Senate passes S.744 amnesty, but grassroots opposition is on the way to blocking it in House | NumbersUSA – For Lower Immigration Levels

Senate passes S.744 amnesty, but grassroots opposition is on the way to blocking it in House | NumbersUSA – For Lower Immigration Levels.

What just happened: This afternoon, 68 Senators voted to pass S. 744. (Click here for the full roll call.) The bad news: If eventually signed into law, this bill would threaten to knock millions of Americans out of the middle class by flooding their occupations with 33 million foreign citizens who are offered lifetime work permits over the next decade. Can you believe 68 U.S. Senators voted for that?The willingness of every single Democratic Senator and almost a third of Republicans to accept the corporate lobbyists’ insistence that our country faces devastating labor shortages is disheartening to all of us who have fought so hard to protect the 20 million Americans who can’t find a full-time job, and the millions more who have seen their real wages declining for decades during a worker surplus.

What’s next, and the good news about your efforts thus far: Now, we must turn our full efforts to immigrationthe U.S. House of Representatives and another huge grassroots effort in July. But this will be only a three-week fight before the month-long August recess.

There is no question that the five-month opposition that all of you have waged is having good results in the House, where the Senate bill is facing an increasingly hostile reception.

If the House refuses to move a giant overall amnesty, it doesn’t matter what the Senate has done.

Your efforts have been phenomenal: Over the last few months, you have been faxing your Representatives and going to their offices, even as you focused primary attention on Senators. Republican Representatives have watched the incredible grassroots opposition to the 14 Republican Senators who broke with the rest of their Party and supported Pres. Obama‘s top priority for the year.

Just today, Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois), a member of the House Republican leadership, told reporters,

“It is a pipe dream to think that that (Senate) bill is going to go to the (House) floor and be voted on. The House is going to move through in a more deliberative process.”

For months, the open-borders lobby and their supporters in the news media have proclaimed that citizens were not speaking against this amnesty anything close to the way they did in 2007.

Your efforts back in 2007 to mobilize against that amnesty effort has become the stuff of legend around Washington. But I’m so proud to tell you that over the last five months — especially the past two weeks — you smashed the old records for activism! You’ve sent millions of faxes and made hundreds of thousands of phone calls into congressional offices.

For example, Republican Bob Corker, the Senator who rescued the S. 744 amnesty from defeat last week with a fig-leaf border control amendment, admitted on the floor this morning that the bill is extremely unpopular back in his state of Tennessee.

All of us at NumbersUSA thank you U.S. citizens for everything you have done thus far. And we thank you for all Americans who will benefit if the House blocks the incredibly harmful provisions of S. 744.

Fighting the bad stuff in narrow House bill: The  grassroots uprising against the Senate has truly caught hold among House Republicans who have persuaded their Leadership to go along with House Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte (R-Virginia) to refuse to do a giant comprehensive bill, instead passing small bills that deal with one immigration issue at a time.

isupportlegalimmigrationThe problem is that the special-interest lobbyists are succeeding in getting a number of provisions into those small bills that would harm American wage-earners and taxpayers.

We will be coming to you for assistance in taming those Fat Cat Welfare provisions.

Dealing with the Conference Committee danger: Even if the House passes an absolutely wonderful immigration bill — such as the enforcement legislation recently passed overwhelmingly by the Judiciary Committee — that would give Senate leaders the opportunity to ask for a joint Senate/House “Conference Committee” which would split the difference between that very good bill and the Senate monstrosity.

If a Conference compromise bill were to include an amnesty, both the Senate and House would need to vote for it, without opportunity for amendment. The general thinking here in Washington is that most House Democrats would vote for the Conference “report” bill and very likely the needed couple dozen or so House Republicans would, too..

But . . .

Even if the Senate leadership were to ask for a Conference Committee, Speaker Boehner would not have to agree and appoint House conferees.

And even if there were a Conference Committee that reported out a bill with an amnesty, Speaker Boehner would not have to bring it to the House floor for a vote.

We have precedents in 2005 and 2006 for what we can hope will happen this year.

Many of you were part of those battles in which the House passed an excellent enforcement bill in late 2005. Despite our best efforts, the Republican-Majority Senate passed an amnesty in the spring of 2006. Then-Speaker Hastert refused to conference over those two bills, and the Senate amnesty died. (It was the next spring in 2007 when the new Democrat-Majority Senate failed to pass an amnesty when the new Democrat-Majority House was sure to have approved it.)

Until recently, Speaker Boehner has kept open the option of bringing an amnesty bill to the House floor that might pass with a minority of Republican votes — as he has done with some fiscal bills in the past. But over the last week, he has assured an increasingly aggressive Republican Conference in the House that he would not bring an immigration bill to the floor without at least a bare majority of Republicans supporting it.

Nonetheless, until today, he has refused to say what he would do about a Conference report that reconciled House and Senate bills.

This morning, once again, we saw the results of the powerful grassroots opposition to what the Senate has been doing. Politico just reported that Boehner told reporters :

“For any legislation including the conference report to pass the House it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of the majority of our members.”

As you know, our Board of Directors, our staff and our members are Independents, Republicans and Democrats. But our July House Battle will be all about making sure that the majority of Republicans are against any overall amnesty. And we want the majority to be at least the two-thirds majority opposition to overall amnesty that we saw among Senate Republicans today.

The pro-amnesty, low-wage, labor globalization folks want Congress to believe that Americans will lose their will to fight and will just go back to reading celebrity news. But that’s not the Americans I’ve known ever since we’ve worked together to stop every amnesty attempt in every year starting in 2001 (after seven amnesties passed between 1986 and 2000).

Which Senators voted out of belief in ‘labor shortages’ and bogus enforcement promises?

At NumbersUSA, we have an Immigration Grade Card system that ensures that no vote against the interests of the American people will ever be forgotten.

Today, 68 Senators cast votes that will be very difficult to ever redeem with future actions.

After all the promises of “enforcement first,” these Senators accepted an entirely “amnesty first” bill that in the first few months would give work permits and legalization to some 11 million foreign citizens who either (a) crossed the border illegally, most of them by paying drug cartels and many of them by helping the cartels move drugs, or who (b) violated the promises on their vacation and guest visas and illegally took U.S. jobs (often through identity theft and fraud) and a share of the taxpayer-provided infrastructure.

Every single Democratic Senator voted YES to the amnesty and to the arguments of corporate lobbyists that a nation with 20 million Americans unable to find full-time jobs is desperately in need of 33 million new lifetime work permits for foreign citizens over the next decade.

And these Republican Senators voted YES to the same provisions, breaking with the majority of their Party (32 Senators) and all four of their Senate Party leaders:

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Chiesa (R-NJ)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Kirk (R-IL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Rubio (R-FL)

We will work with all of you to ensure that those 68 Senators are held accountable for their betrayal today of American wage-earners, of the unemployed and of the rule of law.

But our top attention must now be in the July House Battle that your activism has so-well prepared us for.

ROY BECK is the CEO & Founder of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA’s blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Endgame – Tea Party Nation

Endgame – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

We are rapidly approached the endgame in American politics. 

 

The endgame is the place the liberals want us to be.    There is only one thing stopping them from hitting the endgame point.

 What is it?

 Republican control of the House of Representatives.

 What is their endgame point?

 It is socialism. It is the end of freedom and liberty. 

 The left is engaged in the strategy known as Cloward-Piven.  It is named after two Marxist professors who wanted to bring down the government first in New York City and then eventually in America.

 The strategy is simple.  Overwhelm the system with demands that it cannot meet.  Then the system will collapse.

 We are seeing that today.  From America’s overwhelming debt, to amnesty, to Obamacare, the left is trying to create so many demands on America’s economic system that it will collapse.

 There is one last hurdle they have to overcome to get there.

 That is Republican control of the House of Representatives. 

 As this year opened, one of the biggest topics of conversation in DC was whether Harry Reid, the bordello child from Nevada and erstwhile majority leader for the Party of Treason in the Senate would change the rules to abolish the filibuster. 

 Looking back on it now, it seems obvious he would not do it. 

 Why?

 Because it would have been a meaningless point. 

 Harry Reid can get the Party of Treason to pass as many bills as it wants but as long as the Republicans control the House, most of those bills would be DOA.

 But what happens if the Party of Treason gains control of the House again in 2014?

 Then you can count on Harry Reid eliminating the filibuster so that a simple majority vote gets bills passed in the Senate.

 This of course assumes that the Party of Treason maintains control of the Senate.  At this point, things look good for the Republicans to take control of the Senate.  However, in 2010 and 2012 things also looked good.  Never underestimate the ability of the Republican Party to blow an election.

 If the Party of Treason takes control of the House, Reid will abolish the filibuster in the Senate by rule change and then you will see the all out, final assault on liberty.

 Liberals openly talk about the need to limit freedom and liberty.

 Melissa Harris Perry is a left wing nut job on MSNBC, the official channel of the Party of Treason.  She caused controversy with comments recently about how children should not be raised by their parents but by a collective community.

 Now she has doubled down on her comments.  In a promo airing on the Channel of Treason, she says:

 “This isn’t about me wanting to take your kids, and this isn’t even about whether children are property. This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good. And that is exactly the fight that we have been having for a couple hundred years.”

 Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao would have loved her.  After all, they impinged on the individual freedom of life and liberty to advance a “common good.”

 If the Party of Treason ends up controlling the House and the Senate after the 2014 elections, we will see the impinging of individual freedom for the advancement of the “common good.”

 Freedom of speech and religion will be gone.  The Second Amendment will be gone.  The 7th Amendment will be at best curtailed if not eliminated.  The 10th Amendment will simply be a museum piece and state boundaries will be little more than lines on a map. 

 We will no longer be the United States of America but the United State of America, with a tyrannical, massive central government.

 This is what our founding fathers feared. 

 This is the end game for liberals.

 The 2014 election comes down to one simple point.  Either real Americans win the election or we all lose our freedom so the left can advance their “common good.”

 But as we know about liberals, their ideas never benefit the common people nor are they good.

 

Time for a secret ballot – Tea Party Nation

Time for a secret ballot – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

What is more American than a secret ballot?  Everyone voting can vote without fear of retribution.

 Unions have long tried to do away with secret ballots in Unionization votes.   That way more people could be forced to join the union because if they voted against the union, there would be retribution.

 Now a vote is coming up.  It should be a secret ballot but is not.

 What is it?

 It is the election of the House Speaker.

 When the House meets on January 3, one of the first items of business will be voting for the House Speaker.   As mentioned, this will not be a secret ballot, unless we can change that.

 From Breitbart.com:

 But if a member introduces that resolution for a secret ballot, the whole House will vote on that first. That vote will need to have a public roll call, meaning the American people, the press, and Boehner will know who voted which way. Even so, those who are considering this path forward to unseat Boehner know that Boehner and other establishment Republicans can’t legitimately oppose the concept of a secret ballot election for a leader of a political body.

 John Boehner himself has called for secret ballots in union votes.  How does he now turn around and demand a public vote on his election as Speaker?

 Again from Breitbart:

 It would be very difficult, politically, to vote against a resolution for a secret ballot. A secret ballot is sacrosanct in the American psyche. The procedure, however, would free Congressmen to vote for Speaker without fear of punishment or retaliation. If just a handful of Republicans vote for someone other than Boehner on the first ballot, he would be denied that gavel and the House would then move to another vote. Because of a current vacancy in the House, a member would need 217 votes to claim the Speakership.

A move to a second ballot could quickly get interesting. Seeing that Boehner is vulnerable, other members would start trying to build support for their own nomination. If this coalesces behind a single alternative to Boehner, then his speakership would be in serious doubt. The position of Speaker is built to a large degree on inevitability, i.e. the lack of any credible alternatives. Once that veil is breached, support for current leadership can melt away quickly. 

 This is our mission this week.  We must contact our Republican Congressmen and demand they support a secret ballot for the election of the Speaker.  Boehner can only maintain his grip on the Speakership by fear and intimidation.  A secret ballot ends that.

 This is the week between Christmas and New Year.  Most of us do not have much planned for this week and indeed want to do very little.  But this is one thing that is essential.

 

Call your Republican Congressman today and demand they vote for a secret ballot for the election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives on January 3.

The Proper Role of Government? They Don’t Have a Clue! – Tea Party Nation

The Proper Role of Government? They Don’t Have a Clue! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by KrisAnne Hall

What is the proper role of Government? We have witnessed the perspectives of those in government, we have heard the answers in recent presidential debates, but what did those who DESIGNED it envision? Wouldn’t you like to KNOW what government is supposed to be doing? The interesting thing is, we don’t have to guess, we don’t have to make it up, we simply need to look to the framers of our Constitution. It is almost simplistically elegant the way they described the role of the Senate and the House. Yet, even the simplest of explanations seem to have eluded the entire government machine. As the employers of our government, it is essential that we know what government is supposed to be doing and require them to fully accomplish their job description.

What follows is a brief and simple primer about the structure of our Republic according to our founders. James Madison said that the powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. He lists them as war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce. He explains that the general welfare clause does not grant the government the power to do generally whatever they want; it simply describes the purpose in delegating those few powers he listed. In other words our founders believed in and intended limited government, very limited.

“I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who rarified the Constitution conceived—that is is not an indefinite government…but a limited Government. The Powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined…war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce.” James Madison

By the same token, Congress was to have a limited and strictly defined role as well. Congress was not established to “become” the federal government but to control it on behalf of the people. That is the reason they hold the most influence and control through the checks and balances established through powers of impeachment and congressional oversight.

In the American Constitution The general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capac[it]y. ~James Madison to Thomas Jefferson 24 Oct. 1787

First, the Senate was established to represent the states in the federal government. That is why each state is allotted the same number of Senators, to ensure equal representation and therefore equal control for all states. The Senate’s primary job description was to protect the states from federal encroachment and ensure each state’s sovereignty. “Defenders of the 10th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended them to perform.

President bears no resemblance to a king, so we shall see the Senate have no similitude to nobles. First then not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom and virtue are not precarious, for by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices; and they will have none of the peculiar follies and vices of those men who possess power merely because their fathers held it before them, for they will be educated (under equal advantages and with equal prospects) among and on a footing with the other sons of a free people.~Tench Coxe– An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States II September 28, 1788

The House was designed to be the representatives of the people. That is why there are more house members than senators, to better reflect the population of people in each state. The House’s primary job description was to be the guardians of Liberty, so the people can maintain the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. “Defenders of the 9th Amendment”would be a good description for the job our founders intended them to perform.

Each member of this truly popular assembly will be chosen by about six thousand electors, by the poor as well as the rich. No decayed and venal borough will have an unjust share in their determinations. No old Sarum will send thither a Representative by the voice of a single elector. As we shall have no royal ministries to purchase votes, so we shall have no votes for sale. For the suffrages of six thousand enlightened and independent freemen are above all price.~ Tench Coxe- An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States III September 29, 1788

But here we are today with a Senate that looks more like a protector of the federal government than a defender of the states and a House that feels it’s primary role is to “protect” national security instead of the rights and Liberty of the people. Placing security over liberty seems to be a common affliction of our Congress. Remember Patrick Henry made it perfectly clear that without Liberty life was not even worth living. Benjamin Franklin rightfully declared that if security was placed above Liberty, we would lose them both.

Our framers made it clear that if the federal government was not following their constitutional duties or abiding by the limitations established, their actions (their laws) were null and void.

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution… But it will not follow…that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION.~ Federalist Paper #33

This is the fundamental principle of state nullification. If Congress understood their proper role they would KNOW that when the federal government creates unjust and unconstitutional law, it is their job to protect the people from it and declare the sovereignty of the people over the powers delegated to the federal government. If they really understood their oath to the Constitution and what their obligations were, THEY would be nullifying Obamacare, UN Treaties, and the myriad of unconstitutional executive orders spewed out by this current administration.

Of course there are those who would assert that the Supreme Court has “declared” state nullification invalid. The problem with that assertion is that the Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court is one third of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (the division of government with the least power, by the way), a Federal government created by the people. Allowing SCOTUS to determine the degree of sovereignty each state has over the federal government is the ultimate expression of a conflict of interest. Let us remember that the Federal government, which includes the SCOTUS is a creature of the people. Would you allow the defendant in a criminal case to decide HIS own guilt or innocence? Of course not! But allowing the Supreme Court to determine how the Federal Government (of which it is a part) is operating with respect to State’s rights is to have to have the offender declaring his own innocence. Is the Supreme Court capable of making the proper ruling? I’m sure they are, but they are equally capable of making the improper ruling and such would be the destruction of liberty by declaring the 9th and 10th Amendments irrelevant.

Alexander Hamilton declared in Federalist paper #33 that when the government steps outside its constitutional bounds, it is incumbent upon the people to redress the injury done to the Constitution.

The current lack of understanding of the proper relationship between the States and its Federal Government as well as the neglect of the proper roles of our Congressional employees is leading directly to the destruction of our Constitution. And as Daniel Webster warned, we as a nation have an obligation to hold onto this great Constitution, or suffer consequences of our neglect.

Is our Constitution worth preserving?Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

House Conservatives to Boehner: Defund Obamacare Now | CNSNews.com

House Conservatives to Boehner: Defund Obamacare Now | CNSNews.com.

By Michael W. Chapman

(CNSNews.com) – Although the House of Representatives,

dominated by Republicans, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, on Wednesday, at least 80 House Republicans so far have signed a letter calling upon Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the House GOP leaders to halt any future funding of the health care law given that the House controls most appropriations.

The letter, signed by Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Steve King (Iowa), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Allen West (Fla.), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), and 74 other House members, was sent out by the House Republican Study Committee and the House Tea Party Caucus.

The letter, in part, states:

“Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor,

” … We appreciate your willingness to schedule a vote on the full repeal of ObamaCare.  We should continue efforts to repeal the law in its entirety this year, next year, and until we are successful.  However, in the meantime, there is more we can do in Congress.

“Since much of the implementation of ObamaCare is a function of the discretionary appropriations process, and since most of the citizens we represent believe that ObamaCare should never go into effect, we urge you not to bring to the House floor in the 112th Congress any legislation that provides or allows funds to implement ObamaCare through the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, or any other federal entity.  We also urge you to take legislative steps necessary to immediately rescind all ObamaCare-implementation funds.

“In Federalist No. 58, James Madison wrote that the ‘power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon … for obtaining a redress of every grievance….’  We thank you for your consideration and look forward to working closely with you to address defunding one of the largest grievances in our time and to restore patient-centered healthcare in America.”

In an e-mail announcing the letter, Wesley A. Goodman, director of Conservative Coalitions and State Outreach at the House Republican Study Committee, said, “We have the ‘power of the purse.’  A Republican House should not bring any bill to the floor that funds the implementation of Obamacare, and we should take every action to rescind money out the door.”

The letter is still in circulation and potentially gathering more signatures. The House Republican Study Committee said it anticipates sending the letter to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor at the end of this week.

In the Obamacare vote today, three Democrats joined with 242 Republicans for repeal while 189 Democrats voted against repeal.

Back in November 2011, CNSNews.com spoke with Rep. King (R-Iowa) about the House GOP cutting funding to Obamacare and he said he did not think it would happen because the House Republican leadership is afraid of a showdown with Senate Democrats and the President.

health care bill

An early draft of the 2,000-plus-page health care bill. (AP Photo)

“We didn’t bring up the maximum leverage because the decision was made by leadership to avoid the prospect of a showdown with the president or Harry Reid that could result in a potential shutdown of government,” said King.

“I think the American public would have sided with us, and if we had held our ground on shutting off the funding to Obamacare in particular, as well as funding Planned Parenthood, because it puts the president and Harry Reid and the Democrats in the position of having to defend Obamacare as more important than all of the rest of the functions of government combined,” he said.

“They will not win that argument, but we were not as a body willing to make it in a place where we had a chance to succeed legislatively,” the Iowa conservative added.

“If the repeal of Obamacare went up on the floor, every Republican would vote for the repeal of it,” King told CNSNews.com.   “Cutting all funding, same thing — especially if it was written by the Speaker or the Majority Leader and, of course, we don’t expect that will happen.

When asked about the GOP leaders halting the funding of Obamacare in February 2011, Boehner did not directly answer.

John Boehner

House Speaker John Boehner (AP Photo)

At a Feb. 11, 2011 press conference, CNSNews.com asked Speaker Boehner, “Majority Leader Cantor says that the continuing resolution that comes out of the House will not fund Obamacare. In order for that to pass, the Senate and the president will have to agree to defund the program.  If they don’t, either the GOP will have to cave in and fund Obamacare or the government will shut down. So, given that fact, is there any way that the House majority led by you will fund ObamaCare after March 4th?”

Boehner said,  “We are opposed to Obamacare.  We have voted to repeal it.  That also included $700 million in tax hikes, about $2.6 trillion in new spending. We’re going to continue to take all the actions that we can to make sure that we do not ruin the best health care delivery system in the world, bankrupt our nation and, most importantly, get in the way of job creation in America.”

GOP Congress Breaks ‘Pledge To America’ – Freedomoutpost.com

What are the Republicans in Congress thinking? Seriously. What was in their collective minds when they passed a bill worth billions of dollars in stimulus to all sorts of true free loaders?

According to John Hayward at Human Events,

On Friday, the House and Senate passed an omnibus spending bill, which is a bit like passing a kidney stone, except it’s much more painful and expensive. This particular bill included a number of measures to address three entirely different topics: student loan rates, highway construction, and flood insurance.

Those three subjects have nothing to do with each other, but packaging them together made it far more difficult to vote against any specific portion of it. Oppose the extension of those famous subsidized student loan rates, and you’re against highway construction. Express reservations against all that highway spending, and you’re against low-interest student loans and flood insurance.

 

Political pressures had been cooked up to make each of those individual votes difficult; load them into the same omnibus, and the resulting legislative vehicle is nearly unstoppable. In the end, only 52 Republican members of the House, and 19 Republican senators, voted against it. Big Government got bigger, and Broke Government went further into debt.

I’m sorry, did you say it makes it “far more difficult to vote against any specific portion?” How about elected representatives vote the entire monstrosity down? How about they stop giving the people’s money away to thing they should not be giving to in the first place?

Look, there is no question that students need some loan relief. However, they knew what they were getting into when they took the loan. Just like anyone who takes out a loan, they know what their responsibilities are. If they chose to believe the lie that a certain education will reap them a certain job, pay and lifestyle rather than working in the real world, then I’m sorry, but the fact is government should not have been and should not be in the business of providing student loans in the first place.

Student loans continue to remain above ten percent now. Yes I agree they need relief, but my goodness can people not vote with a clear conscience and kill something that has all sorts of other pork crammed into it? Oh that’s right, then somebody wouldn’t get what they want would they? Politics as usual. The GOP sells the American people out once more for political expediency instead of principle.

Congress is not thinking of the massive student loan bubble. Instead they are just adding to the circumference of the massive air pocket. After all, they aren’t going to pick up the tab. That’s for you and I. They will just point fingers at one another and claim it was the other party’s fault and most people will pull their team’s jersey over their heads and join with them instead of realizing what has actually taken place.

Did anyone remember the Pledge to America that the Republican Congress gave in 2010? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Seems they forgot too. they promised to “end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with ‘must-have’ legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.”

I think someone’s nose is growing. Someone’s pants are on fire. There are three items in this Frankenstein bill. They are mixing flood insurance, student loans and highway construction in one bill! They have broken their promise.

So who are the Republican who kept their promise? Well there were fifty-two of them in the House and nineteen in the Senate.

Find those Republicans, via the links above, who voted for this monster bill and vote them out when they come up for re-election.

Super failure – Tea Party Nation

 

SOLD OUT EHH?......................YA ...........

Image by SS&SS via Flickr

Super failure – Tea Party Nation.

The fallout is now hitting over the failure of the Super Committee and the consequences of sequestration.  One of the major consequences of the automatic budget cuts is going to be draconian cuts to the Defense Department.   Some Republicans are already talking about trying to restore that Defense spending and Obama has already threatened a veto.

Who is to blame for this disaster?

The blame is totally on the so-called leadership of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives.  I used the term, “so-called” because the problems we are seeing result from a catastrophic failure of leadership. 

John Boehner and the leadership punted their roles when the created the Super Committee. 

Why?  Because the current leadership of the House of Representatives believes that compromise is the goal and when compromise is the goal, surrender is always the first option.

The ugly truth here is that the Super-Committee was a bad idea.  Newt Gingrich called it “a really dumb idea.”   This comes from a man who when he was House Speaker went head to head with Bill Clinton and managed to balance the budget. 

The Super Committee was an abdication of leadership.  It was the proverbial Washington solution.  It would accomplish almost nothing and the politicians could blame someone else for their failure.

The actions of the Republican leadership in creating this mess was nothing more than an exercise in Bovine Scatology!

Article One, Section Seven of the Constitution provides that “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”   While some think that means the House has origination jurisdiction for tax bills only, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 66 said, “The exclusive privilege of originating money bills will belong to the House of Representatives.”

The House of Representatives has traditionally held that all spending bills must originate there as well, and Hamilton’s language would seem to support that idea.

So why didn’t they do it here?

Instead of a “Super Committee,” all the House had to do was refuse to spend money.  The Senate and even Obama could have refused to go along with it, but they cannot force the House of Representatives to spend money. 

Would there have been a confrontation? Yes.

What would have been the outcome?

Given Barack Obama’s lack of stomach for a fight, the House and the Republicans would have won that fight.   Unfortunately, the House leadership was unwilling to stand up for America.

Shortly after Boehner took over as Speaker, I was talking to a source of mine in DC told me that Boehner had been working hard to “co-opt” the freshman class and had about three quarters of them on board with him.   Boehner is no fool.   The only votes that count for the Speaker’s chair are those of the Republican members of Congress.   2012 will almost certainly bring an increase in the number of Republicans in the House, thanks to redistricting and hopefully a good Republican nominee for President.   Boehner has enough votes to remain as Speaker.

The only good news out of that scenario is that Boehner will be unlikely to buck a Republican President.   So as long as that President is not Mitt Romney, we should be in good shape.

But as we look at the fallout from the failure of the Super-Committee, let’s not forget what got us here.  What got us here is the establishment Republicans who still control the Party.

At the risk of being very repetitive, we need to have conservatives in control of the Republican Party.   If you are not a part of your local GOP, join and get involved at the Precinct level.  This is how we can change the party.  This is how we control the party.

This is how we make sure that we never again see a fiasco like we are now enduring.