place until a full trial on the merits. There is no urgency to decide this case so long as the administration is restrained from giving out benefits that would be difficult to revoke: work authorization and eligibility for various other benefits.

Should the Court lift the injunction and endorse the administration's wildly broad claims of unlimited power to permit millions who are outside the rules stipulated by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to remain here, then Congress and the American people will be left without remedy in the face of an unprincipled executive who willingly refuses to carry out his legal and constitutional responsibilities. In other words, the American people will never be able to rely on the courts to stop executive lawlessness in the provision of civil benefits in favor of an unlimited number of aliens who seek to enter or remain in the United States.
On November 20, 2014, just two weeks after President Barack Obama and his party were repudiated by voters in the midterm elections in which immigration was a central issue, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a series of memos dramatically altering U.S. immigration policy by executive fiat.
The most dramatic of these actions were two programs designed to grant de facto amnesty and work authorization to an estimated 4.7 million illegal aliens. The first of these amnesties was an expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) - a 2012 executive action that has thus far benefitted some 800,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. when they were under the age of sixteen and who were under the age of thirty-one when the president announced the program. The second was Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), which would afford the same protections and benefits to illegal aliens who have U.S.-citizen children.
These two executive amnesty programs were the subject of a lawsuit brought by twenty-six states. On February 16, 2015, just two days before DHS was set to begin accepting applications for DACA+ and DAPA, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a temporary injunction halting implementation. That injunction was subsequently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Obama administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments in late April and likely render its ruling in June. While Hanen's injunction was based on the government's failure to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, the high court has indicated that it will also consider whether the executive amnesty programs violate the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.
Under these two newly announced programs, nearly forty percent of the nation's estimated twelve million illegal aliens would be granted legal presence and permission to work in the U.S. According to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, an organization that is generally supportive of President Obama's immigration policies, combined with the forty percent of illegal aliens covered by DACA, DACA+, and DAPA, the other policy directives issued by Secretary Johnson would have exempted eighty-seven percent of all illegal aliens from enforcement actions.
In essence, under the guise of prosecutorial discretion, the vast compendium of immigration laws enacted by Congress would be applicable to a mere thirteen percent of violators. Rather than exercising discretion not to enforce laws based on extraordinary and unique circumstances, the position of the Obama administration is to enforce these laws only when circumstances are extraordinary and unique.
The development of amnesty through the use of broad extra-statutory prosecutorial discretion began almost from the day President Obama took office in 2009. The president has relentlessly expanded the use of policies to delay or defer removal proceedings and actual deportation for millions of aliens who are inadmissible or deportable under U.S. immigration law through a variety of policy-based rubrics including deferred action. Beneficiaries are in practice treated by the executive branch as if lawfully present and granted major benefits of legal permanent residency, but on an indefinite or renewable rather than permanent basis. In all other cases, not only is there no enforcement, but a new power to provide public benefits and the right to an American job.
Recognizing that significant public opposition to broad amnesty programs for illegal aliens presented perhaps insurmountable legislative challenges to passing an amnesty bill (there was no real effort by the White House or congressional leaders on amnesty during the president's first two years in office, when he enjoyed significant Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress), administration lawyers began to explore how far the limits of what they styled "prosecutorial discretion" could be pushed. This effort culminated with the issuance of the 2011 Morton Memoranda, which asserted an inherent power to officially announce broad classifications stipulating whose illegal presence the administration would affirmatively ignore. These memos stopped short of granting them any affirmative benefit, such as deferred action or employment authorization.
Until he pulled the trigger on DACA in 2012, President Obama had asserted publicly on twenty-two occasions that he lacked the constitutional authority to grant deferred action to entire classes of illegal aliens. Nevertheless, on the eve of the announcement of DACA+ and DAPA, a memorandum opinion issued by Deputy Attorney General Karl R. Thompson gave DHS the green light to move forward. "Congress has long been aware of the practice of granting deferred action, including in its categorical variety ... and it has never acted to disapprove or limit the practice," stated the memo.
This key government claim is wrong. Between 1980 and 2005, Congress acted repeatedly to restrain, limit, or roll back the extra-statutory authority of the president and the executive branch to categorically grant relief from the nation's laws. Every congressional legislative act that addressed the question of agency prosecutorial discretion since 1952 has either rolled back or prohibited the exercise of discretion, replaced extra-statutory discretion with statutory standards for relief, or enacted specific legalization or amnesty procedures.
The U.S. Constitution assigns the immigration-related legislative power to Congress (as the best representative of the people). "The conditions for entry of every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, [and] the grounds on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress," wrote Justice Felix Frankfurter in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy in 1952.
The Constitution confers no enumerated powers over immigration upon the president. In contrast, Congress has exercised its plenary authority by creating a comprehensive legislative scheme, the INA, which delegates carefully circumscribed enforcement duties to the executive branch. When confronted in the past with essentially the same claims to executive power asserted by the current president, the Supreme Court and courts of appeals have affirmed the plenary authority of Congress embodied in the INA and the Constitution. In 2005, Succar v. Ashcroft, the Court held that "Congress did not place the decision as to which applicants for admission are placed in removal proceedings into the discretion of the Attorney General, but created mandatory criteria."
To the contrary, Congress has taken explicit actions to limit the discretionary authority of the executive in the area of immigration enforcement. In the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Relief Act of 1996, Congress indisputably intended "to prevent delay in the removal of illegal aliens."
Under the INA, Congress has enumerated two mandatory statutory responsibilities to the Secretary of Homeland Security: The "power and duty" to administer and enforce all laws relating to immigration, and the mandatory duty to guard against "the illegal entry of aliens." Under the Obama administration, neither Secretary Johnson nor his predecessor, Janet Napolitano, has faithfully complied with these statutory responsibilities. In fact, through his acts of November 20, 2014, the secretary has affirmatively shirked those responsibilities and blatantly attempted to substitute presidential policies in the place of a comprehensive system of constitutionally enacted federal laws that define who may enter and remain in the United States and under what conditions.
Needless to say, when the Supreme Court delivers its ruling in June the implications for U.S. immigration policy will be profound. What is at stake is nothing less than the entire premise of more than a century of immigration policy: Namely, the legitimacy of laws that restrict immigration in order to protect the social, economic, and security interests of the American people.
But what is also at stake is the cornerstone of our constitutional form of government: The separation-of-powers doctrine, which was fundamental to the framers' clear intent to avoid consolidating vast power in the hands of a single individual, even one elected by the people. If a president has the power to nullify laws enacted by the legislative branch by simply refusing to enforce them or, as President Obama is attempting to do, by substituting his own policies and programs in their place, then the powers the Constitution invests in Congress are rendered meaningless.
Even those Justices on the Court who might agree with the president's views on immigration policy generally should appreciate the precedent-setting decision they would be making by allowing the president to run roughshod over the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine. Those who support granting amnesty to illegal aliens should recognize that a ruling in favor of his vast new claims to power to change the law would be a pyrrhic victory. It would emasculate the ability of Congress to set immigration limits and standards, and it would render the courts irrelevant in ensuring the enforcement of the very same.

It’s Official — Young Voters Have a Higher Opinion of Socialism than Capitalism

U.S. Uncut ^ 

Bernie Sanders’ campaign has finally threatened Hillary Clinton’s winning margin enough that the mainstream media can no longer ignore him. However, much of the their discussion on Sanders still revolves around asking the same, tired question: Is America ready to elect a socialist?
Putting aside the tired refrain that Bernie’s actually a Democratic Socialist — which Sanders and Larry David joked on SNL last weekend is a “huuuuuge difference” — recent polls actually have some surprising things to say about American’s attitudes towards socialism, suggesting that “socialism” is not quite as toxic of a word as the media seems to think. Indeed, many people are starting to openly and passionately embrace it.
Take a look at the results from a recent survey by YouGov. Respondents were asked whether they had a “favorable or unfavorable opinion” of socialism and capitalism. The results of one key demographic may surprise you.
Politics It’s Official — Young Voters Have a Higher Opinion of Socialism than Capitalism Nathan Wellman | February 8, 2016 1065 SHARES Facebook Twitter
Bernie Sanders’ campaign has finally threatened Hillary Clinton’s winning margin enough that the mainstream media can no longer ignore him. However, much of the their discussion on Sanders still revolves around asking the same, tired question: Is America ready to elect a socialist?
Putting aside the tired refrain that Bernie’s actually a Democratic Socialist — which Sanders and Larry David joked on SNL last weekend is a “huuuuuge difference” — recent polls actually have some surprising things to say about American’s attitudes towards socialism, suggesting that “socialism” is not quite as toxic of a word as the media seems to think. Indeed, many people are starting to openly and passionately embrace it.
Take a look at the results from a recent survey by YouGov. Respondents were asked whether they had a “favorable or unfavorable opinion” of socialism and capitalism. The results of one key demographic may surprise you.
imrs.php
As you can see, the majority of young people under 30 actually support socialism MORE than capitalism by a fairly large margin — 43 to 32 percent. More surprisingly, Democrats in general are split equally, with both socialism and capitalism being rated at 42% favorability each.
The only demographics in which socialism trails capitalism by significant margins are, predictably, among more affluent families, people older than 65, and Republicans.
Furthermore, a Gallup poll from last year asked people to vote on whether they’d be willing to vote for a president if the candidate was female, gay, atheist, etc. Notice how as the demographics get younger, people are more likely to vote for a socialist president.

The Truth?

Then and Now

HATE

Legislating

PISSES

Cruz Missile

ELIGIBLE

Hypocrisy

Yes I can!

YJ8NWYD.png

Soicalism

qS37xy9.gif

ALLAH AKBAR, Hillary

137GSCI.jpg

NUFFIN!

1XnW4hP.jpg

Something Happening

kih33Dc.jpg

SLACKERS!

f2422Vf.jpg

Your body!

PbAzlsU.jpg

IF...

Jm9elJ8.jpg

NO!

scary-hillary.jpg

Just friends!

yLqkuzS.jpg

How government works

hgw.jpg

What?

auN2q6L.png

IRONY!

7VvBbiP.jpg

Flip you for it!

iMcHWRm.jpg

Progressive?

TYwUtju.jpg

Oh, wait a minute!

s7G3Qxw.jpg