District of Columbia

'Blue Dogs' Stave Off EFCA For Now

Greg Sargent is reporting that a coalition of conservative Democrats, the so-called "Blue Dogs," have joined to ask Speaker Pelosi not to bring the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) to the floor.

The Blue Dogs have asked Pelosi not to consider the bill until the Senate has first voted on it. As far as the Senate goes, Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he won't bring it up for vote unless he knows he has 60 votes and that number doesn't seem very likely at this time.

Moderate Democrats from more conservative districts are afraid that if the House takes up the bill first, two divergent versions of the bill will exist between the House and the Senate and that this confusion will give opponents of the EFCA enough ammo to hurt the reelection chances of the moderates.

“Their concern is that the House will pass something, then the Senate will take up the bill and do something different,” the senior leadership aide tells me. “The Blue Dogs don’t want to end up voting on something that won’t even become law. They’re saying, `See what can get through the Senate first, and then we’ll vote on it.’”

House Dem leaders agree with this assessment, the aide says. Asked if it would anger labor leaders, the aide said that labor might not like it but that labor leaders would “understand the dynamic.”

In any case, if Pelosi heeds this warning from moderate Democrats, we may see the EFCA stymied for a while unable to go forward. Opponents of this bill need to keep the pressure up on Democrat representatives in right to work states. It is obviously having an effect so far.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

How Barack Obama Wants to Make Black Children Poorer

In 1996 Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed the welfare reforms that for the first time in 20 years caused poverty statistics for black children to fall to unprecedented lows during the modern welfare era.

In 1996, Barack Obama was against these reforms.

In 2009, with his giant welfare bill he calls a "stimulus plan," Barack Obama has eliminated these reforms.

Watch this video to see how Obama wants to return to the days of higher poverty rates for black children.

Proof once again that Democrats want to enlarge welfare rolls, destroy the lives of citizens, make everyone poorer, and create a permanent underclass that they can count on for votes.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Chuck Schumer: Liar, Propagandist, Anti-American, Killer of Free Speech

Usually I don't go for the hard-edged treatment of politicians as my headline here does. I don't often call individuals "liars" and the like, though I've been known to do so on occasion. Generally, I prefer to assume that those that oppose my views are truthfully advocating for deep held beliefs and not using lies and obfuscation to get there -- some exceptions to that, of course. I am not really the biggest fan of the wild-eyed, Olbermannesque sort of bombast and name-calling.

But, after what Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of his desire to push the ill-conceived "Fairness Doctrine" down our throats, I just can't see any other explanation of his motives. Every single word he said on this issue was convoluted, unAmerican, illogical and meant solely as a cynical means to his ends of quashing free political speech so that his party could consolidate it's domination of American politics.

Schumer made these remarks last November, so they aren't new. But his remarks are of a piece with the Democrat's push to launch an unAmerican crusade to eliminate free speech in this country, a campaign that has been gathering steam these last few days. And, since the quest to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" on American's rights to free political speech is again a topic of the Democrat's agenda, it behooves us to see the false logic and lies underlying the effort. Chuck Schumer's words are the perfect guide for us to illustrate the left's goals.

Schumer started off his screed against free speech by claiming he wanted "balance." Schumer said on Fox News, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

Yet, the only thing that Schumer and his cohorts on the left want to "balance" is AM talk radio. Why is that, exactly? If true "fairness" is the left's honest goal, why is talk radio the only medium being targeted? Why else but that talk radio is the only one in which conservative principles predominate. On cable TV news the left owns 75% of them. On network TV the left owns 100%. In print, the liberal view is predominant and has been since the late 1960s. So on "balance" the left is predominant throughout the media. Yet, AM talk radio is all the Chuck Schumers of the world are interested in fostering that vaunted "balance."

Now just look at the logical gymnastics and anti-American sentiment that Schumer indulges in to justify his destruction of one of America's most cherished principles: free political speech.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

There is so much wrong in this ignorant statement that it boggles the mind.

First of all, and this is seminal, the concept that government is not "consistent" unless it overtakes everything is so unAmerican in its basic concept that it truly shows Schumer to be an outright liar. After all, he stood foursquare against the Patriot Act, didn't he? Schumer didn't see any problems with inconsistency as he tried to stop a larger take over of surveillance by the federal government, of course. Yet, all of a sudden he is worried about being "consistent" now?

Clearly, he is lying. This "consistency" argument is merely a means to an end as opposed to a logically thought out policy based on American tradition.

In fact, there is only one theory of government in which government controlling all it surveys is central to its system and that is a tyrannical monarchy. Republics and Democracies, on the other hand, are entirely based on the idea that government has some power in some areas and less or none in others. Democracies are built on the process of governors and the governed carefully deciding upon which areas government will exercise power and to what degree. Schumer's claim that it's an all or nothing proposition is not only unAmerican, its both undemocratic and a strike against liberty and freedom everywhere.

With this concept of "consistency" that Schumer espoused, it seems that he is no better than Saddam Hussein or the Taliban with his concept that government should control every aspect of our lives.

But, again, we come back to the clear fact that he is less a despot than an outright liar. Schumer isn't interested in total control of government as a basic concept. He is only interested in the power of his party. He would not be for this sort of power in the hands of Republicans or Libertarians. He is only a shill for extremist liberals and their power grab.

And this, in the end, proves he is not smart enough to even understand the concepts he claims to be operating under. His "consistency" argument would only be consistent if the same power was absolute whether Republicans or Democrats were in command, yet he "consistently" fights Republican power. In truth Schumer seeks to deny this "consistent" tyranny to the Republicans while working to assure it for Democrats. He is not smart enough to understand that if his party gets this all out power, that tyrannical power will -- it must -- eventually devolve onto the opposite party at some point in the future.

This is the whole reason that the founders, men of vastly superior mental capacity than Chuck Schumer, created a system that made government less powerful than would befit Schumer's "consistency" concept.

This so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is a rejection of liberty, a slander against fairness, and the destruction of one of the most basic freedoms in western theories of government.

Of course, there are levels of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, neither right being absolutely “free.” But, this isn’t the argument that Schumer is making with his idiotic “consistency” argument. If he stuck with the long history of defining and re-defining freedom of speech and the free press he’d at least have some legitimate grounds upon which to argue. But he did not do so.

In the final analysis the only conclusion that one can make is that Chuck Schumer is a liar and a very stupid man.

Unfortunately, the entire Democratic Party is following the inane argument of this stupid man right toward an entirely anti-American policy.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Make it Rain!

This week, Congress spent so much money in so little time that it would even make PacMan Jones blush.

 For those of you who aren't sure of what "making it rain" is, when you're at a strip club, the act of rainmaking -- very simply -- is throwing large amounts of money up in the air, effectively raining money on the performer. With interest, the so-called stimulus bill spends over $1 Trillion dollars. You all know this by now.  That is a lot of rain. My friends, this is an obscene amount of money. I realize that I sounded like John McCain just there... forgive me. As it stands, this bill, at 1,073 pages (depending how it's printed...) is the largest spending increase since World War Two. I don't have any statistics on this, but I'd wager a bet that this is no President has increased the deficit and debt at a faster rate in the past 150 years. The best part? When Obama signs this bill on Tuesday, in Denver of all places, he won't have even a month in the Oval Office. That's change we can believe in. What about campaign promises? What about "the most ethical Congress in history?" (110th Congress, per Speaker Pelosi.) Call me crazy, but isn't there some kind of requirement that the bill be made public for at least 48 hours before the vote? 48 hours is 2,880 minutes. Even if our elected officials had that amount of time to read it (they didn't), they wouldn't be able to get much sleep, even if they could read and digest one page a minute. The Conference Committee, that is, the House members and Senators who comprise the committee that reconciles the differences between the House and Senate versions reached a deal on Wednesday. According to most accounts, those not privy to the workings of the committee received the bill at about midnight late Thursday. Also, didn't Obama promise that he'd wait five days before signing passed bills into law so that citizens can comment? Well, like most of Obama's campaign rhetoric, he didn't say whether it was five days after the bill was passed, or on the fifth day. Lucky for Obama, Monday is President's day, so by signing it on Tuesday, he can claim he's honored that promise.  We were promised bi-partisanship. Did we get it? Well, if you consider that 1.3% elected Republicans in Congress voted for the bill, no. Obama looked like he was ready to work with Congressional Republicans, but Congressional Democrats showed that they weren't going to have any of it.  There's an old adage that there should only be one cook in the kitchen. Aside from wasting an astronomical amount of tax dollars we don't even have and will have to borrow, this exercise shows that having three cooks (Obama-Reid-Pelosi) in the kitchen is a recipe for disaster. Oh, and that awesome tax cut that's coming your way? Make sure you don't spend that $13 a week all in one place, like, say, a strip club.

 

Boehner: Thanks to Dems, We Don't Have Time to Let America Know What's in This Stimulus Bill

Representative John Boehner (R-OH), Minority leader of the House has been very good on Obama's Generational Debt Bill -- obscenely known as the "stimulus bill." Here he is scolding Democrats for not giving Congress time to even read this 1,100 page bill. Boehner contends that "not one member has read."

 

 

Boehner deserves a pat on the back for his strong stance against this bill.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Newsweek: Celebrating America as a New, Socialist France

Newsweek's Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas are tired of all this talk of socialism. We need to stop talking about yesterday's news, they say, and embrace the great new fact that America is already a socialist country. They chortle that
America is just like France
. Meacham and Thomas chide Sean Hannity for using socialism as a dirty word because it "seems strangely beside the point." The pair is enthusiastic about our new American socialist society!

We are a European country and we like it, claim the Newsweek duo. Unfortunately, they seem to misunderstand so very much about what they speak.

One of the worst tactics that the morally bankrupt use to justify an argument is that of moral equivalence. This Newsweek article employs this strategy at nearly every turn. For instance, the piece chides Republicans for the excess of the Bush years as some sort of balm on our turn to socialism.

There it was, just before the commercial: the S word, a favorite among conservatives since John McCain began using it during the presidential campaign. (Remember Joe the Plumber? Sadly, so do we.) But it seems strangely beside the point. The U.S. government has already--under a conservative Republican administration--effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries...

...but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

Of course, it was amusing for them to take a jab at Joe the Plumber and telling that his wild media ride made them "sad." After all, his emergence as Obama's foil was Obama's worst foot-shooting episode of the campaign. It was where Obama admitted he was basically a Marxist in base political ideology. No wonder Thomas and Meacham hated Joe. He made their messiah look the fool.

But also notice how they use the Bush-did-it-too argument as if this somehow justifies a further tumble away from American principles and toward European soft communism? No, gentlemen, it was not OK that Bush nationalized banks and enlarged the welfare state. So it is not OK that we continue it.

Further more, to say that the States won't refuse federal money for "infrastructural improvements" so this justifies more socialism is absurd. The two act as if the feds just hand out money for free and that the states aren't obligated to supply money beforehand. This is clearly ignorant of the process. In fact, it is almost impossible to refuse the federal money because it is OUR money we'd all be refusing! The money does not belong to the federal government in the first place. Apparently Thomas and Meacham don't understand this.

Then the pair advocate for resignation instead of a righting of the ship:

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today's world.

This is like a soldier throwing down his weapon and refusing to fight because he's just going to get killed anyway! Give up the quest of returning our nation to its proper moorings, Newsweek? Why should we do this, merely because the socialists now have the upper hand?

Then the two resort to panic and fear to cajole the reader.

As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

So, MORE government, BIGGER government, is the solution? Where do these fools get this nonsense? This more-government plan has never once in the history of mankind ever worked. It has not worked in this country, either. Not in the 1930s under FDR, or the 1970s under Nixon, nor will it today.

Then the Newsweekers again use the Bush-did-it meme by expanding upon all the horrible fiscal policies that Bush indulged in. Yes, the pair is undoubtedly correct. Bush's domestic agenda was his absolute worst feature in many, but not all, ways.

But, again, Bush's failed fiscal mess is not a justification for Obama to make it worse by going deeper into this pit of anti-capitalist, unAmerican policies. Not only that, but Newsweek ‘s ignoring of the Democrat’s hands in this mess is a glaring and partisanly obvious omission.

Finally, the piece gets the analysis wrong on how we got here.

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace.

The Obama administration is caught in a paradox. It must borrow and spend to fix a crisis created by too much borrowing and spending. Having pumped the economy up with a stimulus, the president will have to cut the growth of entitlement spending by holding down health care and retirement costs and still invest in ways that will produce long-term growth. Obama talks of the need for smart government. To get the balance between America and France right, the new president will need all the smarts he can summon.

All completely wrong. We got into this mess largely because of government meddling in the economy, and because of regulations, policies and agencies that have no business existing in a capitalist society in the first place.

Undoubtedly, we are in one of those cycles of the "destructive" phase of the "creative destruction" that IS capitalism, the only economic model that is best for man. But, it is called a cycle because it comes and goes, not because it is permanently affixed to the here and now. Our financial system allowed itself to get corrupt. It is now paying the price. But, government was the baneful influence that pushed our economic system over the edge. The way we all interact in economic endeavors will right itself without government help. It always does.

So, no Newsweek, more socialistic meddling is not the solution. And Meacham and Thomas are as wrong as wrong could be. We don't need to shrug our shoulders and sigh in resignation because socialism is already here. We need to destroy it and return our system to its capitalist base.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Pelosi: Screw Barack's 'Bi-Partisanship' AND The GOP

Once again Nancy Pelois has told Barack Obama that he can take his desire for a post-partisan Washington and shove it. Pelosi has left little doubt that she doesn't give a flying fig about the bi-partisan method of governing to which Obama continually pays lip-service.

So, will President Obama take these slaps from Pelosi lying down or will he stand up for what he keeps claiming he is truly interested in? Will this president allow the Speaker of the House to drive his agenda without his input?

Thus far, it seems that he will. It is starting to become glaringly obvious that Barack Obama isn't taking any part in the actual process. He just gives good press conference and then retreats back into the White House to leave the real work to others. And those "others" (like Democrats Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid) are not interested in their president's sparkling ideals. Not only do Reid and Pelosi have no interest in heeding Obama's lofty call to work across the aisle with the GOP but they want to crush the GOP without mercy. It's partisan business as usual as far as the Democrats in Congress are concerned.

Politico reports that on Friday, Pelosi met with reporters and blasted anyone that opposed her. "In a statement sure to rile Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday dismissed calls for bipartisanship as 'process' arguments extraneous to passing a stimulus bill..." She went on to say that, "Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill."

First of all, that last bit is an outright lie. "The rest of the country" is NOT saying they "need this bill." According to a recent CBS poll, support for the stimulus is in no way overwhelming.

Slightly more than half the country approves of President Obama's $800 billion-plus stimulus package, a new CBS News poll finds. But support for the bill has fallen 12 points since January, and nearly half of those surveyed do not believe it will shorten the recession.

That same poll shows that the overwhelming majority of respondents want a bi-partisan bill, and this runs exactly the opposite of Pelosi's actions and claims.

Eighty-one percent of Americans say the stimulus bill should be a bipartisan effort. Just 13 percent think it is okay for a bill to be passed with only the backing of the Democratic majority.

If Pelosi gets her way and makes this a damn the GOP effort, this will eventually bite Obama's favorable poll ratings. After all, eventually people will realize that Obama is powerless as a leader and cannot change the partisanship of his own party.

It remains to be seen, however, if this is all really what Obama wants in the end. Does he really care at all about bi-partisanship? Or is he taking the high ground with his airy speeches but cynically allowing the liberal attack dogs in Congress to scuttle the lofty rhetoric because, in truth, he doesn't want any bi-partisan effort at all?

Even if this more cynical view of Obama's motives isn't true, that his calls for a bi-partisan effort are actually his fervent wishes, if he fails to lead his own party to this end it will be seen as either a failure to lead, or an out right lie in the first place on Obama's behalf. In either case, Obama fails as president.

We also need to point out one more bit of leftist doggerel that puts the stamp of liar to their SOP (standard operating procedure). Catch this line in the Politico piece:

Pelosi -- speaking to reporters on the second day of her retreat with House Democrats at a swank Williamsburg, Va., golf resort...

The Democrats are having a "lavish retreat" in these harsh economic times? But wait, aren't these the same people, the same leftist Democrats, that attack corporations for lavish "retreats" and perks just like the ones they are currently enjoying?

Hypocrites. Plain and simple.

(Photo credit: Bloomberg)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Obama Order Allows Unions to Drive Up Cost of Gov't Contracts

Obama Order Allows Unions to Drive Up Cost of Gov't Contracts
-By Warner Todd Huston

The newest in his series Executive Orders that are little else but sops to unions was uncorked in Washington on Friday, February 6. This one ordered the use of union labor for large-scale federal construction projects, eliminating 84 percent of the American contractors that are not unionized.

Not only would this bill force unions on government projects, but the resulting rise in the costs of those projects would be incredible. This executive order -- a re-establishment of a Clinton era order -- will force federal projects to accept labor agreements and the resulting higher wages, benefits and collective-bargaining that comes with that.

Naturally, the unions love this order. But the exorbitant costs that will be forced upon federal projects will be a bitter pill to taxpayers.

It is also really an anti-worker policy as opposed to one that encourages American jobs. As president Kirk Pickerel of the Associated Builders and Contractors trade group reveals, "84 percent of U.S. construction workers do not belong to labor unions."

Looks like Obama has once again created a policy that only benefits a tiny number of America's work force to the detriment of most of America's construction workers.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Obama's 'Faith Based Initiative' Office to Benefit ACORN-Like Groups?

The Associated Press is reporting that Barack Obama has today announced that he is "expanding" the faith based initiatives program that George W. Bush started during his tenure. Obama now intends to offer cash support to organizations "no matter their religious or political beliefs."

In other words, now faith based funding will go to groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Activists for Reform Now), the group that has for the last decade or so been involved in massive voter fraud all across the country.

The question becomes, how is this still a "faith based" program? Isn't it now just an average everyday pork plan that covers just any old community organization that the government wants to fund? This change would be like taking funding for the beef industry and covering pork, chicken and fish producers too. In other words, it wouldn't be the beef industry plan anymore.

Furthermore, don't groups like ACORN already get funding to the tune of millions upon millions of dollars from other programs? The answer to that is, of course, yes. So, are we now apparently to expect that such groups have had a new spigot opened up for funding from the federal government? We must now realize that ACORN's funding will grow exponentially from this whole new avenue of funding.

Naturally, Obama is calling this a "crisis" effort. As the AP says, Obama "said in this time of economic crisis, it was proper for the government to be providing help to Americans." It's all an emergency, you see.

Still, it is interesting that Obama has decided to keep this faith based initiative idea at all. His left constituency has railed against Bush's evil mixing of religion and government for the past 8 years. Remember how often they called Bush a "religious zealot"? Yet, here is The One keeping the same program.

Before signing the measure, Obama told the annual National Prayer Breakfast the program would not show favoritism to any religious group, and would adhere to a strict separation of church and state.

Not "showing favoritism" means that he will continue to fund religious groups, the very thing his base has railed against.

So the question is, will the DailyKos set excoriate Obama for mixing politics and religion just like Bush did? Or does the Obammessiah get another pass from the hypocrites on the left?

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Ethics of Obama's New Labor Chief Questioned

Recently, we wondered aloud how anyone could expect a Secretary of Labor that has had a long history of being a member of various Big Labor groups can be expected to administer an agency that is supposed to deal equally and evenly with both labor and business? How could we not expect Obama's choice for Sec. of Labor, Hilda Solis, to be a shill for Big Labor since she has been one her whole adult life? And not just a shill for Big Labor, but an actual employee of Big Labor.

At any rate, the business community must realize that their new Washington boss is their enemy. It simply can't be any other way given her ideology and history.

But, if we are lucky we may just see the appointment of this hardcore union shill go down in flames. Apparently, Solis has been caught hiding on official filings with the House her complex and integral activities as a lobbyist at the same time she was in the House of Representatives, a violation of House ethics rules.

First of all, as Byron York of that National Review reports, Solis refused to answer all sorts of seemingly noncontroversial questions that were put to her during her confirmation hearing.

Solis had a rough hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee when she declined to answer all sorts of seemingly noncontroversial questions about her positions on basic labor issues. (Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote a frustrated account of the hearing, asking, "How can senators consent if they have no clue what policies they might be consenting to?")...

Senators are not pleased when their questions are ignored. But, even the snotty attitude exhibited by Solis is not the worst she has to offer, it seems. There is a reason she doesn't want to answer their questions because now questions are being asked about her unethical lobbying activities. And they aren't just run-of-the-mill lobbying activities, either. They are activities that directly relate to her possible work as Sec. of Labor.

It is coming to light that Solis has tried to quietly amend some filed paperwork about her lobbying that admits she was basically lying to Congress before the alterations. The Weekly Standard has this story.

A seemingly innocuous letter sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives last Thursday by President Obama's Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis raises serious and troubling legal questions about her nomination and apparent violation of House ethics rules. Not only was she involved with a private organization that was lobbying her fellow legislators on a bill that she has cosponsored, but she apparently kept her involvement secret and failed to reveal a clear conflict of interest.

The WS has the details of this close lobbying work on the very bill that Solis, as Sec. of Labor, would be asked to fairly apply to business and Big Labor alike. It turns out that Solis was not only a member of the House of Reps trying to push through the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) but she was at the same time a board member of the labor organizations that this act would benefit. This is a clear violation of House ethics.

Let's hope that this gross ethics violation will kill this highly biased appointee from being approved. Her appointment to the Sec. of Labor will doom the entire business community in this country. The fact that she is not above violating ethics as a mere member of the House of Reps does not speak well to her possible tenure as chief of labor.

One also wonders if the Old Media establishment will give this messy much play?

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Syndicate content