Welcome to the "Know Nothing" Party

We are seeing the rebirth of the Know-Nothings.
This administration, and all the minions of darkness therein, never seem to know what's going on.
The Know Nothings were a secretive faction of the 'American' political party in the 1850's. The American party was basically an anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant organization. The Know Nothing name came from the society's instructions to answer any queries concerning their meetings and activities with "I know nothing." What are we seeing today?
People die in Benghazi, and Obama lies. But no one knows anything. He doesn't know anything, but he's really upset about what happened and is going to work night and day to bring "whoever" to justice. Question: why was nothing done to aid the ambassador and the others? Answer: I know nothing.
Check.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham was in charge of the safety of the embassy personnel. She doesn't know anything, and "what does it matter?" that four Americans died. When the 3:00 AM phone call came, she didn't answer. Question: why wasn't the security increased in light of the warnings given. Hillary's answer: a lie to Congress, and she knows nothing.
Check.
Susan Rice lied about the Benghazi attack perpetrators, and the impetus for the attack. But Susan didn't care. She didn't know anything, or wasn't talking beyond the Obama script. She was rewarded with a promotion. The poor guy who made the video, was a political prisoner for several months. Question: why spread the lie about the video? Answer: I know nothing.
Check.
The IRS attacks the Tea Party groups. Obama has no idea how this happens. No one is more upset than he! But how could you expect Obama to know what was going on in his administration? Maybe it was rogue agents! Can't trust those Cleveland agents. Maybe it was George Bush's fault! Question: who instructed the IRS to harass the conservative groups? Obama's answer: I know nothing.
Check.
Hey, I know. Let's ask Lois Lerner. She was in charge. Oops. She doesn't know anything. Great, now she gets a promotion, too.
Check.
The NSA spies on Americans. Obama says, "What?! I didn't know that was happening! Nobody is more upset..." Blah, blah, blah. Lie, lie, lie. No one, absolutely no one, in the administration is held accountable. Well, maybe a couple of factotums, a few peons had to take a couple of paid days off, but otherwise, no heads rolled. Not a cabinet secretary, not a department head, not the Teflon narcissist.
Check.
The Obamacare sign-up rollout is falling flat, failing spectacularly. Why is this happening? Obama doesn't know. Nobody told him! And he is hacked off, I tell you. Really upset. I mean really, really upset. Kathleen Sebelius doesn't know. No one told her. How can it be her fault? She is only the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Why would you expect her to know anything?
Question: how many have been allowed to sign up for Obamacare? Sebelius' answer: I know nothing.
Check.
So. Is it incompetence, or deceit?
Even an incompetent would get something right once in a while. To borrow a line from the X-Files, "This administration operates by deceit, inveigling, and obfuscation."

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:On the left coast

Bad 'Law of the Land'

So, Obamacare is the 'law of the land' and its implementation is inevitable? We, the U.S. citizens should just lay back and enjoy it? These Democrat hypocrites! If it is so GOOD, why do our Congressmen, Senators, and their minions want no part of it? Why do the unions, the most virulent backers, want waivers? As people find out how negatively their lives are being effected by this bill, and how much more worse it will get, they want it stopped.
If a law of the land is bad, we have both the right and responsibility to eliminate that law. The Democrats gave us slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the KKK (some of the most honored Democrats were KKK members). Should we have done nothing because racism and slavery were the law of the land? The people of the United States rose up, fought a war to break the back of slavery, marched to end racism, and to shame the KKK to insignificance.
Likewise, women were not allowed to vote. If we follow Oregon's Schrader, Bonamici, DeFazio or Blumenauer, there would be no women's suffrage, because men-only voting was the law of the land. Doing nothing is not an option.
Bad law, and make no mistake Obamacare is really bad, needs to be corrected as soon as possible. Now we know. We've read the law. It's time to delay, defund, and defeat Obamacare.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Senator Merkley is fighting for me? Yeah, right.

The Honorable Senator Merkley sent an email extolling his 'work' in the Senate. In the email he asks for continual input from his subjects (oops, constituents). Here is his letter, with my replies interspersed.

Since coming to Congress, I have been fighting to end the paralysis in the Senate by reforming the filibuster. In the time I have been here, I have heard from tens of thousands of Oregonians who are frustrated that important legislation is blocked without debate and with no senator held accountable for the inaction. Because the current form of the filibuster allows any senator to object to ending debate on a bill silently, an objection that can only be overcome with a supermajority of 60 votes, the filibuster has become a partisan tool for blocking the majority's agenda rather than a principled stand by a senator defending core values.

That is why I have been making the case across Oregon and the country for a "talking filibuster," which would simply require a senator who demands more debate to in fact be in the Senate chamber debating. In other words, if a senator chooses to block a bill that has the support of a majority of senators, I believe he or she should at least make the case before the American people, and if no senator is on the floor debating, then the debate should end and a vote held.

This is one Oregonian who does not want you to materially change the Senate rules. One of the reasons the laws should not be changed is that you cannot be trusted. Who is accountable now for budgets not being voted on, or debated in the Senatemfor the last three-plus years? The Republicans? No, it is the Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid. Who is accountable for decisions to not allow amendments or debates on legislation? The Republicans? They can't make the Senate rules. But Harry Reid can. Is he accountable? If so, to whom? You don't need a filibuster to block legislation, you have Harry Reid. What were his core values in blocking discussions, debates, and amendments, and votes to legislation before the Senate?

It has been reported that Harry Reid wants to be able to change bills, by removing or adding items, after the Senate has already voted on the bill. And these changes would not be voted on by the Senate. How is that kind of tyrannical action beneficial to the people of the United States? He would be unaccountable to anyone. Not the people, nor to the Senate (he is the leader of the Senate, who does he answer to?). To do what he pleases when he pleases is by almost any definition tyranny.

You are aware that the House of Representatives or the Senate were designed by the writers of the Constitution to be a means of deliberating on and blocking laws that are not in the best interest of the United States. Bills need to get a full hearing, from majority and the minority. pThe Senate is where 'bills are sent to die'. The House and the Senate are not designed to rush laws through. Laws that are not debated, not considering both the majority and minority opinions, are often seriously flawed - two recent examples are Obamacare, and the Dodd-Frank law. The unintended consequences of these pieces of legislation are showing up every week.

The 'talking filibuster' one point on which I agree with you. I believe the Senate rule change that moved the filibuster from a talking one to a technical one was put forth by a Democrat. If you as a Senator wish to filibuster, either alone or with other Senators, then you should have to be one the floor of the Senate talking. The filibuster has always been a partisan tool - can you make a case for, or give an example of a bi-partisan filibuster?

He continues...

As you may know, on January 24, 2013, the Senate made several reforms to its rules to help move legislation more efficiently through the chamber. Specifically, the new reforms create tools that can limit the ability of individual senators to block bills from coming to the floor, and they will make it less time-consuming to confirm the President's nominees.

The new rules fell short of what I had proposed, and did not include a "talking filibuster" requirement. However, I am proud that the Senate took the steps that it did. These are the most substantive changes to Senate rules in decades. Moreover, senators from both parties sent a clear message that the current gridlock and dysfunction is unacceptable, and showed their determination to fix the Senate. If these modest steps do not sufficiently address the dysfunction in the Senate, many senators are determined to fight for stronger solutions, and I am ready to continue leading that fight...

It is understood that the Senate can make its own rules for considering legislation. But making rules that will limit the ability of the minority party to have its voice heard will not serve the nation well. That is what concerns me. To this point, at least for the last six years, the period of the reign by Harry Reid, the Senate has not been a deliberative, debating body. You, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid have not listened to the people of the United States, or to the minority party.

A recent poll of American citizens indicated that we do not trust the government to act in our best interests. That includes the Senate. You, the Democrats, are definitely a significant part of the mistrust shown in the poll. A lack of transparency, both in the Senate and the Administration ("the most transparent...) fuels the mistrusts. For me, whenever I hear any Democrat talk about transparency, I grab my wallet because I know it will be under attack. The transparency ruse is like watching a 'magician' - you're attention is continually drawn away because you are watching the wrong hand. So it is with the Democrats. You say one thing, but do another, all the while creating the misdirection under the guise of transparency. Again you are not to be trusted, in the Senate, or with our lives.
***

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Where? When?