Republicans Walk Off House Floor
Posted February 15th, 2008 by Da King
Thursday was supposed to be a day when the House Of Representatives worked on the updates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has already passed the Senate. The existing bill, the Protect America Act, passed last august, expires at midnight on saturday, february 16th. Rather than working on anything so mundane as protecting americans from terrorists, the House Democrats decided instead to vote on contempt charges for White House officials Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for not appearing before Congress on the Democrats fishing expedition investigation into the White House firing of U.S. attorneys. Minority leader John Boehner led Republicans in a House walkout in protest. Boehner said:
"We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us…Let's just get up and leave."
Indeed.
A few words about the so-called investigation into those U.S. attorney firings, which has been going on for over a year now. Those attorneys SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT. He appoints them and he can fire them, as presidents regularly do. For example, Bill Clinton fired 92 of the 93 U.S. attorneys, including some who were investigating BILL CLINTON. I can't tell you what a big investigation there was into that. Oh wait, yes I can tell you. There WASN'T any big investigation into that. But somehow, when Bush fires 9 U.S. attorneys, THAT is a big deal, and was done for some dark machiavellian political reasons. There isn't any evidence, but shoot, who needs evidence to conduct a witchhunt ? Not the Democrats. Since they took control of Congress in 2006, investigating all things Bush has been Job One.
Back on topic, Congress has had SIX MONTHS to pass a permanent terrorist surveillance bill, and both sides of the aisle claim to want to get it done (one side even means it). But here we are on the eve of the bill's expiration, and nothing has happened yet. I guess the high drama of watching baseball star Roger Clemens deny HGH and steroid usage is more important to the House than our national security. Maybe next week Cirque Du Soleil can testify before the House regarding highwire safety regulations, or Paris Hilton can testify about what it's like to be born filthy rich (apparently, "it's hot"). Enquiring minds want to know.
So, after twiddling their thumbs for all this time, and after attempting to kick the can down the road by passing a 21-day extension of the terrorist surveillance bill, which the Republicans shot down, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said this:
"The first step must be reconciliation of the two bills…If the president wants to work together on that — we have been trying mightily to get the administration to engage."
Let me translate that for you. Bush backs the version of the bill that the Senate has already passed. His position is crystal clear on this subject. Always has been. The sticking point here is NOT Bush, it's NOT the Senate - it's Pelosi and company. So naturally, Nancy has to make it SEEM as if it IS Bush, because partisanship is what matters most. I can't wait for president Barack Obama to come along and change all this nonsense. Yes we can ! Oh, brother.
What Pelosi's Pals want to do is strip telecom immunity from lawsuits out of the bill. In other words, if a telephone company cooperates with the government and provides phone records for international Al Qaeda suspects, the ACLU should be able to sue the pants off that telephone company, enriching lawyers, protecting the 4th amendment, and protecting Al Qaeda, er, I mean, the people. The White House insists it may need private sector cooperation with the government for future terrorist investigations. Someone over at the White House must be living in that place known as the REAL WORLD.
Congenital liar Harry Reid (D-NV) also tried to blame it all on Bush, by saying:
"Your [Bush's] opposition to an extension is inexplicable..Nonetheless, you have chosen to let the Protect America Act expire. You bear responsibility for any intelligence collection gap that may result."
Is that rich, or what ? The House has had all this time to pass the bill, at the last minute they decide to vote on something else, and Reid doesn't think the Democrats bear any responsibility for it. Good thing we don't count on old Harry the Senate Majority Leader for leadership or anything. Unbelievable.
Here's one final strange, self-contradictory comment from Pelosi:
"We are trying to pass a bill that protects the American people and protects the Constitution…We know the president has the authority to do everything he needs to do to protect the American people in the interim."
Mrs. Pelosi, I have a question. If the president has "the authority to do everything he needs to do to protect the american people" already, why would there be a need for you to "pass a bill that protects the american people" at all ? Hmmm ?
Someone's pants are on fire.
You can read an Assocated Press story about this pathetic fiasco here.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:37 am
King, this is one of the reasons why the Democratic congress has a record low approval rating, below that of even George Bush.
It also demonstrates, yet again, the fact that the Dims care more about scoring cheap political points [or so they think] than they do about protecting America.
The Dims truly are despicable. I think part of the Dim's problem is that their minds have been corrupted by thier long association with the abortion industry. I mean if you continually vote for killing unborn babies under the flimsy pretext of "choice," there's little else they won't do — including selling out your own country and its military.
February 15th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
exactly. they would rather pull these poltical stunts then have a very important national security vote.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Another lost post, King. But you got one thing right: President Barack Obama. Say it with me, Vince.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
No, it's Barack Hussein Obama. Clear?
Giving up on Comrade Hillary so easily. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:44 am
da truth,
The Dems position on this issue is indefensible, which, I assume, is why you couldn't come up with anything in their defense.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Vince,
Hillary's not done yet. She still has 3/4/08 (she needs our help), and is still working those super delegates. I heard this morning that Hillary and Obama have donated over $900,000 to various super delegate's campaigns. No conflict of interest or vote influencing going on there, I'm sure, LOL. Can you believe this stuff ? If there is a more corrupt way for the Dems to conduct their primaries, I can't think of it. They have suppressed the votes of entire states, and have all those super delegates sitting there, positioned to nullify the will of the people if necessary. For a party that calls itself the 'Democrats', a lot of this doesn't sound very democratic to me.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
"For a party that calls itself the 'Democrats', a lot of this doesn't sound very democratic to me."
Indeed, King, it doesn't.
You see, the Dims, and Comrade Hillary especially, have an uncontrollable lust for government power. It is their life, their reason for being. Hence they will do anything and everything to win election.
To the liberals — and let's be clear, I'm not referring to the classical liberals but rather to the "neo-liberals," the type of which we today see polluting the once respectable Democratic Party with their leftwing ideology — their ends always justify their sleazy means.
The good news here is that as grubby Comrade Hillary schemes for the nomination, even the loyal field hands (like Al Sharpton and super delegate John Lewis of D-Ga.) of the Dim's plantation of government dependence are waking up to see how they're being played for fools. Well, better late than never, I suppose.
As for me, I'll root for the comrade for now. The more she and Bill scheme and manipulate the process, the more America will be repelled by them and their party.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Yeah, King, good point on the sleaze in the democrats process for voting. Never heard of the right doing anything like that, have you? Oh. 2000. 2004. Never mind.
February 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
King you said:
***da truth,
The Dems position on this issue is indefensible, which, I assume, is why you couldn't come up with anything in their defense.***
That was so right on I think and then da truth responded with this:
***Yeah, King, good point on the sleaze in the democrats process for voting. Never heard of the right doing anything like that, have you? Oh. 2000. 2004. Never mind.***
It appears that you just tore him a new one with this blog entry. Surely he could have thought of something better than that if he had really tried. I don't know, what with the infighting about Florida and Michigan's non-delegates and the Super Delegates, how one of them could defend their position.
The worst thing for them is that so many actions of the newly anointed member of their angelic group, Barack Hussein Obama, are starting to come to light and maybe by the time of the National Convention they will be in total disarray.
The fun has just begun.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, was interviewed on NPR about the FISA bill:
NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn't made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn't it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn't renewed by tomorrow?
MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it's a very complex issue. It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:52 am
da truth,
Couldn't come up with a defense of the Dems primary rules either, eh ? I'm not surprised. Instead you tried to change the subject.
And I hate to burst your bubble, but the right didn't steal any elections in 2000 or 2004. That's just something the left made up.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Roy,
If Hillary wins the big states in March, I think there will be a huge mess for the Dems, and it will get real ugly. If Obama wins, then I think the majority of super delegates will probably go with him, avoiding the mess. But with the Dems, you just never know.
Then there's Hillary trying to get Florida and Michigan's votes reinstated, which would be absolutely unethical. Obama and Edwards didn't even campaign there. Nothing like that old Clinton corruption coming back to the surface. It's like the 90's all over again. If they wanted to count those two states (and those states do deserve to have their votes counted, even in the banana republic known as the Democratic Party), I think the only fair thing would be to hold the primaries again.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
That's absoulutely right, King, we made it up. Perhaps the numerous investigations into Ohio voter fraud by a variety of different persons was all made up. And you are right, the dems position on this whole thing would be indefensible….if there weren't such a thing as the U.S. Constitution.
And Vince, yes, get to know all of the man's names. I'm sure you have other terms you use for him that you're to chicken to use here. Doesn't matter, soon enough you'll be calling him sir. How does that sit with you? Now it's your turn to move to Canada!
February 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
King,
The race is still looks like its Comrade Hillary's to lose.
But she has to be careful. Barack, the Magic Negro, is in the mix, and anything is possible …. if he has enough magic.
I mean, look at what B. Hussein Obama already accomplished. He's gotten millions of fools hanging on every drop of empty rhetoric that spills forth from his mouth.
If there ever was a case of mass delusion on a national scale with form placed over substance, B. Hussein Obama and his little army of sycophants is it.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
da truth, are you one of those lefties who vowed to move to Canada either time if Bush won? LOL Wouldn't that be funny. I would rather go to Australia than Canada since they are not as socialistic now as Canada is.
Why is it that you of the left handed bent continue to question those who did the 2004 election about who won in Ohio? You threw in all the whining about the 2000 ballots in Florida when the state Supreme Court tried to side with the Dems to change all those election rules, after the fact, and couldn't stand to have the most supreme court in the land, according to that thing you keep referring to, the Constitution of the United States of America. That is one time that the Constitution worked against the Dems and you all cried about it. Later on some newspapers and magazines went into Florida and recounted the ballots using very liberal methods and found that Bush actually did win. I love it when you guys howl about those two events with no proof concerning what you have to use for argument.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Ghost is a special person…
"….even the loyal field hands (like Al Sharpton and super delegate John Lewis of D-Ga.) of the Dim's plantation of government dependence are waking up to see how they're being played for fools."
"Barack, the Magic Negro, is in the mix, and anything is possible …. if he has enough magic.
I mean, look at what B. Hussein Obama already accomplished."
truth was trying to get Casper, our unfriendly Ghost, riled up. Doesn't take much, does it truth my buddy?
Racism has many expressions. It's always an expression based on ignorance and fear…but it has many forms of expression. Cowardly racism is the modern form. Gutless racism, the modern form, expresses itself in little "cutsey" ways. Today's racism is what non-racist conservatives(perhaps an endangered species) might call politically correct racism.
It's a form of racism that dings around the edges, but because of fear, won't or can't speak it's mind.
With an Obama candidacy, I'm afraid, this form of racism will be witnessed everywhere. Perhaps, we as a people need to go through this cleansing process and perhaps the hateful ugliness that will be on display will shame the nation once and for all over the overt hypocrisy of that "all men are created equal" stuff.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
The racism is at the heart & soul of the Dim Party. It is how the Dims try and win elections, by keeping the blacks a) in a paranoid state and b) dependent on big government while destroying their families with weflare programs.
And now in an ironic turn events, the Dim's so-called first "black president, Bill Clinton, himself has been caught playing the old race card against Sen. B. Hussein Obama. This is rich.
But in this regard, Bill Clinton is only returning to basics. His political mentor was the rabid racist Sen. Fulbright (D-AK). Say, didn't you Dims know that?
So come you dim Dims of Summit County, clean your own house of the filth of racism before you dare accuse anyone else of it. Repudiate the racists in your ranks — including the black racists that have found a home there.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Jimmy,
Here's some more of what McConnell said. This is from the sunday Chris Wallace show:
WALLACE: …let me ask you a specific question, because as you know, there's kind of a general issue here.
The president, in a clip we played at the top, said that the country is now more in danger of attack. Here's what leading Democrats are saying, and let's put it up.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says, "The president's comments are wrong, divisive and nothing but fear-mongering." Senator Ted Kennedy says, "The DNI's," that's you, "The DNI's latest comments show yet again the shamelessness of the administration's tactics."
Question: Is the White House making the situation sound worse than it really is?
MCCONNELL: Chris, President Bush is repeating advice that I'm giving him. As you know, I am not a political figure. I am a professional. I've been doing this for 40 years.
And our situation now, when the terrorist threat is increasing because they've achieved — Al Qaeda's achieved de facto safe haven in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan — the threat is going up.
And therefore, we do not have the agility and the speed that we had before to be able to move and try to capture their communications to thwart their planning.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Vince,
It looks like you have run into liberal argument #3, known as 'when you have no logical response, call your opponent a racist'. I think your 'magic negro' remark went straight over their heads, and if they can't see how the welfare state is the Dem plantation, then I just feel sorry for them. It's no coincidence whatsoever that nearly every inner city slum is overseen by Democrats.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am
"It's no coincidence whatsoever that nearly every inner city slum is overseen by Democrats."
Exactly, King.
And let's expand that insight of yours to note also that just about all the failed public school systems in the country are run by Dims in Dim controlled cities.
Whether it is their deliberate intention of not (and some say it is), the Dims keep the blacks in failed schools and hence dumbed down. This, in turn, prevents minorities from entering the middle class and thus leaves them dependent of Big Government. Nice, huh?
Aren't the Dims a swell bunch?
February 18th, 2008 at 11:46 am
When I was a little younger, I used to think the Dems were just a bunch of misguided do-gooders, wanting to do the right thing and help people, but not understanding how they were actually hurting the very people they were trying to help. But the longer I observed the Dems resolute resistance to changing their failing policies, i.e, public schools, Social Security, welfare, etc, the more I began to realize the liberal Dem leadership had Marxist intent, and their only real goal was to acquire power to make that intent a reality. Every single policy they push aims toward that goal, which is the centralization and concentration of power in the hands of the federal government. Their followers may still be mostly the 'useful idiots', but people like Hillary would push this country just as far toward leftist utopia as she could get away with. Ditto for Obama, from everything I've seen.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
" the more I began to realize the liberal Dem leadership had Marxist intent, and their only real goal was to acquire power to make that intent a reality. Every single policy they push aims toward that goal, which is the centralization and concentration of power in the hands of the federal government."
Yes, uyes, yes.
And to see when & how the Democrats when from being "liberal" to leftist (Marxist), read "Why the Democrats are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People's Party" by Mark Stricherz.
Stricherz shows how the McGovern reforms of the early 1970's made ethnic Catholics and other normal groups uncomfortable in the Democratic Party and transfered power into the hands of odious groups like the race hustlers, radical feminists, abortionists, hard core Leftists, radical unionists, anarchists, and the like.
By today's Dim standards, JFK would be repudiated as an anti-commie, tax cutting a neo-con …. which is why the young president was assinated by a die-in-the-wool leftist and not a rightwinger. Ah, those facts again, how the Dims hate them.
February 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
King, I'm done with this blog, but you right on when you say:
It looks like you have run into liberal argument #3, known as 'when you have no logical response, call your opponent a racist'
Only you were talking about Vince when you said it. Stereotypes have to start somewhere, right?
And Roy, I don't know where you get your info from, but one of the reasons the left turned on Kerry is because he would not demand an investigation into the voter fraud in Ohio in 2004. Look it up. But hey, once again you show your typical right-sided singlemindness by not responding to what I said, rather what you wanted me to say. You must have taken Rove's class in IF YOU REPEAT IT LOUD ENOUGH, EVENTUALLY THE PUBLIC WILL BELIEVE IT. Sorry, that doesn't work with me.
February 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
da truth,
Okay. Thanks for stopping by. I know it's hard to be a Democrat here. I appreciate you sticking this long.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:46 am
"IF HE ONLY HAD A BRAIN" he might have learned something.
Adios.
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
This is what's "rich"….
"The racism is at the heart & soul of the Dim Party. It is how the Dims try and win elections, by keeping the blacks a) in a paranoid state and b) dependent on big government while destroying their families with weflare programs."
Facts suggest that Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform bill that made welfare, in many circumstances, more difficult to obtain. Why would Clinton have done this if Democrats wanted blacks to stay "dependent" on big government?
By the way, what is the answer to how well middle class blacks did during Bill Clinton's tenure? And what would be the answer for why blacks have not done well in the 00's?
Finally, what could possibly be the answer to why there is not ONE GOP senator or House member? Is that because the blacks are just too stupid to recognize which political party gives a damn about stuff they care about?
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Democrats, the party of slavery.
Democrats, the party of Jim Crow laws.
Democrats, the party of the slavery of govt. dependency.
Democrats, the party of the race baiters.
Democrats, the party of KKK Byrd (Dim-WVa).
Democrats, the party of black racism.
Democrats, the party of quotas & affirmative action.
February 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Democrats…..the party of the new progressive majority era.
You forgot that one.
And again, which blacks represent the GOP in Congress?
February 25th, 2008 at 7:11 am
"Why would Clinton have done this [signed welfare reform] if Democrats wanted blacks to stay "dependent" on big government?"
You forget that Democrats were against welfare reform, predicted massive increases in poverty and crime if it were implemented (there's an example of how Dems REALLY think about blacks), and that Clinton himself resisted it for two years before he signed the Republican bill, which was very successful.
"By the way, what is the answer to how well middle class blacks did during Bill Clinton's tenure?"
A late 90's economic boom that had much to do with dot-coms and very little to do with Bill Clinton.
"what would be the answer for why blacks have not done well in the 00's?"
I think you must prove this statement to be true, but assuming it is, it would be a reflection of the general economic times. The Bush presidency has had to deal with issues Clinton didn't, such as an inherited recession after the dot-com bubble burst, the devastation of 9/11, the devastation of Katrina. That stuff depressed the economy and skewed the numbers down. Following all that, there was much economic growth until the 4th quarter of 2007. There is no simple-minded 'Clinton was great and Bush is an idiot' explanation here, much as you would like for there to be.
"Finally, what could possibly be the answer to why there is not ONE GOP senator or House member?"
90% of blacks are Democrats, that's why.
"Is that because the blacks are just too stupid to recognize which political party gives a damn about stuff they care about?"
I have to ask a question of my own here. What would that 'stuff they care about' be ? Would it be 'free stuff', 'other people's money', 'preferential treatment' ? Or what ? Nobody ever said that the Dems don't try to pander for the black vote. They certainly do that, even though the creation of the welfare state by the Dems was the most damaging thing done to the black community in my lifetime. It literally ripped it apart by the seams. So yeah, I guess I do question that black loyalty to the Dems. Big time.
The things I care about, for the good of my country (as opposed to the good of myself, where I would just vote everything I could into my own pocket, the country be damned), are low taxes, limited government, a strong defense, and liberty. What do black people care about, Rev ?