It’s reached an all-time low.
Here’s what they voted on:
“Whereas on September 9, 2009, during the joint session of Congress convened pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, the President of the United States, speaking at the invitation of the House and Senate, had his remarks interrupted by the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson; and Whereas the conduct of the Representative from South Carolina was a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the behavior of the Representative from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, during the joint session of Congress held on September 9, 2009.”
I’ve made one post on this absurdity already, it deserves a lot more. First of all, let’s get something straight here. My issue with all this starts with something that has been completely ignored of late:
Section 3 – State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
That folks, is from your United States Constitution. Don’t give me a bunch of bull about decorum and tradition. Obama abandoned all that by calling an unconstitutional meeting. Read what I highlighted, anyone want to make the argument that discussion regarding universal health coverage meets the qualification of “extraordinary”? The speech itself held no basis of Congressional protocol. So, anything that happened during the unconstitutional gathering of Congress had no basis in history or law.
Got that so far?
Here’s the entire US Constitution online, for your convenience. Wanna search that document for “decorum”? Go ahead, make my day. I’ll wait.
Finished? That’s right folks, there is no definition of decorum. It didn’t exist until last week. So, admonishing a Member of Congress held no basis whatsoever in any US document whatsoever.
So, what you have seen is a vote to do something unconstitutional over an incident that was unconstitutional.
But guess what, it gets even better than that.
Article V of the Articles of Confederation makes one point very clear:
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
Does it get any clearer than that? The people that voted to admonish Joe Wilson clearly violated the Articles of Incorporation. This serves more as “decorum” than anything cited during this process.
But, it doesn’t even stop there:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That of course, is from the Bill of Rights. When people whine about their “rights’, this is where it comes from. If it ain’t in there, it ain’t a “right”. Quite clearly, Joe Wilson’s freedom of speech, was abridged.
And, it doesn’t even stop there. The interpretation of “people peaceably to assemble”, is to protest the government without fear of recrimination. Joe Wilson was obviously recriminated for protesting.
And, it’s not going to even stop there. During Bush’s 2005 State of the Union address, the Democrats protested vocally in unison. Bush’s 2005 State of the Union is a Constitutionally recognized function of the President. Barack Obama calling both Houses to meet so he can pitch a single issue is not.
Quite frankly, it should be obvious by this point, since Obama’s speech is not recognized as a “joint session of Congress”, and since Congress has since abridged Joe Wilson’s right to assemble as well as his right to free speech, this resolution actually does violate House decorum, which I take is defined by the documents that chartered Congress. I’d love to see the legal documents that provide for this resolution. Until that happens, these people IMO have actually committed treason by willfully and knowingly abridging Joe Wilson’s right to assemble and speak freely.
And quite frankly, since Wilson had apologized twice already, one has to wonder what the point of demanding a third apology was in the first place. Here’s the list of those who committed all those violations of the Constitution:
Adam B. Schiff
Adam Smith
Al Green
Alan B. Mollohan
Alan Grayson
Albio Sires
Alcee L. Hastings
Allen Boyd
Allyson Y. Schwarz
Andre Carson
Ann Kirkpatrick
Anna G. Eshoo
Anthony D. Weiner
Artur Davis
Barbara Lee
Barney Frank
Baron P. Hill
Bart Gordon
Bart Stupak
Ben Chandler
Ben Ray Lujan
Bennie G. Thompson
Betsey Markey
Betty McCollum
Betty Sutton
Bill Foster
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Bob Etheridge
Bob Filner
Bobby Bright
Bobby L. Rush
Brad Ellsworth
Brad Miller
Brad Sherman
Brian Baird
Brian Higgins
Bruce L. Braley
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
Carol Shea-Porter
Carolyn B. Maloney
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick
Carolyn McCarthy
Chaka Fattah
Charles A. Gonzalez
Charles A. Wilson
Charles B. Rangel
Charlie Melancon
Chellie Pingree
Chet Edwards
Chris Van Hollen
Christopher P. Carney
Christopher S. Murphy
Ciro D. Rodriguez
Collin C. Peterson
Corrine Brown
Dale E. Kildee
Dan Boren
Daniel Lipinski
Danny K. Davis
David E. Price
David Loebsack
David R. Obey
David Scott
David Wu
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Deborah L. Halvorson
Dennis A. Cardoza
Dennis Moore
Diana DeGette
Diane E. Watson
Dina Titus
Donald M. Payne
Donna F. Edwards
Doris O. Matsui
Earl Blumenauer
Earl Pomeroy
Ed Pastor
Ed Perlmutter
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Edolphus Towns
Edward J. Markey
Elijah E. Cummings
Eliot L. Engel
Emanuel Cleaver
Fortney Pete Stark
Frank Kratovil Jr.
Frank Pallone, Jr.
G.K. Butterfield
Gary C. Peters
Gary L. Ackerman
Gene Green
George Miller
Gerald E. Connolly
Glenn C. Nye
Grace F. Napolitano
Gregory W. Meeks
Harry E. Mitchell
Heath Shuler
Henry A. Waxman
Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr.
Henry Cuellar
Howard L. Berman
Ike Skelton
Jackie Speier
James E. Clyburn
James L. Oberstar
James P. McGovern
James P. Moran
James R. Langevin
Jane Harman
Janice D. Schakowsky
Jared Polis
Jason Altmire
Jay Inslee
Jerrold Nadler
Jerry F. Costello
Jerry McNerney
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.
Jim Cooper
Jim Costa
Jim Marshall
Jim Matheson
Joe Baca
Joe Courtney
Joe Donnelly
Joe Sestak
John A. Boccieri
John A. Yarmuth
John B. Larson
John Barrow
John Conyers, Jr.
John D. Dingell
John F. Tierney
John H. Adler
John J. Hall
John Lewis
John M. Spratt, Jr.
John P. Murtha
John P. Sarbanes
John S. Tanner
John T. Salazar
John W. Olver
Jose E. Serrano
Joseph Crowley
Judy Chu
Kathleen A. Dahlkemper
Kathy Castor
Keith Ellison
Kendrick B. Meek
Kurt Schrader
Larry Kissell
Laura Richardson
Leonard L. Boswell
Lincoln Davis
Linda T. Sanchez
Lloyd Doggett
Lois Capps
Loretta Sanchez
Louise McIntosh Slaughter
Lucille Roybal-Allard
Luis V. Gutierrez
Lynn C. Woolsey
Marcia L. Fudge
Marcy Kaptur
Marion Berry
Mark H. Schauer
Martin Heinrich
Mary Jo Kilroy
Maxine Waters
Mazie K. Hirono
Melissa L. Bean
Melvin L. Watt
Michael E. Capuano
Michael E. McMahon
Michael F. Doyle
Michael H. Michaud
Michael M. Honda
Mike McIntyre
Mike Quigley
Mike Ross
Mike Thompson
Nancy Pelosi
Neil Abercrombie
Nick J. Rahall II
Niki Tsongas
Nita M. Lowey
Norman D. Dicks
Nydia M. Velazquez
Parker Griffith
Patrick J. Kennedy
Patrick J. Murphy
Paul E. Kanjorski
Paul Tonko
Peter A. DeFazio
Peter J. Visclosky
Peter Welch
Phil Hare
Raul M. Grijalva
Richard E. Neal
Rick Boucher
Rick Larsen
Robert A. Brady
Robert C. “Bobby” Scott
Robert E. Andrews
Robert Wexler
Ron Kind
Ron Klein
Rosa L. DeLauro
Ruben Hinojosa
Rush D. Holt
Russ Carnahan
Sam Farr
Sander M. Levin
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.
Scott Murphy
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Shelley Berkley
Silvestre Reyes
Solomon P. Ortiz
Steny H. Hoyer
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Stephen F. Lynch
Steve Cohen
Steve Driehaus
Steve Israel
Steve Kagen
Steven R. Rothman
Susan A. Davis
Suzanne M. Kosmas
Tammy Baldwin
Thomas S. P. Perriello
Tim Holden
Tim Ryan
Timothy H. Bishop
Timothy J. Walz
Travis Childers
Vic Snyder
Walt Minnick
Wm. Lacy Clay
Xavier Becerra
Yvette D. Clarke
Zachary T. Space
Zoe Lofgren
Anh Cao
JoAnne Emerson
Jeff Flake
Bob Inglis
Walter Jones
Thomas Petri
Dana Rohrabacher
Those are the people who either voted for it, or didn’t bother to vote at all. Either way, they haven’t spent five minutes of their careers learning the documents they were elected to uphold, respect, and protect. And, what’s worse, they obviously don’t give a damn.
I’d love nothing more than to debate this one with someone who voted for it. That won’t happen. I’ll even debate it with someone who can find some type of documentation supporting it. That probably won’t happen either. What I’d love nothing more is the next time Obama calls an unconstitutional gathering of Congress to push some issue that is not extraordinary, is for every Republican to blurt something out. I’d love for those Democrats that respect the Constitution and the intent of our Founding Fathers to do the same. I know that won’t happen either.
4
Sep
Barack Obama has found a loophole he loves. By appointing “special advisors”, otherwise known as “czars”, he completely bypasses Nancy Pelosi and the rest of Congress. He doesn’t have to worry about those annoying confirmation hearings by doing that. I’m sure he feels that by eliminating public hearings, he’s doing us all a favor. I’m sure he’s right. For instance, if he’d followed traditional protocol, we would have had to listen to a lot more of a “special” candidate Van Jones. I had never heard of Van Jones before. So, I looked up some pros and cons of this guy. First, the pro:
Van Jones is a globally recognized, award-winning pioneer in human rights and the clean energy economy. He is a 1993 graduate of the Yale Law School and an attorney.
Van wrote the definitive book on “green jobs”: The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems
. In 2008 — thanks to a low-cost, viral marketing campaign — his book became an instant New York Times bestseller. It is today being translated into six languages.
As a tireless advocate for disadvantaged people and the environment, Van helped to pass America’s first “green job training” legislation: the Green Jobs Act, which George W. Bush signed into law as a part of the 2007 Energy Bill. He is the co-founder of a number of successful non-profit organizations, including the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Green For All.
Van is the recipient of many awards and honors, including: the Reebok International Human Rights Award; the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leader designation; the prestigious, international Ashoka Fellowship; and many more. Van was included in the Ebony Magazine “Power 150″ list of most influential African Americans for 2009. In 2008, Essence magazine named him one of the 25 most inspiring/influential African Americans. TIME Magazine named him an environmental hero in 2008. In 2009, TIME named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
In March 2009, Van went to work as the special advisor for green jobs at the White House Council for Environmental Quality.
Pretty lofty accolades. That was written by Van Jones himself. He really likes himself. That’s good I suppose. You can fix two problems at one time by buying his book via my link. Win-win for Van and myself. Although it was an instant New York Times bestseller, it’s currently at 13,475 in Amazon’s book listing. Better get it quick then while it’s still printed in English.
He then founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in his spare time. On their main page, you can read about Van Jones being on Time’s list of influential people. In addition, they advocate:
- Close the Dangerous and Dysfuctional Division of Juvenile Justice Youth Prisons and shift responsibility and funding to local programs proven to work — Californians will save $1 Billion of 5 years.
- Convert all current death sentences to life without possibility of parole and temporarily suspend new death sentences for a savings of $1 Billion over 5 years. ( Be sure to support the ACLU!)
- Shift California to a community-health based response to minor drug offenses.
- Limit 3 strikes penalties to those convicted of violent crimes.
OK, so it seems Van’s primary focus is green energy and human rights. So, it only seems natural Obama would appoint him as his “green energy czar”. However, as usual for Obama’s administration, this guy comes with some baggage:
- Jones joined the “9/11 truther” movement by signing a statement in 2004 calling for then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests “people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.” Fox points out that fellow members include Code Pink founder Jodie Evans and former Representative Cynthia McKinney. Anyone who knows me knows what I think of Cynthia McKinney. In addition, another member of that site is James von Brunn. He’s the guy who shot up the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
- Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist” Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, “mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world” on the night after Sept. 11, 2001. STORM has purged most of it’s records, however, a copy can be found here. They blamed the US for 9/11.
- Van Jones, the Obama administration’s “green jobs” adviser, apologized Wednesday for calling Republicans “assholes,” saying the comments were made before he joined the administration and “were clearly inappropriate.” Jones had told a group of listeners earlier in the year that the reason Republicans are stonewalling the president is because they’re “assholes,” remarks that were recorded in a video and posted to YouTube. “I apologize for the offensive words I chose to use during that speech,” Jones said in a written statement to Politico. “They do not reflect the views of this administration, which has made every effort to work in a bipartisan fashion, and they do not reflect the experience I have had since I joined the administration.”
- Another fairly Youtube video is the one where Van Jones claims whites are intentionally poisoning blacks by sending all of the bad “green economy” poison into poor neighborhoods. I’m not sure exactly who did the research to support his assumption.
- He has very extensive ties to Communist organizations within the US. I was going to list those ties, but it’s rather lengthy. And no, I’m not citing Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck simply read the news.
- He has openly advocated, ok, here comes the word all liberals hate to hear, socialism. He even claims that liberals are basically closet socialists. No way!
- In a 2004 Yes article claimed “Bush will work to intensify the borrow-and-spend tax policies, drill-and-burn energy policies, and lie-and-die military misadventure in Iraq. A draft is a real possibility, The GOP will unleash a fearsome assault on civil liberties, especially targeting Arabs. And Team Bush will carry out its own 21st century Christian jihad, persecuting Muslims, feminists, and “sexual deviants” wherever it can. Bush will try to stack the courts, including the Supreme Court, with right-wingers, and He will try to reward big business by privatizing social security and ramming through “tort reform” to shield corporations from lawsuits“.
It goes on and on. He basically rose to fame in Oakland by harassing their cops with his STORM organization through a program called Copwatch. STORM was openly communist.
This is the guy Obama has handed a $30 billion budget to. And, to me personally, the most ghastly fact about Van Jones, something so disgusting and vile it nauseates me to think that in order to support my point that this guy’s not the best idea for this un-Constitutional Executive power grab. Van Jones is openly…….
Sheez, I’m not sure I can say it here. I’ll look slightly to the side of the screen and type. Of course I’ll look to the right, there is nothing to the left of this guy. That’ll make it ok.
He openly admires Nancy Pelosi.
What the hell was Obama thinking with this guy? Van Jones is the best reason “csars”, ie special advisors to the President, should be banned.
3
Sep
Here’s the story:
The AFL-CIO labor union has a new tax in mind.
Proponents say the bill would put an end to speculative trading.
OK, I’m going to start with my primary gripe about this story and work my way down from there. First of all, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a union. Unions survive by taking money from workers and spending it as they see fit. The worker has no choice in how the AFL-CIO spends their money. So, understand that this is not a slap against any union worker or how they operate. This is a slap directly at the AFL-CIO organized management. In my opinion, it’s no different than the mafia.
Now, theoretically, the AFL-CIO exists to protect the welfare of its workers. I can see them being involved in labor work conditions, labor salaries, and labor benefits. What I don’t see them having any place whatsoever is in US tax policy. This tax they are supporting involves labor in absolutely no way whatsoever. It’s none of their damn business. No one expects them to have any expertise in stock trading, and I have not asked for their input. I think their purely Marxist philosophies would drive the United States to the ultimate result of Communist Russia. So, bottom line, stay out of what they have no place being in. They’ve ruined plenty of industries in the United States already, they apparently don’t give a rat’s ass. Stay out of finance. It can easily be argued there’s no labor involved on Wall Street, so the AFL-CIO has no place there.
The bigger problem I have is two years ago this would have been a sideline article that people would only laugh at, a labor union wanting a tax on Wall Street? Pull the other one. Now, thanks to Obama’s “change”, it’s a threat. Obama’s peeps are trying to tax everything. And, I do mean EVERYTHING. Big claim you say? Try this:
You don’t have to read very far to find out Chaka Fattah is not talking about the flat tax everyone thinks would solve the country’s problems. He’s talking a transaction fee on any electronic transaction. Your social security deposit, your welfare, your medicare. If it ever winds up in a bank, you’re taxed getting to it. Bill Gates or a retired veteran living in a nursing home are taxed equally. That folks, would be a tax on EVERYTHING.
Bart Stupak wants to tax energy futures in an effort to deter default swaps among other things. The beauty of that is by taxing a futures trade, he’s taxing things that don’t even exist yet. He’s beating Fattah to the punch by taxing you before it ever gets to your bank. This one has some support too:
- Rep Bishop, Timothy H. Democrat
- Rep Carney, Christopher P. Democrat
- Rep Doyle, Michael F. Democrat
- Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. Democrat
- Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. Democrat
- Rep McHugh, John M. Republican
- Rep Shea-Porter, Carol Democrat
- Rep Van Hollen, Chris Democrat
- Rep Wexler, Robert Democrat
- Rep Bono Mack, Mary Republican
- Rep Courtney, Joe Democrat
- Rep Green, Gene Democrat
- Rep Inslee, Jay Democrat
- Rep Larson, John B. Democrat
- Rep Platts, Todd Russell Republican
- Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh Democrat
- Rep Welch, Peter Democrat
- Rep Wilson, Charles A Democrat
Now, the AFL-CIO is saying their tax idea is to protect people from speculative trading. Fattah says his bill is to protect us from the IRS. Stupak’s bill is to protect us from rising energy prices. Waxman-Markey intends to protect the entire planet by means of a transaction fee. They call it something a little different. This will tax the very fact you’re alive and consuming anything at all.
So, maybe you can see why I am sensitive to this. The Democrats have sold out completely to the unions at this point. Obama relies more on SEIU than he does his own party members to deal with dissenters at public debates.
Now, I know this is simply another attempt by the unions to free up money so they can grab it somehow. Probably a shakedown. Allow unions on the stock floor, the tax doesn’t get anywhere, for now. However, unions meddling in national affairs during the Obama administration is just begging for being meddled with when a less-socialization minded administration is in charge. And, I just hope that whenever somone finds my posts on all these tax wishes and sees their representatives on these lists, they do something about it.
I have been encouraged by the town halls. It does show the average guy still has a voice and some power when provoked. Even if the unions try to shut them up. However, there’s a lot more going on right now than socializing health care.
25
Aug
Over and over and over, President Obama has reminded us that he inherited this economic mess we’ve got now.
The two chief architects of his “fiscal disaster” would be the person who decides which budgets come out of Congres on the federal side. And, on the public side, it is largely determined by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. With Congressional spending plans, it is determined whether money is infused into the economy, or, in the case of Clinton’s latter years, money is pulled out of the economy. It is the Chairman’s decisions that determine whether credit is easier to get with lower interest rates, or harder to get with higher interest rates. It has been the balance of these two factors that have driven our economy for a long time.
Those two powers that be at this time would be Nancy Pelosi, who’s Congressional spending bills have determined the money flow since 2008, and Ben Bernanke, who was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 2006. Upon taking office in 2009, Obama did not challenge Pelosi’s leadership role. That meant a continuation of the economic policies since 2008. As of today, Obama is re-appointing Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. That means a continuation of the policies of the Federal Reserve since 2006.
Which is it? If he inherited a fiscal mess, then he should be doing something about getting the people who created the mess he inherited out of the way, I would think.
That’s right, he’s blaming it all on Bush. The person who can suggest a budget, but can not vote on it.
Folks, this is pure BS. The next time he complains about the economy he inherited, ask him why he didn’t do one single thing about the people that created that mess.
19
Aug
I love Snopes.com. No telling what you’ll find there. Humor, movies, sports, paranormal, extra-terrestrial, politics, you name it, it’s there. One of today’s stories involve an opinion piece written by Charley Reese in 1985.
Politicians, as I have often said, are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Everything on the Republican contract is a problem created by Congress. Too much bureaucracy? Blame Congress. Too many rules?
Blame Congress. Unjust tax laws? Congress wrote them.
Out-of-control bureaucracy? Congress authorizes everything bureaucracies do. Americans dying in Third World rat holes on stupid U.N. missions? Congress allows it. The annual deficits?
Congress votes for them. The $4 trillion plus debt? Congress created it.
To put it into perspective just remember that 100 percent of the power of the federal government comes from the U.S. Constitution. If it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not authorized.
Then read your Constitution. All 100 percent of the power of the federal government is invested solely in 545 individual human beings. That’s all. Of 260 million Americans, only 545 of them wield 100 percent of the power of the federal government.
That’s 435 members of the U.S. House, 100 senators, one president and nine Supreme Court justices. Anything involving government that is wrong is 100 percent their fault.
I exclude the vice president because constitutionally he has no power except to preside over the Senate and to vote only in the case of a tie. I exclude the Federal Reserve because Congress created it and all its power is power Congress delegated to it and could withdraw anytime it chooses to do so. In fact, all the power exercised by the 3 million or so other federal employees is power delegated from the 545.
All bureaucracies are created by Congress or by executive order of the president. All are financed and staffed by Congress. All enforce laws passed by Congress.
All operate under procedures authorized by Congress. That’s why all complaints and protests should be properly directed at Congress, not at the individual agencies.
You don’t like the IRS? Go see Congress. You think the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agency is running amok? Go see Congress.
Congress is the originator of all government problems and is also the only remedy available. That’s why, of course, politicians go to such extraordinary lengths and employ world-class sophistry to make you think they are not responsible. Anytime a congressman pretends to be outraged by something a federal bureaucrat does, he is in fact engaging in one big massive con job. No federal employee can act at all except to enforce laws passed by Congress and to employ procedures authorized by Congress either explicitly or implicitly.
Partisans on both sides like to blame presidents for deficits, but all deficits are congressional deficits. The president may, by custom, recommend a budget, but it carries no legal weight. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to authorize and appropriate and to levy taxes. That’s what the federal budget consists of: expenditures authorized, funds appropriated and taxes levied.
Both Democrats and Republicans mislead the public. For 40 years Democrats had majorities and could have at any time balanced the budget if they had chosen to do so. Republicans now have majorities and could, if they choose, pass a balanced budget this year. Every president, Democrat or Republican, could have vetoed appropriations bills that did not make up a balanced budget. Every president could have recommended a balanced budget. None has done either.
We have annual deficits and a huge federal debt because that’s what majorities in Congress and presidents in the White House wanted. We have troops in various Third World rat holes because Congress and the president want them there.
Don’t be conned. Don’t let them escape responsibility. We simply have to sort through 260 million people until we find 545 who will act responsibly.
It has now been updated and is being circulated substituting Nancy Pelosi and President Obama. Big whup.
Charley Reese is an idiot.
I say that because he’s falling into the most common cop-out there is in politics and he’s been around long enough to know better. Blame everyone else but yourself. None of those 545 people are annointed. None of them are born to their position. Not one single person is a demi-god or super-power. Not one came from another planet with divine guidance. Every single one of them asked you to send them there. And once you do, it’s generally for a long time if not for lifetime. The last two Congress’s seniority make-ups looked something like this:
| 110 | 111 | |||
| 50+ | 1 | 0.23% | 1 | 0.23% |
| 40-49 | 2 | 0.45% | 3 | 0.68% |
| 30-39 | 18 | 4.08% | 16 | 3.64% |
| 20-29 | 59 | 13.38% | 47 | 10.71% |
| 10-19 | 183 | 41.50% | 143 | 32.57% |
| 0-9 | 178 | 40.36% | 229 | 52.16% |
| 441 | 439 | |||
| Average | 12.47 | 11.17 |
In the 110th Congress, nearly 60% of the members have been there more than ten years. Once the Obama revolution of 2009 was over, 48% of Congress has been there more than ten years. The average seniority dropped one year on average. Two hundred and ten of those members of Congress have served more than a decade. That’s forty percent of Charley Reese’s 545. And you know what, that’s not even counting the Senate. The Senate’s a little different animal, they are there for six years a shot. Congress gives people a chance to decide if they like their Congress or not every other year. Now, you think I’m being harsh on Charley? It gets even worse. A big part of the Obama “revolution” is the fact that seven members died in office. That took out 105 years of seniority. If they hadn’t died, the numbers for the 111th would have mirrored the 110th. John Dingell, the most senior, is now 83 years old. He has been in office for 54 years. That wouldn’t be so bad in my opinion but his district is Detroit, Michigan. Are those people happy with how things have progressed since 1955? Must be, they keep electing him. Bob Byrd is now 92 years old. He has represented West Virginia since 1959. In 1959, West Virginia had one of the worst economies in the country. Fifty years later, it still is with the fifth highest poverty rate in the country. Are West Virginians happy with that? They must be, they keep electing him.
My opinion is, people just don’t want to spend the time to examine candidates. That folks, is laziness. That is why most of the Congressmen, the Senators, and sometimes the President, don’t have to worry so much about what you think. The Democrat Party ran against the 109th Congress and the Republicans who controlled it purely on the irresponsible spending, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, out of control budgets, an economy that wasn’t up to their expectations, and corruption. Since that group took over, they’re throwing money wildly at everyone, still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, budgets that are unfathomable, a collapsing economy, and several corruption scandals.
And you people keep voting the same ones back in office.
And Charley blames them.
If the public forfeits its right to choose, that’s not Congress’s fault. And, that is what allows all of Charley’s gripes to occur. Power corrupts when it’s absolute. In our case, it’s absolute through laziness.
18
Aug
This is kinda funny. And, kinda possible.
Not sure I trust the ACLU to stop it from happening tho.
Are you thinking twice before you order your next pizza?
We may not live in a society where government and private corporations collude to track your every move — not yet anyways. But, we are fast approaching a surveillance society where every move, transaction and communication is recorded, compiled, and stored away to be examined and used by the authorities — and even private corporations –whenever they want.
In 2005, Congress passed the Real ID Act, a federal effort to create a national identity card and a database to support it. It would force all states to connect their DMV databases to one interlinked system — facilitating government tracking of Americans.
You can help the Real ID card and database from becoming a national nightmare. Sign the petition to elected officials now, calling on them to halt this dangerous program.
Right now on their front page, they think we should let terrorist prisoners go free, and warn us of the perils of President Bush.
Clue here, George Bush has no impact on the National ID card or any other national issue at this time. All things evil can not be pinned on the ex-president. The current president seems to think those same evils are necessary as well. Bitch at him for a while.
Second clue, ACLU stands for “American” Civil Liberties Union. Let’s keep focus, shall we?
Third clue, terrorists not only have abdicated any rights afforded by our Constitution, they have have abdicated their protections under the Geneva Conference, and in most cases, their own countries as well. That is why they are stuck at Guantanamo. No one wants them. So, why should we bother to try them if there is nowhere for them to go? If they are found innocent, where do they go?
Spencer Bachus recently commented that he thought Obama was getting pushed too far to the left by some members of Congress:
But he said he is worried that he is being steered too far by the Congress: “Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists.”
Asked to clarify his comments after the breakfast speech at the Trussville Civic Center, Bachus said 17 members of the U.S. House are socialists.
A LOT of people immediately jumped all over Bachus as fear-mongering. For some reason, a Republican mentioning someone has socialist agendas is fear mongering. A Democrat claiming they are socialist gets a pass. Go figure that one? Here’s the reality of the situation that everyone is not allowed to mention or otherwise be taunted and stoned for fear-mongering. I have actually mentioned a lot of this before, so bear with me.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus was originally founded by Bernie Sanders. At the time, Sanders was an avowed socialist. The only one in Congress. The CPC was deeply integrated with the Democratic Socialists of America. At one time, DSA published their membership. Now, they don’t. The last public listing I can find listed the following members of Congress. The ones in bold are still in Congress. The ones in italics, not.
| Rep Earl Hilliard |
| (AL-07) |
| Rep Eni Faleomavaega |
| (AS-AL) |
| Rep Ed Pastor |
| (AZ-02) |
| Rep Lynn C Woolsey |
| (CA-06) |
| Rep George Miller |
| (CA-07) |
| Rep Nancy Pelosi |
| (CA-08) |
| Rep Fortney “Pete” Stark |
| (CA-13) |
| Rep Henry A. Waxman |
| (CA-29) |
| Rep Xavier Becerra |
| (CA-30) |
| Rep Julian C. Dixon |
| (CA-32) |
| Rep Esteban Edward Torres |
| (CA-34) |
| Rep Maxine Waters |
| (CA-35) |
| Rep George E. Brown |
| (CA-42) |
| Rep Bob Filner |
| (CA-50) |
| Rep Diane DeGette |
| (CO-01) |
| Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton |
| (DC-AL) |
| Rep Corrine Brown |
| (FL-03) |
| Rep Carrie P. Meek |
| (FL-17) |
| Rep Alcee L. Hastings |
| (FL-23) |
| Rep Cynthia A. McKinney |
| (GA-04) |
| Rep John Lewis |
| (GA-05) |
| Rep Neil Abercrombie |
| (HI-01) |
| Rep Patsy Mink |
| (HI-02) |
| Rep Jesse Jackson |
| (IL-02) |
| Rep Luis Gutierrez |
| (IL-04) |
| Rep Danny Davis |
| (IL-07) |
| Rep Lane Evans |
| (IL-17) |
| Rep Julia Carson |
| (IN-10) |
| Rep John Olver |
| (MA-01) |
| Rep Jim McGovern |
| (MA-03) |
| Rep Barney Frank |
| (MA-04) |
| Rep John Tierney |
| (MA-06) |
| Rep David Bonior |
| (MI-10) |
| Rep Lynn N. Rivers |
| (MI-13) |
| Rep John Conyers |
| (MI-14) |
| Rep Bennie G. Thompson |
| (MS-02) |
| Rep Melvin L. Watt |
| (NC-12) |
| Rep Donald Payne |
| (NJ-10) |
| Rep Jerrold Nadler |
| (NY-08) |
| Rep Major Owens |
| (NY-11) |
| Rep Nydia M. Velazquez |
| (NY-12) |
| Rep Charles Rangel |
| (NY-15) |
| Rep Maurice Hinchey |
| (NY-26) |
| Rep John LaFalce |
| (NY-29) |
| Rep Marcy Kaptur |
| (OH-09) |
| Rep Dennis Kucinich |
| (OH-10) |
| Rep Louis Stokes |
| (OH-11) |
| Rep Sherrod Brown |
| (OH-13) |
| Rep Elizabeth Furse |
| (OR-01) |
| Rep Peter A. DeFazio |
| (OR-04) |
| Rep Chaka Fattah |
| (PA-02) |
| Rep William Coyne |
| (PA-14) |
| Rep Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo |
| (PR-AL) |
| Rep Robert C. Scott |
| (VA-03) |
| Rep Bernard Sanders |
| (VT-AL) |
| Rep James A McDermott |
| (WA-07) |
Now, these are people that at one time were members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Now, this list includes:
- The Speaker of the House
- The Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor
- The Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
- The Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services
- The Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security
- The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
- The Chairman of the House Small Business Committee
- The Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee
- The Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means
So, I just don’t get why a Republican mentioning the mere fact that there are socialists in Congress is fear-mongering when about fifty members openly say they are.
Does that mean anything? Sure it does. Go to the DSA web page and look at their agenda. Then, compare that to Obama’s agenda so far outside of reacting to emergencies.
Now, I’m not fear-mongering for posting this. This country has adopted some socialist tendencies for about one hundred years or so. Once they started collecting federal taxes and distributing it to the people, they became socialist to a degree. I am not naive enough to think our modern society could not function with certain levels of socialism. However, the debate on the national level is to what degree we want to have socialism. I am for a very limited degree. The members of the Democratic Socialists of America want a much larger degree. That is the debate we’ll fight for at least four years. Whether you want to accuse Obama of being socialist or not is debatable. Stating Nancy Pelosi is a socialist being as she either is or was a member of DSA is not debatable.
Sure, Spencer Bachus apparently didn’t have a clue how many members are socialists. It appears he guessed way too low. But, the bigger picture to me is why so many people will not allow the discussion of socialists in Congress even happen. What are they so afraid of?
30
Jan
People are already judging the Republicans based on what has transpired in the last week or so. James Joyner, who I admire a lot, has written an excellent piece over at Outside the Beltway. The problem he addresses is the issue of the Republicans being either obstructionist, or perceived as obstructionist, by not supporting some Obama policies. His main point is:
As I have opined before, the Democratic message will essentially be one of two things in 2010:
1. Obama’s accomplished X, Y and Z and showed the country the way forward, let’s give him leaders in Congress who can continue to deliver for the middle class, or,
2. Obama accomplished X, but he couldn’t accomplish Y and Z because the Republicans obstructed those measures to protect the special interests … let’s put partisanship behind us and elect leaders in Congress who can represent the common good.
One can understand the Republicans betting against #1, which won’t work unless the economy recovers. But in so doing, they seem to be writing the Democrats’ taglines for them on #2, the partisanship message. Of course, this is not necessarily an easy hand for the Democrats to play: they at once have to maintain the continued pretense/appearance of bipartisanship while at the same time attacking them for their non-cooperation.
Now, that is pretty much a given. That’s what Nancy Pelosi has basically done for the last decade. Blame everything on the Republicans. Even when she was in charge of Congress, she still blamed everything on Republicans. Needless to say, she had a massive assist from most media. However, that only works when people perceive her to be the underdog. She, read Democrats, can no longer blame any result on Republicans. They are the minority. So, to me, simply making the argument for #2 above only matters based on the outcome of the policy and a lot of luck. James goes on to add a chart of how policy, party, and outcome intertwine:
| Republican Vote | Policy Outcome | Political Result |
| Yes | Good | Obama Gets Credit, Republicans Nothing |
| Yes | Bad | Obama Gets Cover, Republicans Nothing |
| No | Good | Obama Gets Credit + Issue, Republicans Lose |
| No | Bad | Obama Gets Excuse, Republicans Get Issue |
The issue I have with that is that it’s just too simple. You can’t take every single policy/vote and simply lump it into an outcome and result based purely on the result. The example I cited was the current stimulus package. Initially, the whole world was for it. It had to be done. The economy was going to completely tank if it wasn’t done. Voting against it would be “bad” since the policy was “good”. However, as time has passed and people have had a chance to see the real thing, it’s not looking quite as good. There’s a lot of goofball pork in it. The people receiving previous bailouts are abusing them. The economy has only gotten worse since the previous bailout. These blank checks just aren’t looking quite as sweet. So, whereas a week ago this vote would have fallen into perception-wise row #3 with the Republicans handing the Democrats an issue for 2010, it’s now looking a lot more like row #4. Additionally, based on the previous bailout results, I think it’s already #4 and was the whole time sans media pressure. Which leads to the more important issue with this to me. Each issue represents a different moral tangent. Some issues will be ideologically neutral, others will fall squarely into the liberal versus conservative arena. What the Republicans can not afford to do with a media annointed saviour is abandon their core principals. If they do this, they cease to exist. On those neutral issues, like naming post office buildings and such, show some cooperation. But, if it’s obviously a liberal policy, oppose the hell out of it. Then, a new row evolves in James’ matrix, Obama gets issue, Republicans get cover.
There is a ton of gun control legislation evolving right now. This will be the perfect storm for my scenario. Protecting people from gun related crime is “good”. Dicking around with the Constitution to a lot of people is “bad”. So, where on the matrix does this issue fall? The media I’m sure will love Obama’s plan to rid the country of firearms. However, a huge majority of common people will be very uncomfortable I’m sure with losing a civil right. It will be an issue that will be painted as “good” by MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and the like, but will polarize the conservatives. If a Republican supports the legislation, they will be crucified regardless of how popular Obama is.
So, I don’t think the political scene is nearly as simple and neat as James, and a lot of people, want it to be. Whether the Republicans like it or not, they are now the minority party not because of how popular the Democrats have suddenly become. They are the minority party because when they were the majority, they forgot what they represented. Now, is not the time to worry about pandering to a popular president, it’s time to re-establish what their party represents. If they don’t, they will cease to exist until they do regardless of whether they are considered obstructionists or not.
13
Jan
Saw this headline courtesy of Zogby:
Obama Enjoys 60% Favorable Ratings and Modest Expectations For A Quick Economic Recovery
It came with this chart among others:
| Very Favorable | Somewhat Favorable | Somewhat Unfavorable | Very Unfavorable | Not Sure | |
| Obama | 41% | 19% | 15% | 22% | 4% |
| Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding | |||||
Sixty percent’s pretty dang good. However, I am kind of curious. When George HW Bush won in 2000, he was accused of stealing the election because Al Gore got more popular votes and Florida was so close they had to fling lawsuits all over the place to get it cleared up. By the time Bush took office, the damage was done. His popularity when he took office was only in the upper 50′s.
Due to an extreme event, his popularity would soar. Within a couple of years, it would slowly decline to what it was when he took office. Over time, it would drop to horrendous figures that made most major media giddy.
Contrasting that to Obama taking office as the annointed one of all media, it surprises me his numbers are not much higher than Bush’s were. I’m tellin ya’, the reality of Obama is not what the media is telling you. Unless he has some very big successes in very short order, things could get real ugly real quick. Of course, it should be noted that the most unpopularly elected president was Bill Clinton, who entered office at 49%. He actually left higher than he got elected with. However, people liked Congress then too.
During Obama’s campaign for the White House, he preached endlessly about bipartisanship. As with the rest of his message of “change”, people, and especially media, bought it hook, line, and sinker:
No one looked at his actions, they simply took his word and ran with it. Now, I’ve seen how DC works for years. Preaching bipartisanship is one thing, making it work another. For all his words, Obama made no effort to reign in Nancy Pelosi. The first thing she did was strip the House Fairness Rules of 1995. This Republican measure gave the minority party a voice in legislation. The minority party didn’t like that too much. It’s about as partisan as you can get. The only intent for doing this was to allow the majority party the ability to basically ram legislation through with little discussion or debate. The response to this power grab by Pelosi has been pretty much as expected. Of the most recent round of votes:
- HR. 11 – Passed 247-171, 15 not voting. 97% of Democrats supporting, 99% of Republicans opposing
- HR. 12 – Passed 256-163, 14 not voting. 98% of Democrats supporting, 95% of Republicans opposing.
- HR. 12 with instructions – Failed 178-240, 14 not voting. 99% of Republicans supporting, 97% of Democrats opposing.
These are a couple of fairly ambiguous laws that really have no serious repercussions on day to day life and are mostly symbolic. The only real symbolism that has come from these votes is that given all the bipartisan rhetoric, Obama hasn’t done squat to reach out to the other side and if anything, has hardened partisan feelings by allowing Pelosi to squelch the minority party’s right to free speech inside the House. Because of Pelosi’s power grab and blatant slap in the face of the minority party, we’re right back where we were before Obama won, if not worse. Obama and Pelosi are going to have to rely solely on their own party’s votes to get anything passed. So much for “change”.
