Tag Archives: Filibuster

TX Democrat Gubernatorial Candidate Wendy Davis’ Slip Is Showing

Wendy Davis memeWendy Davis is not the first Democrat to use a fetus pile as a stepping–stone to higher office. She’s only the latest. But Wendy is in such a hurry to run for governor of Texas that she’s left a lot of inconvenient facts behind.

Davis first came to prominence when she lead a filibuster on the floor of the Texas Senate in favor of allowing women to abort their child as late as three months into the pregnancy. She termed it a “human right.” In contrast to Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX) who read children’s books during his filibuster, Davis essentially read the unborn the riot act.

Although Davis is ruthless when it comes to the unborn, she expects Texas voters to have enough sympathy for her climb up from a hard–scrabble background to make her the first Democrat governor since 1995. She describes herself as a divorced teenage single mom who went from living in a trailer to Harvard Law and the Texas Senate.

Like Massachusetts’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Falseahontas), Davis believes that redneck chic is a real vote getter among women and low information voters. And just as Warren’s tale of adolescent privation and Native American ancestry didn’t hold up to scrutiny, neither does Wendy’s.

The only element of the tale that’s entirely true is she’s a woman, of sorts. As reported by The Dallas Morning News’ Wayne Slater, Davis was 21–years–old when she divorced. After the divorce she remained in the mobile home where she’d been living with her former husband. Although she may not have been too popular with neighbors since she also received three vehicles in the settlement.

Based on those qualifications I could be governor of Texas having lived in a trailer for an entire semester at college.

Davis didn’t stay single for long. Seeing an opportunity she morphed into a dress–wearing John Kerry. Wendy had her father approach a friend of his and ask, “How do you like younger women? My daughter wants to go out with you.” Husband–to–be Jeff Davis said in an interview. “I was flattered so I took her out. We dated two or three years, then got married.”

Jeff paid for Wendy’s last two years at Texas Christian University, although her spin is, “It was community resources. We paid for it together.” Sure, Jeff wrote the check and she cashed it.

Mother–of–the–Year Wendy then applied to Harvard Law School and was accepted. (I would really like to get a look at her application essay. It would no doubt move Charles Dickens to tears.) After her acceptance at Harvard, Jeff dutifully cashed in his 401(k) retirement account to cover the initial years and then took out a loan to pay for his wife’s last year.

In the meantime Wendy was faced with a dilemma regarding the children. Her daughter from her first marriage was 8 and the daughter with Jeff was 2, so it was obviously way too late to abort them. But how would it look for a hot little blonde to be toting children that reminded her of mobile housing?

So she left both girls with Jeff back in Fort Worth while she went to pursue her dream solo.

Wendy graduated in 1993 and returned to Fort Worth where one assumes her daughters asked to see a photo ID and then welcomed her home. In 1998, running as a Republican, Davis won a seat on the city council and began her climb up the political ladder.

Ironically enough, the day after Jeff made the last payment on the loan he took out for Wendy’s Harvard Law degree, she moved out and filed for divorce. Of course Wendy takes umbrage at the thought that poor Jeff was just another stepping–stone. Slater quotes her vehemently denying any exploitation, “I was a vibrant part of contributing to our family finances from the time I graduated to the time we separated in 2003,” she said. “The idea that suddenly there was this instantaneous departure after Jeff had partnered so beautifully with me in putting me through school is just absurd.”

Vibrant? Who talks like that and what does it mean? Wendy oscillated when she got a check? Here’s a rule of thumb from a media consultant: When descriptive words are excessive for the surrounding context it means they’re lying. Like when Obama talks about “robust diplomacy.”

For his part, Jeff wasn’t feeling so beautiful. The divorce filing listed adultery on Wendy’s part and he asked for a restraining order against Ms. Vibrant requesting the court require her to refrain from the use of drugs or alcohol “within 24 hours of contact with her children.”

The divorce allowed Wendy to again demonstrate her deep concern for children as she chose to give sole custody of her 12–year–old daughter to her husband; saying it just wasn’t a good time for her to have a daughter tagging along.

So there you have it. The darling of Texas Democrats and leftist abortion supporters nationwide is a liar who won’t even agree to raise her own daughter if it interferes with her overwhelming ambition. She’s used and discarded her way into Democrat political stardom.

Maybe Wendy Davis is simply the culmination of the decades–long feminist campaign to remake America. Now a woman can be as callous and unscrupulous as male politicians and still run for office.

For her part Davis realizes she’s going to have to do something about that biography. “My language should be tighter,” she said. “I’m learning about using broader, looser language. I need to be more focused on the detail.”

Or she could just trying telling the truth for a change.

Worth The Effort for Several Reasons

As US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), continues his “filibuster” of Obamacare, many in the so-called Conservative punditry have smugly dismissed the effort as futile, tunnel-visioned in their understanding of why Cruz’s actions are not only critical to the eventual repeal of Obamacare, but to the effectiveness of the Republican Party and the survival of representative government.

A cursory examination of the by-products of Sen. Cruz’s efforts not only illuminates the incredible short-sightedness of the establishment Republican apparatus – both elected and not, but advances an argument to the American people as to why they should question the Conservative punditry and re-evaluate just how bright the Republican “strategists” actually are.

FOX News reports:

“‘Obamacare isn’t working,’ [Sen. Ted Cruz] said. ‘There are politicians in this body who are not listening to the people.’

“The feisty senator spoke through the night. His topics ranged from the American revolution and the Washington establishment to his Cuban-born father and the impact of the healthcare law. By 6am EDT Wednesday, Cruz and his fellow GOP conservatives had spoken for more than 15-and-a-half hours, the sixth longest since precise record-keeping began in 1900…

“The speech was reminiscent of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), earlier this year staging an old-fashioned filibuster to voice his concerns over drones.

“Paul joined Cruz on the Senate floor for a time, telling his colleague to make sure he is wearing comfortable shoes for the long night ahead and saying “we’re asking for a dialogue” on Obamacare.

“‘How do we get the dialogue unless somebody’s willing to stand up and say enough’s enough?’ Paul asked.”

Before the brilliance of what Mr. Cruz is doing is outlined, it should be noted that each and every Republican who has run for office since the passage of the ACA (Obamacare) has run on a platform of “defund, repeal and replace.” And while the House has consistently passed bills aimed at repealing Obamacare, none – none – of these efforts could possibly have been taken seriously. Ergo, establishment Republicans have done nothing – nothing – to keep their campaign promises. Conversely, Mr. Cruz and his brethren are keeping their promises; Mr. Cruz and his brethren are actually executing representative government.

Now, three (if not more) by-products come of Mr. Cruz’s efforts.

First, Conservatives have identifieddefinitively – who the RINOs are in the GOP. This will allow true Conservatives to target them in the midterm elections, as well as future elections. Frankly, the day of the RINO looks like it is coming to an end.

Second, this show of dedication to campaign promise and principle has served to foment an expectation among the voters that anything less than a one-year delay of the implementation of the ACA is completely unacceptable to the American people. To wit, even Democrats are now talking about delaying the implementation and re-working the law to codify “agreeable” elements, i.e. covering pre-existing conditions and portability, to name two.

And third, it breaches the “concrete wall” establishment Republicans have erected around the “official message” of the National GOP. By Cruz, Lee and the Senate Conservative Fund taking their message directly to the people, circumventing an impotent and ineffective Republican leadership, they have started the long journey to breaking the Progressives lock on “the narrative.”

The last point, if not all three, makes what Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Jeff Sessions, Pat Roberts, David Vitter, James Inhofe and Mike Enzi worth the effort…very much so.

CPAC 2013 Stands With Rand

Sen. Rand Paul gives hope to the curly–haired.

Sen. Rand Paul gives hope to the curly–haired.

The 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held this week in National Harbor, just across the river from Washington, DC, did not appear to be a depressed gathering of Republicans and conservatives still reeling from last November’s presidential loss. There was friendly rivalry between supporters of Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL), but I saw no evidence of divisive infighting and vicious internal attempts to gain mainstream media publicity at the expense of fellow party members.

But then again an impressive contingent of off–duty police officers was probably more than enough to keep John McCain and Lindsey Graham from attending the conference.

The opening day of CPAC 2013 evolved into a faceoff between two potential Republican presidential candidates: the aforementioned Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Judging by the crowd’s reception, Paul was the winner.

Rubio — America’s foremost spokesman for regular hydration — did not address immigration, the issue he’s been most associated with this year. Instead the bulk of Rubio’s speech, once we got past the H2O jokes, was fairly standard — although he did touch on the call for a remodeled Republican party.

Rubio said the goal of the Republican Party should be to “create an agenda to apply our time–tested principles to the challenges of today” because average Americans are asking, “who is fighting for them?”

Specifically, Rubio believes the US should be the best place in the world to create middle–class jobs and to facilitate that the country must solve the federal government’s debt and spending problem. Republicans should stress pro–growth energy policies that include both oil and gas. On the home front, he wants every parent to have an opportunity to send their children to “the school of their choice.” And we need real heath care reform that empowers Americans so they can buy insurance from any company, regardless of where the company is headquartered.

The young senator also addressed leftist critics and predicted they will downplay his speech and claim that he didn’t offer any new ideas. “We don’t need a new idea. The idea is called America and it still works,” Rubio responded as the audience applauded.

It would have been the best conservative speech of the day, if Rand Paul had not made an appearance.

It was a standing–room only crowd that anticipated Paul’s appearance and it erupted in applause as he brandished the binders he used during his drone filibuster in the Senate and declared, “I was told I only had ten measly minutes, but just in case I brought 13 hours worth of information.”

Paul — who gives hope to the curly–haired since no one will ever call him ‘blow dried’ — began by explaining that the motivation for his filibuster was to question whether presidential power has limits: “We want to know will you or won’t you defend the Constitution?”

As an audience member called out, “Don’t drone me, bro!” Paul explained that the president’s good intentions are not enough. “No one person gets to decide the law,” he said. And that’s his philosophy in a nutshell: leaders must defend and abide by the Constitution even when it’s not convenient.

Paul then moved to compare his conservative philosophy with that of Obama’s, which has proven to be you can have your cake and eat your neighbor’s, too. He quoted Ronald Reagan who said, “As government expands, liberty contracts.”

With that in mind he proposed a five–year plan to balance the budget. Paul’s blueprint cuts the corporate income tax in half, creates a flat personal income tax of 17.5 percent, erases the regulations “strangling American business” and eliminates the Department of Education entirely giving the power and the money back to the states.

Paul observed without mentioning names that the GOP “of old has grown stale and moss–covered.” His new GOP will need a big tent because it will “embrace economic and personal liberty. Liberty needs to be the backbone of the Republican Party and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me.”

And the crowd did, giving him a standing ovation that easily eclipsed the response to Rubio’s earlier speech.

Dear Sen McCain, It’s Time for a Change.

john mccain

john mccainDear Senator McCain,

Maybe it’s time.

We’re writing you as longtime supporters. As Arizona residents we’ve watched your support of the state. We’ve watched your support of the military. We’ve watched your support of the constitution.

And we admired you. What you endured as a captive meant you were stronger and braver than us.

We admired when you talked of compromise and you reached across the aisle.

And we admired your tenacity during the run for president. We couldn’t imagine keeping the pace needed as candidate when the media kept reminding us of your age. Like many we were sad to see your handlers reign in the ‘maverick’ but then you surprised everyone with the unknown Palin, a maverick, in her own right and we were impressed.

In 2010 when people began speaking out against the skyrocketing government spending we saw your support of many young Tea Party voices and we thought we were all on the same page.

But maybe it’s time.

Last week we knew you, along with other key Republicans were meeting with the president. So we did understand when you weren’t apparent in the senate chambers during the unexpected Paul filibuster.  We hoped that you, along with your other senate colleagues would at least make an appearance after your dinner.  After all, the Twittersphere and other social media were going crazy with updates on Rand Paul. Surely, C-SPAN doesn’t see such high viewer numbers as they had that night of conservatives, watching and listening.

Don’t get me wrong. We are not Libertarians. And there is much about Rand Paul that we question. But the filibuster was a unifying moment for many conservatives. We aren’t paranoid but we are concerned that this administration who works by executive order and fiat might want to watch, spy and yes, even target key dissenters.

We are worried about the changes we see. So maybe it was just one small, common thread, but common it was and Paul’s questions to Holder and the administration were not irrelevant comments made by a fringe element.

Which is why we were very sad to see you and your pal Lindsey mock the filibuster and Paul’s statements. Even worse, you continued to show up on every news show and further denigrate Paul.

What were you thinking? Momma always told us, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Who did you think you were helping with your criticism?

This was an opportunity to unite conservatives but instead your guffaws became the topic of conversation.

Yes, maybe it is time…Time to step aside and let the next generation take charge. We’d say maybe it’s time to retire gracefully…but we might be too late for that.

Sincerely,

Some of those Wacko Bird nuts you’ve been talking about…just remember, we vote.

 

Sen. Rand Paul filibusters John Brennan nomination

rand_paul_filibuster

rand_paul_filibuster

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul started speaking at 11:47 am EST, stating: “I will speak until I can no longer speak….’  Watch Live
Who will blink first….? Senator Rand Paul, or Barack Obama?
Hour 1 Full Transcript
Liberal Marc Ambinder: President Obama partly to blame for Rand Paul’s filibuster.
Oh, the irony! New York- Gov Emergency Alert Test Interrupts Rand Paul Filibuster
Bizarro world: Code Pink cheers Sen. Paul’s #filiblizzard

Why is Rand Paul the only one in D.C. who is showing concern?

3:06 PM EST: Sen. Mike Lee (R- Utah) asks Sen. Paul if he would yield for a question, to which Sen. Paul replied he would yield for questions, but would not yield the floor.
3:08 PM EST: Sen. Ted Cruz (R- Texas) asks Sen. Paul if he would yield for a question, to which Sen. Paul replied he would yield for a question, but would not yield the floor. Sen. Cruz stated that Jimmy Stewart would be proud of Sen. Rand Paul today, referencing the Jimmy Stewart movie, “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington“.
3:12 EST: Again, Sen. Ted Cruz (R- Texas) asks Sen. Paul if he would yield for a question, to which Sen. Paul replied, “as long as I am not yielding the floor.” At this point, Sen. Cruz discusses with Sen. Paul his reaction on the letter from Eric Holder stated that the Federal Government “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
3:24 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul addresses Sen. Mike Lee (R- Utah) for questions and comments on the topic of lethal force against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without due process. Once again, Sen. Rand Paul specifies that he is not yielding the floor.
3:28 PM EST:  Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) joins the discussion with Sen. Rand Paul on the “the consequences of a drone strike” on a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without due process.
3:35 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Jerry Moran agree and discuss that, “the real issue is not the confirmation of John Brennan, the real issue is that the issue of the execution of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without due process”, and needs to be resolved.
3:36 PM EST: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) again joins Sen. Rand Paul in the filibuster. Sen. Cruz discusses the battle at The Alamo- stating he speaks for 26 million Texans in saying that the state of Texas is proud of Sen. Rand Paul for standing up for freedom.
3:45 PM EST: Sen. Paul thanked Sen. Cruz for the compliment, and said if the filibuster goes on long enough, he wants a recitation of the last words spoken at the battle at The Alamo.
3:49 PM EST: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) address Sen. Rand Paul with a letter from William Barret Travis, written February 24, 1836. “I will never surrender or retreat!” Sen. Cruz asks Sen. Paul at the conclusion of reading that letter, “Does that letter give you any courage?”
3:51 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul responds in the affirmative, stating that this debate is not about the person of John Brennan, it is not about the person of Barack Obama. It is whether or not we will hold The Constitution dear to us and to do everything we can to uphold that.
3:52 PM EST: Sen. Ron Wyden (D- Oregon) joins the filibuster with questions for Sen. Rand Paul, stating that he will be voting in the affirmative for John Brennan, but believes more discussion needs to be had on the details of the authority of “lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”
4:10 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul thanks Dem. Sen. Wyden for his comments in the filibuster discussion.
4:18 PM EST: Sen. Marco Rubio (R- Florida) joins the filibuster, making a joke to Sen. Rand Paul with some “advise” to “keep some water handy” during his filibuster.
4:27 PM EST:  Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) states, (slightly paraphrased): “The day will come when something you care about… maybe under a different Administration…. at some point in the future all of us will have questions we want answered that refuses to give us answers… straight answer. When that moment comes you will want…. your questions answered.”
4:28 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul addresses Sen. Marco Rubio’s comments and questions to the Senate, stating that if these issues are not addressed, the obvious question is, “under what standards” are you going to do this in America? “Why can’t the President answer these questions?”, Sen. Paul asks.
4: 37 PM EST: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R- Georgia) joins the filibuster.
4:39 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul thanks Sen. Chambliss for his input and help in trying to get answers to the questions regarding the drone program.
4:44 PM EST: Sen. Harry Reid (D- Nevada) seeks cloture motion to end the filibuster.
4:46 PM EST: Sen. Saxy Chambliss (R- Georgia) seeks clarification from Sen. Harry Reid’s motion.
4:47 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul addresses Sen. Harry Reid’s motion, with the right to object, stating  that he will end the filibuster only if Obama or Holder clarify their position on killing Americans in the U.S. Ultimately, Sen. Rand Paul brushes off Harry Reid’s attempt to end filibuster.
So the filibuster goes on. Sen. Rand Paul reaches 5 hours in his filibuster…. and counting.
4:54 PM EST: Sen. Pat Toomey (R- Pennsylvania) joins the filibuster, stating that Sen. Paul is performing a necessary service, and thanks him for what he is doing in the filibuster.
4:59 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul returns to the “Alice In Wonderland” story, stating, “Only in Alice’s wonderland would you sentence someone to death before you try them.”
5:13 PM EST: Sen. John Cornyn (R- Texas) joins the filibuster.
5:17 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul responds to Sen. John Cornyn’s questions, stating that yes, it does appear to be a double standard from the Obama Administration.
5:18 PM EST: Sen. John Cornyn (R- Texas) continues discussion with Sen. Rand Paul, stating that Attorney General Eric Holder was very ambiguous in his answers to Sen. Rand Paul’s straightforward questions.
5:20 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul responds to Sen. John Cornyn, stating that there have been answers that have come forth today, but nothing in writing, that Eric Holder has agreed that strikes against American’s on U.S. soil is unConstitutional.
Sen. Rand Paul reaches the 6 hour mark in his filibuster…. and counting.
6:35 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul yields the floor to Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) for a question, but will not yield the floor.
The ACLU supports Rand Paul in his filibuster.
Sen. Rand Paul reaches the 7 hour mark in his filibuster…. and counting.
7:26 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul yields the floor to Sen. Ted Cruz (R- Texas), where Sen. Cruz shares with Sen. Rand Paul that the Twittersphere is standing with him! #StandWithRand
7:34 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul thanks Sen. Ted Cruz for his encouragement from the American people.
A little bit of a humorous look at today’s filibuster
Sen. Rand Paul reaches the 8 hour mark in his filibuster…. and counting.
7:51 PM EST: Sen. Rand Paul reads a note from his staff stating that The White House has not responded to his phone call.
Rand Paul’s historic filibuster has ended. It lasted 12 hours and 54 minutes.

Let Obama Leap Off the Fiscal Cliff Alone

Fiscal Cliff Cartoon Blog Version

The editorial cartoon on the left perfectly summarizes the political situation surrounding fiscal cliff negotiations. The lesson is Republicans will be blamed regardless.

CNN and Pew Research Center polls show a majority of the public will blame the GOP if the country goes over the cliff, even if Speaker Boehner fetches coffee for Obama during negotiations and compliments Michelle on her triceps.

To avoid this the GOP must start thinking strategically. That and take some very useful advice from two unlikely sources: Grover Norquist and Barack Obama.

Norquist urges Republicans to televise negotiations. This is a good idea that will allow the public to see just how intransigent Democrats are. While Obama warns House Republicans to get out of the way, which is exactly what they should do.

While the TV cameras are humming, Boehner should recognize the President built his campaign around raising taxes and voters supported that agenda. Boehner should explain that although Republicans disagree and believe Obama’s policies will plunge the nation back into a recession, if not depression, the people have spoken and Republicans will not obstruct him in any way.

Then — as Dante wrote about denizens of one level of the Inferno — we let Obama be himself with a vengeance. Republicans simply vote ‘present’ and, following the Obamacare precedent, the President’s socialistic, dangerous policy passes without a single Republican vote.

We lose tactically in the short run, but we win strategically in the long run. Negotiating minor cuts at the margin now not only won’t be a victory, it will allow Obama — and his Hallelujah Chorus in the media — to blame the failure of his fiscal policy on Republicans. That is impossible if Obama gets his way.

What’s more, bickering over petty spending cuts, discredits major cuts as a viable debt reduction strategy in the future. When these rounding–error cuts fail to make a difference, Democrats and the media will claim we tried cutting and it didn’t work.

Keep in mind Republican House leadership has a bad track record when it comes to negotiating cuts anyway. The last time we had a debt confrontation in 2011, Boehner came up with a total of $352 million in cuts. To put that in perspective, the amount represents one–tenth of one percent of the budget.

Whoop–tee–freakin’–doo. It would have made more sense to take the “savings” and buy lottery tickets. Last week’s Powerball jackpot was almost twice as large as the “cuts.”

And the wealthy job creators Obama’s tax increase will harm? I repeat, any Obama compromise means Republicans own the failure, because Obama didn’t get all he knew the nation really needed. And in the unlikely event he succeeds — and remember the media will set the bar remarkably low — Obama gets all the credit.

Some will object that House Republicans have just as strong a mandate as Obama, since they were elected, too. But that’s horse hockey. GOP congressmen were re–elected in gerrymandered districts designed to be impossible for Democrats to win. Obama won the entire nation and he’s right about his mandate, misguided as it is.

If recognizing the results of a democratic election is the proper policy in Egypt, it’s the proper policy here, even if the Socialism Brotherhood was the winner.

Holding out for miniscule spending cuts is simply negotiating the length of the rope Obama will use to hang Congressional Republicans.

There are only two instances where the GOP should fight today. One is opposing giving up Congressional debt ceiling authority in the future. The other is Boehner’s promise that if the Democrat Senate changes filibuster rules, all subsequent Senate bills will be DOA in the House.

Giving the President unilateral debt ceiling authority is like giving the Times Square homeless man a pair of boots and a credit card. No Congressional debt authority, along with rewriting filibuster rules, would cause long–term damage to the country and set a dangerous precedent.

Otherwise, let Obama own the agenda and own the responsibility. It will be impossible to blame Republicans for a result they did not in any way impede.

Our goal should be winning in 2014. It’s the asymmetrical strategy I advocated recently; and it is the kind of strategic thinking Republicans need to start utilizing.

Two years of short term pain will result in House and Senate gains that will allow Republicans to start reversing the course of Obamaism. Besides, I want to watch Democrats try to run in 2014 on a platform of “Osama’s Dead & So Is the Economy.”

New York Times Still Calling Reid’s Bill Failure “Republican Filibuster”

This afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s debt bill, S.627, failed to get to a vote for passage. The vote to end debate, otherwise known as a cloture vote, failed 50-49 as 60 votes are required to end debate.

Although Harry Reid has refused two offers by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to vote here and now on passage which would only require a 50 vote margin, the New York Times is putting the blame for Sen. Reid’s delay tactics on Senate Republicans.

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, had convened the Senate at noon, then moved to a procedural vote on his own proposal for raising the debt ceiling. Senate Republicans had been filibustering that plan, which House Republicans rejected on Saturday, and the vote on breaking the filibuster fell 10 votes short of the 60 votes needed under Senate rules.

Reid-votes-nay-cloture

from: Senate.gov roll call vote to end cloture on S.627

What the Times didn’t report was that one of the people “filibustering” Reid’s bill is .. Harry Reid himself. The Senate’s own roll call reflects the reality of the situation – Harry Reid voted “nay” on the vote to end the filibuster (the cloture vote image right).

If this is a filibuster, Harry Reid is leading the way.

 

Takers and Makers: Class Division as a Weapon

Those selfish rich people.  They just take and take and take.. when will they have taken enough from America?  If we give credence to progressive leaders like Senator Bernie Sanders, this is the sentiment of America.  During a 8 1/2 hour rant.. er .. filibuster, Senator Sanders tore apart Conservatives and the successful in America.  Here, Bernie is assaulting the tax compromise as he believes that everyone except small businesses and the wealthy should have their tax rates remain the same as in 2010:

The rich have it all right now–the top 1 percent earns 23 1/2 percent of all income, more than the bottom 50 percent–and it is absurd that we continue to bail out people who do not need any help and who are doing just fine.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not like the tax compromise one bit, but since when is not raising ones taxes a bail out?  This bill does not decrease the amount that anyone will pay, it only says that they will not suffer a tax increase.  These highly-successful  Americans are not asking for a bail out, they are asking to be left alone.  They are asking for you, Senator Sanders, to get your grubby, greedy, selfish mitts off of their personal and private property.  That property protected by the Constitution you so easily disregard when convenient.

The Senator also points to a pillar of progressive philosophy to continue his assault on the biggest investors, job creators and producers in our society.

In 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners made 23.5 percent of all income. Let me repeat that: The top 1 percent earned over 23 percent of all income; that is, more than the bottom 50 percent.

So Senator Sanders remakes the same point (one he uses repeatedly in the filibuster) but here is saying that 50% of Americans haven’t started their own businesses and been highly successful?  Why not?  Are the 50% being held back by the 1%?  Of course not.  Just because one person is savvy enough to create a business plan and execute it does not somehow make it harder for another person to create their own plan.  Why should the effective entrepreneur be held back by the ineffective one?  Sounds a lot like our lowest common denominator education system.  Coincidence?

So while Bernie makes the point that the top 1% make 23% of income (and pay an even higher percentage in income taxes), he then demonstrates the already highly-progressive tax system we have.

Let us be very clear: This tax applies only–only–to the top three-tenths of 1 percent of American families; 99.7 percent of American families will not pay one nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.

If my Republican friends had been successful in doing what they want to do, which is eliminate this estate tax completely, it would have cost our Treasury–raised the national debt by $1 trillion over a 10-year period. Families such as the Walton family, of Wal-Mart fame, would have received, just this one family, about a $30 billion tax break.

That’s right, 3 tenths of one percent of tax payers are responsible for $1 trillion in tax revenue!!   That only takes into account the death tax.  The money used to purchase these assets was possibly once taxed as income and the asset purchase was probably taxed with sales tax (and an unknown number of federal fees, levies, and other taxes).  So this is possibly the third time those dollars were taxed.

So who are progressive liberals like Senator Sanders helping?  Who are those that need so much government because they cannot help themselves?  Oh, who could forget these takers of Obama stimulus money?

Now, how many jobs do you think those people are going to make with that stimulus cash?

Class warfare is a necessity if the liberal philosophy is to survive.  The most productive, the makers, must be constantly assaulted as if their gains have all been made on the backs of the poor.  The takers must be held on-high so that they can continue their dependence, and therefor allegiance, to the almighty government.

As if to add an exclamation point to the Senator’s diatribe, he made the clearly uninformed point that America supports his point-of-view.

The vast majority of people are behind us on this issue, but they have to make their voices heard to their Senators, to their Congressmen. When they do, I believe we can come forward with an agreement which protects the middle-class and working families and is not a boondoggle for the wealthiest people.

Really?  Polling data and the November election suggests otherwise oh tone deaf warrior for the far-left agenda.  This is their weapon.  Takers take more, makers give more.  If the makers won’t give, they must be evil.  If the takers don’t get more, the wealthy are being stingy.  The only winners in this are the political elite whose power arises on the backs of the poor and blaming their troubles on the successful in our society.  They have their weapon – a massive, ever-growing army of takers rushing headlong against the few remaining makers.  50% vs 1%, the numbers look bleak.