I'm asking congressional Republicans to read this slowly because it might confuse them, but they have a majority. That means they can now pass a clean CR. If Democrats then vote it down, angry that they didn't get their pork-filled 1,500-page monstrosity, then they will be the ones shutting the government down. Jeffries would be forced to eat his own words about hurting "everyday Americans."

The same thing applies to all the emotional pleas about "disaster relief."

Again, make Democrats own this. If they want to make disaster relief a marker, then pass a standalone bill and make them vote it down. What excuse would they have to do so after they proclaimed how vital it is? And if Democrats do scuttle it, then Republicans can go to the podium and place the blame where it belongs.

It's so simple, and I'm at a loss as to why that wasn't the plan in the first place. If Republicans can't grow a backbone and play hardball now, especially when the opportunity is being handed to them on a silver platter, then when can they? Democrats have no leverage, and it's long past time they are made to understand what losing actually entails. It means not getting all your priorities passed because you scream "crisis" every few months after refusing to govern in a normal fashion.

Republicans need to put their differences aside and come together to do the smart thing. Pass a clean CR and force the hand of Democrat leadership.

Townhall.com @townhallcom
·
.@RepChipRoy: "SWAMP'S GONNA SWAMP!"

"We're just fundamentally un-serious about spending. As long as you got a blank check you can't shrink government. If you can't shrink government you can't live free!"

10:51 AM · Dec 17, 2024 //

This is not the Way. And how long has it been, by the way, since Congress approved an actual budget? Oh, that's right - 1997. It would almost be funny if it wasn't so alarming; it's like they aren't even trying. //

We, and our elected representatives, would do well to remember the words of the late Barry Goldwater:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. //

TheAmericanExperiment
3 hours ago edited
"I'll go one step further and say that we must reduce not only the deficit but the national debt. "

Ward,

The national debt is a fiction. The interest however is very real and the owners of The Federal Reserve System (fancy name for private -for profit corporation) are raking it in.

JP Morgan financed two American wars in the late 1800s. How did he do it. He loaned the Federal Government actual dollars from his bank reserves. in the early 1900s he had an idea for the most lucrative business in the history of the world. Financing the Federal Government with monopoly money.

In 1910 he got together with eight other titans of banking and crafted the plan for The Fed. 15 regional banks all plugged into a central bank in DC but ultimately run by The Fed in New York.

What's cost of printing money? Inflation.

If the Federal government was printing money into existence that would be the cost. Inflation.

So why do we have a national debt in addition to inflation? The Mandrake Mechanism. The Federal Government doesn't print money. In 1913 they granted The Fed a charter to do that and then loan the money to the government at interest. The Fed literally creates money out of this air and then loans it to the American people. Now The Fed can only finance debt and what was their model? Financing wars. The US Congress was very debt averse but one thing you could count on them for... financing a war. The story goes on and on.

For the last 110 years we've had a State Department and CIA fomenting trouble all over the world. Starting fires and then putting them out. And back home we have an FBI always vigilant for any member of Congress, the press or the public for that matter who questions the lucrative arrangement.

So there is no national debt. It's all stolen money. Call it the crime of the last century. //

Leitmotif Sam Grant
an hour ago
Understood. And I do not disagree that the Creature From Jekyll Island has been a manifest cancer on the body politic of the republic
But, I'm less inclined to agree that it's principal goal has been to forment foreign wars.

Rather, it's principal goal has been to privatize the profits of big member banks, while simultaneously socializing xing the risks and financial busts that are a direct result of the inherently fraudulent fractional reserve banking paradigm that is, alas, at the very core of our modern financial system. //

anon-qacb Billy Wallace
4 hours ago edited
In 2008 our National Debt was around 10 Trillion, that's the year Obumer took office. The Democrats have held the Presidency 12 out of the last 16 years and our deficit is now 36 Trillion. So it took us 240 years to get to 10 trillion and only 16 years to add another 26 trillion more. How does that even happen, That is NUTS ! Regardless of which party you belong to we all should have enough brains to realize this can't continue. Name calling does nothing to help the cause and bring people together.

Despite her age and frailty, she comes from a solidly blue San Francisco area district that would send a chicken pot pie to Congress if there was a "D" carved into the crust, so she's probably safe to hold her seat as long as she wants.

And, we must also note, she has grown monstrously rich while in office, in no small part due to uncanny success in investing; the Pelosis, Nancy and her husband Paul, have an investment portfolio that has returned an uncanny 700 percent over the last 10 years. //

(N)o.(B)ody.(C)ares
10 hours ago
Crooks? I’m inclined to think “Crooks” is small potatoes term for small crimes.
Pelosi’s grift makes the mafia look tame. Clinton’s know to ride Auntie Nans coat tails.
They are the quintessential “Government Mob” Bosses. They know where the bodies are buried and know how to keep their money flowing.
If one considers how Public Officials become Multimillionaires while in office, need to follow the money and how it flows. They sent Martha Stewart to prison for the very thing they have perfected.
They hate competition, and the laws prove it

Another line of criticism focuses on Hegseth’s personal life. To be sure, Hegseth wouldn’t meet the qualifications to serve as an elder or pastor in a church, and he has admitted to poor decisions in the past. But this raises a broader cultural question: When did Americans stop celebrating redemption stories? Today, Hegseth is happily married, active in his church, and a devoted father who embraces classical homeschooling. He served his country in combat and earned the respect and loyalty of those who worked with him in both military and civilian life.

Redemption is a deeply American ideal, but it often seems selectively applied. I recall reading about convicted bank robber Shon Hopwood, who, after release, earned a law degree and went on to teach at the Georgetown University Law Center—a story presented as an inspiring tale of growth and perseverance. But do the same people who applauded that story extend the same grace to Hegseth, a man who has overcome personal failings to achieve admirable success? If we value growth and change, shouldn’t we apply this principle consistently?

Evaluating someone’s past for predictions of future behavior is fair, but the recent past matters just as much as the distant past. //

Ultimately, the debate over Hegseth’s nomination reflects deeper societal tensions: between forgiveness and accountability, between ideological loyalty and open-mindedness, and between traditional and unconventional leadership. Whether or not one believes Hegseth to be the right person to serve as the next secretary of defense, this debate forces us to confront how we choose leaders and what values we prioritize in doing so.

As for me in this moment, I echo what Abraham Lincoln said of Ulysses S. Grant. “I can’t spare this man, he fights!” The bureaucrats had their turn. We would do well to have a warrior like Pete Hegseth leading the military as soon as possible.

Steven Dennis @StevenTDennis
·
In one of their final acts in office, Sinema and Manchin nuke a Biden pick for the National Labor Relations Board in a big loss for organized labor.
1:57 PM · Dec 11, 2024. //

Well, payback is rarely kind, and Sinema and Manchin just delivered a well-deserved helping of it. Voters rejected the Democratic Party labor agenda in November. Giving McFerran another five-year term would have been a slap in the face to the American people who do not want unions being given special carveouts at a cost to everyone else.

Consider this another example of Democrats overplaying their hand. They don't know how to do anything in moderation, and in their lust for power, they gave up two formerly solid votes (when it comes to confirmations) to appease the far-left. Those chickens have come home to roost. I don't know where Sinema and Manchin go from here now that they are leaving office, but their preservation of the filibuster and rejection of the Democrat status-quo has done the country a great service.

The theatrics around Kavanaugh's confirmation were Democrats trying to play the long game, but they overplayed their hand so severely that the sympathy built up for the embattled nominee. Sure, the narrative survived in too many people, but anyone remotely paying attention found themselves disgusted by the Democrats, effectively giving Republicans and Kavanaugh the PR victory.

But while Kavanaugh was and still is technically a threat to the left, Trump's incoming cabinet is one built for one purpose, and that's deconstructing the deep state and exposing the corruption within the government so it can be reduced and its power decreased. The Democrat Party, whose entire concern is maintaining that power and influence, considers this a nightmare scenario. This is a code red situation for them.

As such, I see the Democrats going absolutely overboard in ways that make the Kavanaugh hearing look like an elementary school stage production. The fearmongering they will resort to will be such that future generations will want to study it.

There is no way that the Democrats will want their deepest secrets uncovered, and they will do what they always have done in order to avert losing even an ounce of their power: they will resort to lies, drama, and fear. Schumer's letter confirms this for me, as it sets the tone for the Democrats being "the adults in the room," and as such, any overblown accusations they resort to will be taken with some form of belief by onlookers.

But this won't work this time around. The Kavanaugh hearings came at a time when voter's fatigue with Democrats hadn't reached its height and the orange man effectively passed off as "bad." Now, Democrats are going into these hearings with the public actually behind Trump, and excited about this nominees. Democrats are going to be fighting an uphill battle in both Washington and the public square.

Neither House Speaker Mike Johnson nor soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader John Thune had the power to call a recess and force through a nomination. While they both indicated they would allow that to happen, that was never the question because it wasn't up to them.

Instead, it would have taken a full vote by both chambers to recess. In the House, that can happen with a simple majority. In the Senate, a recess vote can be filibustered, making 60 votes the threshold. What that means is that Democrats and the Republicans who opposed Gaetz could easily block any attempt at a recess appointment.

But what about the theory that Trump could force a recess with executive power? That would have also been precarious because the Constitutional language specifically applies to a disagreement between the chambers on when to recess. To trigger that, you would first need both chambers to vote to recess on different days. That wasn't going to happen. It's also worth noting that three of the five conservative justices on the Supreme Court have already made it clear they believe recess appointments are unconstitutional, which means any challenge would have likely succeeded given the makeup of the court.

On one level, I don't blame the Dynamic Duo for not wanting to show up. The trial of Laken Riley's murderer just wound up (Laken Riley's Family and Friends Give Heartbreaking Impact Statements; Judge Sentences Jose Ibarra), and I can understand why they don't want to talk about immigration. I can also understand that both of these guys know they are leaving office in the next couple of months, and they don't see any use in taking the public beating this hearing would entail.

Paradoxically, this move could boost Trump's upcoming showdown with the Department of Justice, DHS, and the FBI. They are showing themselves to be a pampered, privileged group that doesn't think they have to answer to even a senior senator in the ruling party. I predict this will not work out well when the hammer falls, and they come running to guys like Peters to make the pain go away.

Under House rules, the Speaker has “general control” of facilities in the chamber, giving him the authority to issue the policy surrounding bathrooms.

“All single-sex facilities in the Capitol and House Office Buildings — such as restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms — are reserved for individuals of that biological sex,” Johnson said. “It is important to note that each Member office has its own private restroom, and unisex restrooms are available throughout the Capitol.”

“Women deserve women’s only spaces,” he added. //

Johnson’s ruling, which occurred on the “Transgender Day of Remembrance,” is sure to make liberals’ heads explode. But he is the Speaker, and the Speaker has spoken. //

etba_ss
40 minutes ago
This is good for Johnson. I'm glad to see him step up to the plate and actually lead, using the power he has been given.

The second part is what happens when it is violated. That has to be known and ready to act on it. The left will violate it to see if Johnson is serious or if he is just blowing smoke to keep his spot as Speaker. He better have a plan for action.

The punishment should be the same as what would happen to me if I did it. These men should be treated like any other men who invade these spaces.

The files are all exhibits to a motion filed in a defamation case in Florida related to the sex trafficking allegations levied against Gaetz - allegations the US Department of Justice investigated for 18 months before declining to pursue charges because, sources told the Washington Post, the two main witnesses weren't credible. Some of the exhibits, including deposition testimony from a woman who claims she had sex with Gaetz when she was 17, have been sealed by the judge presiding over that case. //

In reply to ABC's "story," Gaetz said:

"These allegations are invented and would constitute false testimony to Congress. This false smear following a three-year criminal investigation should be viewed with great skepticism.". //

As I wrote back then, after Gaetz blistered Wray over the FBI's harassment of COVID whistleblower and Chinese defector Dr. Yan Li-Meng during a congressional hearing:

Is it any wonder that the entire Democrat/Media Complex is trying to destroy Matt Gaetz? Think about when the questions into his supposedly improper relationships with females started flooding the airwaves and which government organization is “investigating” Gaetz. I’m sure it’s all just a big coincidence and not an attempt to silence or intimidate Gaetz.

Kyrsten Sinema @kyrstensinema
·
What’s the one tool that requires the Senate to work in a bipartisan way?

Oh look, the filibuster.

Burgess Everett @burgessev
Schumer to Republicans: "Take care not to misread the will of the American people"

"Do not abandon bipartisanship. It's the best and most effective way to get things done"
2:22 PM · Nov 18, 2024 //

The less Washington gets done, the better for everyone involved. We don't need a Congress that can make sweeping, dramatic changes to the nation based on winning an election by a few percentage points. That's how you end up with internal unrest under the tyranny of the majority.

It may not be a popular position on the right given we just won a sweeping victory, but strengthening, not removing the filibuster is the right move. There's nothing the government can do for me that is that important. I'd rather the behemoth stay out of my way more often than not, and the moment the filibuster ends, it's never coming back. That'd be very bad news the next time Democrats take power. Republicans should use their current leverage to ensure that can't happen.

Harris’ campaign is promising that if she is elected and the numbers in Congress work, Democrats will eliminate the Senate filibuster. //

The Dems are not promising to eliminate the filibuster to break a few ties, with the understanding that there will likely be future turnabout and their worst Republican policy nightmares will come true. This time they are playing for keeps.

If they can broadly eliminate the filibuster, buy four more senators, make millions of illegal aliens citizens with a 51-senator vote, rig our voting system processes, and rejigger the Supreme Court to create a roster of 13 mostly leftist justices, then they can entirely stop speaking to the Republican side of the aisle because they will have a permanent filibuster-proof Senate majority. And the Republicans will never have enough voters to reinstate legislative bumpers for both sides. It is not that Democrats have evaluated the likely conservative counter-offensive and determined that the risk is a good one. They perceive no risk. With all these sweeping changes, they can do whatever they want until the end of time with no practical oversight or influence of the people. The only two things holding them back are a Harris victory in November and a conscience they sorely lack. We will be a functional leftist autocracy. //

The question is who wants to live in a place in which only a single point of view is mandated from the top of government down by people who have proven themselves to be too ineffective to lead under the rules that have existed for generations? Who will support a Republican Party that sees all of this partisan rule breaking coming and does nothing to stop it? This presidential election is a referendum on both parties, neither of which seems able to look to the future to understand its gravity. //

Regardless of how many times Democrat candidates tell us that they are protecting democracy, they are not doing anything of the sort. Democracy is mob rule, one more vote than the other team. The filibuster is not contained in the Constitution but instead is the logical outgrowth of the long-developed Senate rule-making process. For a bill to be filibuster-proof, it required the support of 67 senators until a rule change reduced that number to 60 in 1975. Legislative processes are not designed so one party or the other, with 51 votes, can trade radical swings in our country’s laws and policies. They are designed for the opposite result, to force legislation down the middle and away from both ideological extremes.

Our Constitution and Senate and House rules are written to compel legislators, who work for the people, to stand eye-to-eye, communicate, and compromise for the greater good. The 60 votes serve as an effective buffer against radicalism. Harris and her party have utter disdain for that rule book.

A new documentary on the vice presidency gives a fresh perspective on the complications of American governance. //

No constitutional structure can know or predict every possible scenario that leads down the road of autocracy and anarchy. For this reason, Ben Franklin reportedly told a passerby at the end of the Constitutional Convention that the delegates had created “a republic, if you can keep it.” It falls on all of us — each successive generation of Americans — to rise to Franklin’s challenge. //

“The American Vice President” is available on PBS stations (check your local listings) and can be streamed online and via the PBS app.

Former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) is facing accusations of unethical conduct after it was revealed that she allegedly had private communications with a key witness in the Jan. 6 investigation using an encrypted messaging app.

The lawmaker, a fierce critic of former President Donald Trump, played a pivotal role in the proceedings.

Cheney allegedly exchanged messages with former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson in June 2022 as the investigation was still in full swing, according to Just the News. It is believed she used Signal, the messaging app, as a back channel to discuss the case with Hutchinson.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), chairman of the House Administration oversight subcommittee, brought the allegations to light. //

“Our investigation has uncovered unethical back-channel communications between former Rep. Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson just before Hutchinson changed her sworn testimony,” Loudermilk said. “Not only is communicating with a witness without their attorney present unethical, it undermines the integrity of an investigation. //

“Clearly, Cheney did not want Stefan Passantino representing Hutchinson; as shortly after Cheney and Hutchinson began communicating, Cheney convinced Hutchinson to fire Passantino, and arranged for a new attorney to represent Hutchinson pro-bono. “ //

The revelation has raised questions about Hutchinson’s testimony – especially her wild claims about Trump.

Democrats are trying everything they can to hold onto judicial power in case Trump wins in November. //

Texas’s firebrand attorney general, Ken Paxton, has been particularly successful in procuring injunctions in certain Texas-based federal courts against Biden’s myriad overreaches. Furious, leftists are now seeking to thwart Paxton by taking away a tool he has utilized to great effect: the single-judge division. //

Push to Randomly Assign Cases

Nevertheless, left-wing activists are now attempting to use the Judicial Conference, the supervisory body that essentially acts as the federal judiciary’s own Deep State, to end the use of single-judge divisions in all cases of injunctions against the federal or state government. Earlier this year, the Judicial Conference issued “advisory guidelines” to all the nation’s district courts, recommending that all cases be randomly assigned throughout the district in which they are filed — regardless of the division that actually receives the filing. //

Now, just weeks before a monumental election, leftists have once again ramped up their efforts to ram through a rule in the Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference that would make the previously “advisory” guidance outright mandatory, thus caving to the demands of, among others, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and the Biden Justice Department. The Judicial Conference purports to locate such authority in the Rules Enabling Act, the 1930s-era statute that authorizes the Judicial Conference to prescribe rules of civil and criminal procedure for the federal judiciary.

But Congress — not the judiciary — has the ultimate power to reject any rule promulgated by the Rules Enabling Act. Congress should not hesitate to exercise such power, should the Judicial Conference succeed in pushing through its single-judge division edict. //

But regardless of the election result, it is crucial to flag the left’s latest effort to decimate long-standing judicial norms simply because leftists are furious that they are not consistently getting their way in case outcomes. This attempt mirrors Justice Elena Kagan’s desperate and ludicrous call for lower federal courts to supervise the Supreme Court when it comes to recusal decisions. The proposal now before the Judicial Conference’s Rules Committee caves to the whining of leftist commentators upset over politically charged rulings. It is a nakedly political power grab.

Should the Rules Committee adopt the proposal, the Supreme Court needs to put its foot down. Because the justices have been issuing many decisions that leftists detest, the court in recent years has been subject to numerous high-profile political and physical attacks. //

Congress can also act — and has the leverage to do so. Right now, the Judicial Conference wants the U.S. House to pass two separate judge-related bills. One of those bills would authorize about 66 new federal judgeships; the other would extend some temporary judgeships. The House Judiciary Committee should refuse to act on either bill until the Judicial Conference agrees it will not alter the case-assignment process through its Deep State committees. Congress should demand that if the Judicial Conference wants changes to case-assignment procedure, it will seek new authorizing legislation so as to not create a conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 137. Congress, which alone writes federal law under our Constitution, must shut down the Judicial Conference’s highly dubious Rules Enabling Act legal theory of delegated power.

It's honestly hilarious how much some of this language mirrors the things Republicans have been lambasted for in the past. Anytime a GOP politician even suggests that they will only certify the results if the election is "fair," they are piledriven by the press as promoting "insurrection." Yet, when Democrats do the same thing, the mainstream journalists give a collective shrug.

Raskin wasn't the only one singing that tune, though. Several others with a history of objecting to the Electoral College also mused that things must go "as we expect it to" for them to certify a Trump victory. //

So are Democrats teeing up a claim that election fraud happened and, thus, certification must be delayed? Because if so, that would break every irony meter in existence.

Expectedly, Axios finished out its piece by defending Raskin and his colleagues, claiming that while both parties have objected to certification, it's different when Democrats do it.

At the center of this debate is a bipartisan group of senators, informally dubbed the "Gang of Six," who are quietly working on potential changes to the 340B drug pricing program. On the Republican side, Senators John Thune (SD), Jerry Moran (KS), and Shelley Capito (WV) have joined their Democratic colleagues, Senators Debbie Stabenow (MI), Ben Cardin (MD), and Tammy Baldwin (WI), in tackling the future of this crucial program.

For those unfamiliar, the 340B program allows hospitals and healthcare providers in low-income and rural areas to purchase medications at discounted prices from pharmaceutical companies. These savings are vital, allowing hospitals to remain financially viable and continue providing services to underserved communities. The discounted drugs are often sold at regular prices to insured patients, allowing these healthcare providers to use the profit margin to cover costs, pay healthcare staff, and maintain operations.

Why does this matter? Because rural states like South Dakota, West Virginia, and Kansas rely heavily on the 340B program to keep their healthcare facilities open. For example, South Dakota, despite its sparse population, has 339 active 340B entities, providing much-needed healthcare access to its rural communities. West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the country, has over 1,060 of these entities, and Kansas has 946. These numbers underscore how essential the program is for ensuring that working-class and rural patients have access to hospital services.

But this isn't just about those three states—it's about the broader picture of healthcare access in rural America. Across the country, rural hospitals are struggling to keep their doors open, and the 340B program is a lifeline. Just in the past month, we’ve seen MercyOne closing its Primghar location in Iowa, the Regional Health System shutting down its Norman Regional Hospital in Oklahoma, and a temporary closure of a 340B facility in rural Ohio. Without 340B, these closures would likely become far more common.

The pharmaceutical industry, unsurprisingly, isn't a fan of the program. They’d rather see these discounts eliminated, arguing that hospitals should rely on government funding or higher taxes to stay afloat. However, the reality is that Big Pharma agreed to 340B in exchange for access to lucrative Medicare and Medicaid markets, and now they want to renege on that deal. If they succeed, rural communities could be left without access to healthcare, or taxpayers could be forced to foot the bill for direct government bailouts to struggling hospitals.

When one of the more senior Senate Democrats sounds the alarm bell regarding governmental failures, it says something — particularly if it involves former President Donald Trump (and I don't mean in a way that's critical of him). According to Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the American people are going to be "shocked, appalled, astonished" when they see the interim report that lawmakers plan to release shortly regarding the July 13 assassination attempt on the former president. //

However, he did say that he believes there needs to be more accountability. "Without accountability, this kind of failure and lapse will happen again." //

Hallen
7 hours ago
Wow. If he's saying that, it means it's bad and there's no way for them to spin it. He's getting out in front of it so the stink doesn't land on him. That means it's the administration's fault which means it's the fault of Democrats.

It's official. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act will indeed be a part of the continuing resolution (CR), which Speaker Mike Johnson introduced on Friday in a 46-page proposal to fund the U.S. government through the 2024 election. And the other side of the aisle is speaking out loudly in opposition to it.

via The Hill:

The 46-page plan would keep the government funded into March 2025, while tacking on language for stricter proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting, setting the stage for a budget showdown with Senate Democrats later this month. //

President Joe Biden has promised to veto any bill that crosses his desk containing the SAVE Act.

OK, that's a lot of text, but the writers raise an interesting point. If they are correct in how this is done, there's potential here that billions - billions of dollars may have been funneled to Democrat candidates, supporters, and donors. And here's the catch; that 1977 change in the law means it may actually be legal.