Showing posts with label Congressional Stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congressional Stuff. Show all posts

Thursday, September 26, 2019

And Elsewhere On Capital Hill - Former ICE Director Tom Homan Takes it to the Ugly Witch with Gavel

I'd Like To Buy This Guy a Beer!

While the Schiff Circus was going on down the hall, the former Ice Director was calling out elected officials hypocrisy and who sometime forget why they are there in the first place.



~ Thank You WHATFINGER NEWS and 
Larwyn's Linx@Doug Ross Journal for the Linkage! ~

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Dems Resort to Use Of Federal Court to Stop Kavanaugh Vote


With the media and democrats and their grandstanding creepy porn lawyer friends having turned the Kavanaugh Conformation into the circus, and with little left but grasping at *straws (*not legal in some states) have turned to the one thing they have left, leftist federal judges. According to Politico, back-bench junior Senator and Chuck Schumer toady, Jeff Merkley (Leftist-Ore.) on Wednesday announced that he's seeking an injunction in federal court designed to stop a final vote on Brett Kavanaugh, asserting an obstruction of his constitutional duty to advise and consent on nominees. Kinda makes you wonder if Jeff Merkley has ever read the constitution......
"Merkley's filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia comes as Senate Republicans vow to push ahead with a vote on President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee in the coming days — and hours before a landmark hearing slated with Christine Blasey Ford, who has alleged a decades-old sexual assault by Kavanaugh. Merkley's bid for an injunction hinges on the Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on nominees and charges that he's been prevented from fulfilling that due to the withholding of records on Kavanaugh's past service in the George W. Bush administration. 
“The events of the past ten days have only underscored how critical it is that the Senate conduct a careful and comprehensive review of a nominee before giving its consent,” Merkley told POLITICO in a statement. “The unprecedented obstruction of the Senate’s advice and consent obligation is an assault on the separation of powers and a violation of the Constitution. The President and Mitch McConnell want to ram through this nomination come hell or high water, without real advice or informed consent by the Senate, but that’s just not how our Constitution works.” 
Ford's allegation is not directly cited in Merkley's filing, which is unlikely to succeed in stopping the vote. But the entrance of the Oregonian, who's indicated interest in a 2020 presidential bid, into the Kavanaugh debate further heightens the politically charged atmosphere shrouding the nomination. Merkley delivered a 15-hour floor speech last year in an ultimately failed bid to stop the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch."
Unprecedented obstruction of the Senate’s advice and consent obligation indeed! Unfounded, unprovable 36 year old allegations by women who no one will back up?


 Stilton Done This. 

Thank You WHATFINGER NEWS for the Linkage!

Monday, September 24, 2018

Yale Law School Cancels Classes So Future Michael Avenattis Can Yell at Brett Kavanaugh

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5ba96523/turbine/hc-1537828127-wlf1n7bhw5-snap-image/750/750x422
Dianne Lake, a second-year Yale Law student, helped plan Monday’s sit in at the Sterling Law Building

According to The Cut, Yale has cancelled classes at Yale Law so students can protest against the 'very real threat' to America, Brett Kavanaugh. These future lawyers of America have been protesting both on campus and in Washington to convince lawmakers to vote against confirming Kavanaugh, so the school cancelled more than 30 scheduled classes Monday morning in anticipation of widespread absences. More than a hundred students traveled to D.C. to protest at the Supreme Court and to meet with Senators about the nomination. The increased protest activity is owed to another sexual assault allegation by Deborah Ramirez, who told The New Yorker that Kavanaugh had assaulted her.


“As a community, we are here today to show that we take allegations of sexual assault and harassment seriously,” said Diane Lake, a second-year law student, according to the Hartford Courant. “We are here today to discuss the very real threat that Brett Kavanaugh poses to this country.” Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken issued a statement supporting the students’ calls for a thorough investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh. From the Courant:
"Many of our faculty and students have taken actions to raise these concerns about the confirmation process. “Students have worked with the Law School administration and faculty so that the community can come together as a whole to discuss this important moment in our country’s history."
Now I may be mistaken, but I thought law schools taught the basic right of all, that you are innocent until proven guilty. Seems Yale Law, class of 2018, have put politics above the law, a sad thing indeed, and have condemned the Judge with only the word of a person who has already shone herself to be a liar, and no one seems willing to backup her sketchy story. So, I offer to you some unsolicited advice to take to heart.......do not trust a lawyer with Yale Law on their resume from this year forward.....

(Hot Air) 
(TPDI)
Thank You WHATFINGER NEWS 
and
MJA @IOTWReport for the Linkage!

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Liberal Bloodsport and a Pound of Flesh


Even if Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed and seated on the nation's Highest Court, the left will still have extracted their pound of flesh. Just as with the Florida recount of 2000 and the Trump election of 2016, any confirmation will be branded as suspect and accomplished only through brutish tactics and the wholesale disregard for the truth. If Franz Kafka had written about confirmation hearings, he couldn't have come up with a better scenario than the one now unfolding. An unimpeachable pillar of the legal establishment stands accused of a heinous offense that it is almost impossible to definitively rebut. Whether Judge Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty matters not now. He will forever be besmirched by the 10 second clips that are sure to come from the aftermath if further hearings are held, forever considered guilty of it by some portion of the public easily swayed by media propaganda and self interest, just because "she said". 

This is not due process, or any kind of decent process at all for that matter. But it is how the Senate conducts its business now, especially if you are a conservative jurist.  The confirmation process for the Supreme Court is badly broken, made into a forum for sheer bloodsport by the left. If, based on what we know now and this accusation keeps Kavanaugh from the court, it will be a new low even for them. The Senate will have embraced a new world where the existence of an allegation, regardless of whether it can be proven, is enough to stop a nominee and destroy his good name.

The effort to sink Kavanaugh is not just a naked attempt to change a confirmation vote but to forever brand him as illegitimate. Regardless of facts, vagueness, inconsistencies, and lack of evidence, any Republican nominee can now be derailed by an eleventh hour allegation and said allegation could now be given a public Senate hearing to lend it undeserved legitimacy. 


Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

Monday, September 17, 2018

Red Flags, Red Flags Everywhere....

As soon as Christine Blasey Ford was identity as accuser of Judge Kavanaugh, red flags popped up everywhere. It didn’t take long for people to poke holes in her story from over 30 years ago. The one thing that stands out is Ford’s presumption that she thought Kavanaugh was going to rape her or even kill her…This is conjecture on her part, but now the media has jumped on the “rape” word and moved the ball down the field to accuse Kavanaugh of attempted rape and even attempted murder. If this is supposed to have happened 36 years ago, Brett Kavanaugh (53) would have still been a minor. 

Ford claims she was reluctant to come forward with her accusations. Yet, when Brett Kavanaugh’s name was first raised as a possible candidate for the nomination, she contacted both her Congresswoman, Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) and the Washington Post tip line. Kavanaugh had not even received the nomination and she had already written a letter to politician and contacted a major newspaper. Does that sound like someone who is wrestling with a decision? The version told now has changed from the version told in 2012 to her therapist and once again the media is complicit with the Democrats in their effort to smear a man who has spent his entire life as an accomplished judge and citizen.

Red Flags? Let's look at few important ones shall we:
  • Judge Kavanaugh has gone through 6 FBI background checks. Came through clean.
  • Christine Ford scrubbed her social media accounts of her activism before revealing herself. Ford, has donated money to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Friends Of Bernie Sanders, and other leftist organizations.
  • Ford’s attorney is a self-described Anti-Trump Resistance activist. 
  • It was reported that Brett Kavanaugh would be Romney’s first choice for SCOTUS if elected in 2012. That is when Ford suddenly told of the incident with Kavanaugh in couples therapy. It appears as though Ford recovered her memory at an opportune time.
  • Judge Kavanaugh’s mother presided over the bankruptcy trial of Christine Blasey Ford’s parents. Judge Kavanaugh’s mother ruled against the Batey parents.
Democrats have reached an all time low in their attempts to destroy anyone in their path. For Democrats, the ends justify the means…

(100% FedUp)
(WZ)
                                   Thank You Whatfinger News for the Linkage!

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Consideration Being Given to Officially Recognize Crying Babies In The Senate Chamber

The present Congressional Democrats have proven to be useless muttering whiners, obsessed with non- existent scandals instead of addressing serious needs facing the country. They also like to try and move the goal post or change the rules  just for themselves in the middle of the game.

In this latest example, it's pure privileged being showcased. Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth is the ultimate token for the Dems, she's Asian born, a women, and she is a military veteran who lost both of her legs in combat while serving in Iraq. Unfortunately, she is constantly trotted out by the Democrats as a show of how much that they care about the military and the troops.  They don’t. But Duckworth has assumed a key role as the dems attack dog every time the left wants to slam Donald Trump’s lack of service or on issues involving the military, and has been applauded for nicknaming the POTUS “cadet bone spurs”.

According to Politico, Duckworth, who just a few days ago became the first sitting senator to pop out a baby while in office (top that Chuck Schumer) has gone to great lengths calling for the Senate to change the rules and submitted a resolution tailored just for her so that she can bring her newborn onto the Senate floor during votes. It’s cynical as hell to say it, but I will, it's hard to see how the infant isn’t going to be more of a prop to elevate her national profile in the media because Democrats have proven to be very adept at exploiting children for political gain.  There is no way that the Senate won’t vote to allow babies on the floor. Just imagine the amount of fiery social media hell that will be brought down on anyone who dares to say no.

I just hope someone has the balls to ask the good Senator before they vote on the matter why the full senate should take up a resolution that is gender specific and narrowly applied, thus discriminating against the majority of the male Senate body. I also would hope someone would ask why she isn't just taking full advantage of the 'Family and Medical Leave Act' that dems beat everyone over the head to get into law, and stay home and bond with her child like mothers should?

But then again, someone would probably counter by saying the House of Representatives is already recognized as being chalk full of wailing crybabys called progressive democrats.




Wednesday, March 28, 2018

A Simple Lesson on the 2nd Amendment for Foolish Leftist and Ignorant Millennials

The Second Amendment reads in full: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.
Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the ‘meat and potatoes.’ The court wrote: “1. Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.’ [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] … All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.” (p.5).
Prefatory clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”
The prefatory clause is the lead-in that “announces a purpose” for the operative clause. The court stated: “The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms”(Heller law syllabus p.1).
The court also stated: “The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'” (Heller law syllabus p.3, emphasis added).
Notice how nothing in the 2nd Amendment gives any right to anyone but the people with regards to keeping and bearing arms. It doesn’t say that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms, that right is granted exclusively to the people, nor does it say that the right is contingent upon being in a militia or subject to any form of government oversight. Notice that it also does not mention any limit on the types or amounts of arms the people have the right to keep and bear.
Okay, let's make it so simple that even a liberal can understand: "A well schooled electorate being necessary to the education of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”.
Does that mean that only those in the electorate have the right to keep and read books, or is that right given to the people?  Of course the people have the right to keep and read books, just as the people have every right to keep and bear arms.
If you think that the Founding Fathers only intended for the 2nd Amendment to apply to muskets, then surely you must agree that your 1st Amendment rights only extend to what you write on parchment with a quill pen, what you print using a hand operated movable type press, or how far your voice can carry from the center of town, since those were the means of communication in use during the time of the Founding Fathers.”
H/T Konan The Bar Barron

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Former Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Paul Stevens: "Repeal The Second Amendment"

NYT Opinion by JOHN PAUL STEVENS

"Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world."- JPS


Saturday, March 24, 2018

Insufferable Anti-Gun Geeks and Hollywood Celebrities Just Don’t Care Much For Your Constitutional Rights


In case you haven't heard, today is National F*ck The Constitution Day as being celebrated by thousands of uninformed teenagers and ignorant leftist across the country. The March for Our Lives rallies nationwide are protesting the NRA and our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms in reaction to a criminal breaking the law. But for some reason nobody is saying, “Hey a bad guy did a bad thing, let’s punish the good people” like celebrities.

No, they are out in full force supporting the suppression of our most important civil right. George Clooney, Oprah Winfrey, and whole host of wealthy leftist entertainers have jumped the publicity bandwagon and have donated unknown amounts of money to the anti-gun movement, mainly because it gets their name in the news and makes them sound caring. They have even been joined by none other than the usually stridently apolitical Taylor Swift. 

As for Cloony, he doesn’t hate America anymore. He did, but those brave anti-gun Parkland high school students have made him finally proud of his country. The facts that this country allows a goony-looking dude with a big chin to become a sex symbol or a guy who can’t act to become a millionaire in the film biz were nothing to celebrate, but now that some insufferable ignorant teenagers want to get rid of a Constitutional right, he is finally proud to call himself an American.


Clooney and his wife Amal (spellcheck keeps trying to make this “anal”) have already given $500,000 to the anti-gun protest. This is actually quite a feat for these anti-gun students, to get Clooney to shelve his Trump Derangement Syndrome long enough to briefly not hate America. Under normal circumstances Clooney wouldn’t be proud of America until another democrat becomes President, which the way liberals are alienating most people these days, could be decades. This is how liberals are. They don’t love America all the time, which means they don’t love this country at all. 

If the only reason why you are proud of the US is because your political party occupies the White House, your pride is a lie. That’s not patriotism; it’s fanboyism. The fact that Clooney is only proud of America because teenagers are protesting the 2nd Amendment right of gun ownership also makes him a giant shithead.

I would be interested to know who is controlling all this money being donated to the movement. One thing is for sure here, those who march in the streets do not represent the majority of Americans. And America is not ruled by AstroTurf movements and mob rule. Now get off my lawn!

(DownTrend)
(Drunken Yoda)
H/T Crazy Cousin Olivia

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Then STFU About Making New Laws.......

NBC's Chuck Todd: “Let me ask you this: give me the slate of laws that if you could wave your wand and have enacted that could have prevented Vegas?”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: “I’m not sure there is any set of laws that could have prevented it.


Thank You MJA for the Linkage!

Saturday, January 28, 2017

House Chamber Temporarily Evacuated


MFNS-WASHINGTON - Late Friday night near panic struck the Chamber of the House of Representatives during a debate before those present of a bill sponsored by democrats for federal funding the construction of "Transgender Only Driving Lines" within California's Federal Highway system. The bill was Sponsored by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) 

The debate was interrupted when House Speaker Paul Ryan notice Pelosi, at the dais at the time, head began to violently quiver from side to side. Middle Finger News Congressional Correspondent, Ima Gonagetu spoke to Speaker Ryan after the incident:
"I knew something was wrong when Minority Leader Pelosi began slurring her words and her face began to contort and could hear a metallic popping sound...... and then heard the House Clerk scream and saw blood running down her forearm as she passed out and fell face first onto her desk....... I yelled THERE SHE BLOWS and headed for the door....."
What many who worked closely with Pelosi over the years feared would someday happen, happened. The permanent metal staples from her many massive face-lifts had begun to let loose. There was shrapnel in the air.


Along with the House Clerk, the august Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) also sustained a flying staple injury on the cheek. 

"I'm Okay. I feel honored to have shed blood in this hallowed hall in an honorable cause for our Transgendered citizens  ......as honored as when I got my head bashed in with a brick during the Civil Rights movement." 
The few in congress who were there ignoring Pelosi's speech ducked under their desk for cover while others ran for the door. Many of the members later found metal staples lodge in the back of their suit coats.


One such Congressman was Rep. Bullet-Head Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) who told us of his harrowing experience: 
"There was fear in the air when everyone realized what was going on. I hadn't been that scared since last time I walked through my district after dark! It was scary!" 
Minority Leader Pelosi was restrained and removed from the House floor, later to be spotted exiting an unmarked van at Walter Reed Army Hospital with a large Walmart bag over her head.
DEVELOPING...