Lest we forget. Information the Senate Dems don't like talking about.... OR Go nuclear or go home!

For those of us paying attention to the Neil Gorsuch Judiciary hearings, both the question and answer portion of the hearings last week, and the Judiciary confirmation vote this morning (Pacific time).  Frequently, we heard Merrick Garland's name uttered.  Frequently it was in the context of "it's not fair!  Garland didn't even get consideration!  That's never happened!  It's not fair!" 


Ah, but that's the catch, isn't it?  This has happened before.  Twice.  And it was the Democrats both times.  But you don't hear the Demoncrats talking about that, do you?  No, of course not.  Because Trump is in office presently.  Various members of the Judiciary Committee on the Republican side did say many times that if Hillary had won, we'd never hear Merrick Garland's name again.  Ever.  And you know what?  They're right.  While Garland did signal that he was willing to push gun control to ever new heights in his Appeal's Court experience, it is difficult to believe he would not have done the same on a US Supreme Court that he was appointed to.  So, when the Demoncrats talk about a "Litmus Test", they know all about that.  They do the same thing when a Democratic appointee is made.  Both sides do it to one degree or another. 


So, as I said, this issue of Garland not even getting a consideration months before Trump won (and like it or not, he DID win and he IS your president, like him or not), this is NOT the first time this has happened.  It has happened twice before, both times when the Demoncrats controlled the House and Senate. 


When did this happen, you ask?  Well, Liberals aren't asking, but Conservatives who pay attention already know.  It happened in 1192 and 2007.  Again, both times the Congress was controlled by the Demoncrats.  Both Senator Harry "Dingy Harry" Reid and Senator Chuck "Up Chuck" Schummer stated quite clearly that President George W. Bush would not get any US Supreme Court nominees through a Democratically controlled Senate 18 months prior to the end of his term.  Then again, in 1992, Joe Biden, a Senator at the time, made it quite clear in a very long and detailed floor speech in which he outlined the reasons why the Senate would not be considering a US Supreme Court Nominee from President H.W. Bush in his final year in office. 


Prior to the election, the Demoncrats continued to cry about how the US Supreme Court needed 9 judges and not 8.  That is, until President Trump.  Then, all of a sudden, something really weird happened.  The Senate Democrats seemed to think that 8 was just fine.  No problems there. 


Now, when Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, said a nominee from President Obama would not be considered  until after the election, to see the outcome of the election before a nominee was considered.  Demoncrats screamed and whined, cried and moaned about this. This was inexcusable and had not happened before and there was no reason to do this.Then, those of us who remembered, began harassing Senator Up-Chuck Schummer about how he voted in 2007 and how he made it clear that a US Supreme Court nominee from President George W. Bush wouldn't be considered in the last 18 months of his final term.  Up-Chuck began being reminded SO much that Up Chuck began snapping at his reminder people "STOP TELLING ME HOW I VOTED IN 2007!"  No Up Chuck, we won't cause you did the same thing in 2007 and it was done in 1992 by Joe Biden.  Everyone on the Demoncrat side seemed to be fine with it at that time.  Then, again, all of a sudden, something really weird happened.  Suddenly, it wasn't fine to do that anymore.  Of course, this was primarily because Trump had won the election.  I'll pause here for a brief moment while the Snow Flakes to grab a crying towel..........Ready? Ok, a couple more seconds........Ok, we're moving on.


So, there is president for what the Republicans are doing here.  It was a president set by DEMONCRATS.  Of course, the Demoncrats will not be telling you this.  They assume that Americans are simply stupid people with short term memory.  Maybe that's why Republicans are symbolized by an elephant who are said to have excellent memories and Demoncrats are symbolized by a jackass.  And I don't mean, Bill Clinton or Barak Obama.  Although, those work too. 


Next thing to know about the hearings this morning.  Senator Feinstein and Senator Leahy both continued to talk not so quietly over the person whose time it was to speak.  Now, at one point, Senator Lee talked about Gorsuch's legal analysis and who good it was.  If you were listening VERY closely at this exact moment, the "hot mic" caught Feinstein telling Leahy that "this is going to be a problem for us.  We'll have to figure out..." and then it was garbled.  So, this proves that the Democrats know Gorsuch is qualified and their strategy is to screw up this nomination so Gorsuch doesn't get in.  That's their strategy.  Inte4restingly enough, at one point, Senator Leahy stated that "country comes before party", but clearly, from the conversation caught by the hot mic, this is just something he said, not something he believes in. 


So, where do we go?  Demoncrats decry the "nuclear option", yet it was Senator Harry Reid who brought the idea up to begin with.  He had been warned several times by members of his party that if he did that, someday it would come back to bite the Cemoncrats in the butt.  And, that time has now come.  Up Chuck Schummer stated that Gorsuch is out of the mainstream, way out.  Yet, he receives the highest recommendations from the American Bar Association.  So, are we to understand then, that the American Bar Association is way out of the mainstream too? 


So, I'm in favor of the Republicans utilizing the Nuclear Option.  Why?  Because Demoncrats brought it up as an option to begin with, before Senator Reid lost the Senate to the Republicans.  Clearly, they're in favor of using it themselves.  But, when someone else considers using it, oh no!  You can't do that.  Why not?  You were considering it. 


Thanks to Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking majority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee for bringing up the information of which I'm able to share here.  With all Demoncrats praising Senator Grassley for his leadership during the confirmation hearings, I don't think they can legitimately de-cry him for bringing this up. 


As always, if you have an opinion you'd like to share with your Senators regarding the Gorsuch nomination, either for or against, please contact your senator by looking them up on www.senate.gov in order to contact them.  Do this before Friday as that is the planned time for voting. 

APPARENTLY, WE'RE ALL JUST HALLUCINATING.....

Anyone see the recent president forum with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?  This would be the one that Mat Lauer has been getting all kinds of flack for.  The claim is that he was much tougher on Clinton than on Trump.  Really?  One report indicates that Trump was asked 16 individual questions, while Clinton only answered 8.  But, it's not about the quantity, Libs say, but about the quality of the questions.  Lauer really  hammered her on questions of her e-mail and the classified markings.  She continues to lie, despite overwhelming evidence.  If Hillary can't take that kind of questioning coming from a true Lib who pulls out all the stops for her like Matt Lauer, how is she going to handle the Presidential debates?  Oh, two of the three will be from Liberal news organizations.  But, as much as I dislike Trump, I hope he keeps hammering away at her on this.  Maybe she should be checked for ear pieces prior to the debates......

This brings us to the ear piece debate.  The Clinton camp denies any use of an ear piece used during the forum.  However, pictures have recently come to light that very clearly show, something is in her ear.  Something shiny inside her ear.  Now, unless she admits to waxing the inside of her ear, See the pictures below for yourself.

 

 

 

So, as you can see, she is very clearly wearing something.  And since she is very prone to lying and begin caught in a lie and then lying about her not lying, why should we believe her?  Need further evidence?  Did you hear her speak during the forum?  She sounds as though she's reading off a cue card.  She is clearly listening to something and then speaking.  Advice to Hillary for the debates.  If you're going to wear another earpiece, maybe practice with using it first so you sound more natural. 

 

Additionally, a news story by True Pundit claimed that the NYPD noticed it too.  “NYPD sources involved with the NBC forum’s security detail confirm Clinton was wearing an ‘inductive earpiece,” the same technology employed by almost all lead Broadway actors to receive forgotten lines and stealth off-stage cues from directors.   Now, you may say that, well, that's not a legitimate news source".  Ok, fine.  I did a general search for the NYPD denying that they'd said this.  Nothing.  Not a thing.  The Clinton campaign, as I said before, denies the use of a hearing aid and says it was lights or a flash.  Again, unless she waxed her ear, she was hearing a hearing aid.  And again, listen to her speak.  It is not a natural flow of words, but very much a revetment.  So again, Hillary is lying.  And this is who Libs support for President.  

Really?

It's been almost two years since you've heard from the Hideous Chicken, but this is worth it.  Breaking news today.  Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton met with Loretta Lynch, the US Attorney General.  You know, the lady that would be prosecuting Hillary Clinton if that should be the recommendation of the FBI Investigation, which we have all been reading in the news (clearly not the Liberal news) presents itself as pretty rock solid.  The evidence of wrong doing is overwhelming.  It is clear why her IT guy who set up the server pleaded the 5th.  He had an immunity deal, and he pleads the 5th.  Fine, he didn't live up to his end of the bargain, so prosecute him. 

Why would Slick Willie be secretly meeting with Loretta Lynch, who is potentially going to be the person that prosecutes his wife, wink wink, nudge nudge.  This appears to reek of impropriety and a serious conflict of interest.  What could he possible have to say to her?  They both declared that Hillary's potential prosecution never even came up.  Really?  I hardly buy that.  The thing that has the potential to put his wife in a federal prison, didn't come up?  Sure.  Not buying it. 

So, what might they have talked about?  Well, maybe a deal was made whereby if Lynch agreed not to prosecute, maybe there might be a US Supreme Court nomination in her future if Hillary became President?  Possibly.  It's all just thinking out loud right now.  However, if the evidence indicates wrong doing, and it most certainly proves she told her family and the American people two different things, it most certainly shows she was hacked and now we have some of the hackers telling us how easy it was! 

So, if Lunch refuses to prosecute, despite the evidence, what does that say about our justice system.  There have been examples in the past relating to leaked classified documents.  David Petraeus for example.  He's the general that had that affair with his biographer and leaked her information?  They threw the book at him and he did less than what the evidence against Hillary shows.  Then again, she's a Clinton.  A set of rules for themselves and a set of rules for all other Americans.  Typical of Libs.  If a Republican had had a meeting such as this, would there be any doubt as to how bad this would look?  But when a Democrat does it, everything's ok, and how dare you suggest otherwise! 

This will most certainly be a very interesting election folks.  Don't let the Liberal media bury this story.  Be aware, stay informed. 

Libs must be proud of Obama......

So, Libs screamed, bitched and moaned regarding Bush going into Iraq and Afghanistan with guns blazing.  They cried about his "you're either with us or against us" mantra and that you can't negotiate with terrorists.  Bush warned us if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, the problem would become worse and we would be likely to fight them on our turf, not theirs.  Obama pulled out our troops and loudly announced the date of departure.  This, despite the recommendation of our generals.  Now, here we are with ISIS now running havoc.  Obama even referred to them as "the JV Team".  Since that time, we've had 4 beheadings.  That blood is on Obama's  hands now.  This was a direct result of his pulling out our troops before he should have, to serve the Extreme Left Base.  Then, Obama seemed to scramble to get his head out of his ass to decide what to do.  He first began talking about going after them, but not taking them out; as though only hurting them would solve the problem.  Once a brain dead lib, always a brain dead lib.  Apparently, he was still operating under the delusion that these folks can be minimized or negotiated with.

The words of Bush came back to haunt us, unless you were watching the Liberal News Media, which is everything except Fox and talk radio.  Yep, no other stations/sources reported Bush's words.  Bush had also, quite clearly, said that we would either fight the terrorists in their land, or ours.  And, we hear today about the beheading of a woman and another who was stabbed by a recent convert to Islam named Nolan (last name).  And it wasn't all that long ago that ISIS began calling upon Muslims around the world to rise up and answer the call.  It has been reported by employees of this individual, Nolan, that he had been fired for trying to recruit others to Islam.  So, the call is issued to rise up, and now we have our very own beheading in the US!  Wonderful! 

And just a couple of days ago, Obama spoke awfully tough about how the only thing that terrorists understood was the use of force; which he did not get permission to do that from Congress.  Seems Bush was heavily criticized for his tough talk about terrorists and his use of force and not going to congress; which he actually did.  Now, when Obama does it, well, it's just fine and dandy.  So, the words of Bush have truly come back to haunt us.  We fight them over there, or over here.  I would like to thank our ball less, head up his ass president for bringing the fight to our county.  Thank you.

I would really like to ask the American people to get their own heads out of these asses soon.  We have the mid-term elections coming up in November.  People seem to have their heads rammed so far up there, that they tend to develop amnesia when an election comes around.  Even if for only a handful of minutes, just long enough to vote, please people, get your head out of your ass.  Who knows, you might even enough the fresh air and day light!

Obama's Impeachable Offense

There have been many calls in the last couple of years for Obama to be impeached.  Any time this has been thrown out there, the Left, predictably, starts screaming racism.  Yep, cause we just want to get ride of him cause he's black.  BS!  There have been many situations were Impeachment would have been warranted.  For example, Benghazi, Solyndra and Obama's war on coal.  Granted, the last example is a bit weak, but the first two are legit.  Claiming that Benghazi was all about a video, where there has been clear evidence that the White House KNEW it wasn't and outright LIED to the American people.  Then, you have "cry baby" Hillary lashing out at her critics instead of really explaining her completely ignoring the cries for help.  And she has the balls to claim her critics are just doing it for political purposes?!  Hey Hillary, you and Bill are the  masters of THAT crap.  Obama claimed he didn't know anything about it.

Now, we have a "prisoner of war" exchange.  Obama and the moronic Libs would have you believe that the 5 top, high ranking terrorists that are being exchanged for one US military deserter, who seems like as much of a waste of sperm as his father, are not, in fact, that dangerous.  Really?  Cause they're regarded by everyone as the top 5 most high ranking Al Quida terrorist officials.  Further, the deserter wasn't a prisoner of war.  HE WALKED OFF THE JOB LEAVING ALL HIS CRAP BEHIND.  Then, at least 6 soldiers that we know of lost their lives trying to find him.  And this deserter has the balls to talk crap about the US and its military!

Now, according to Federal Law, which Obama has a real history of ignoring, he must let Congress have 30 days to mull over the exchange.  OBAMA FAILED TO DO THAT!  Actually, I don't know that he failed.  He just didn't care and like his whole "I have a pen and I have a phone" mantra, he just did whatever the Hell he wanted to anyway.  This very clearly violates federal law and the US Constitution.  Not that Obama gives a flying rats ass, although, that'd be wild to see!  There has been such an out lash about this whole thing, that the Liberal Media can't even ignore it at this point!  Obama defends it and says they don't leave a man behind.  Funny, you left the US Ambassador to Benghazi behind.  You didn't seem to have a problem with that, now did you?  Second, this soldier, who I wouldn't even classify as a "man", or at least a man with honor, abandoned his fellow soldiers and spoke out against them.  We should have not exchanged anyone for this traitor.  As I recall, the US Constitution calls for execution for being a traitor.  But, this traitor seems to hold all the sickening ideals that Liberals wet their beds for, so, we know this will never happen.  Unless Conservatives take back both houses by a good margin.  The, just maybe, there will be actual justice for the families of the servicemen who lost their lives trying to find idiot boy.

Note to stupid Libs.  I'm NOT saying idiot boy shouldn't have a trial.  He should.  But, if found guilty of treason, and the evidence is pretty overwhelming given his rantings against the US and its military, that only a Red Diaper Doper Baby (Thank you MICHAEL SAVAGE!) could love, then,m execution, as directed by the US Constitution should be enacted.  .   Another note to stupid Libs.  I'm not calling for him to be killed.  I'm calling for him to be brought to trial.  But, I can understand how you only hear what you want.  You know, with your heads up your butts, it's kinda hard to read correctly.

In any case, Obama initially said that "this kind of thing is done all the time", then later says that "it was an oversight".  Really?  Well gosh moron boy, if it's done all the time, then really, it shouldn't have been an oversight, now should it?  So, this one thing, this is an Impeachable offense.  Obama violated Federal Law.  Period.  No getting around it.  And Jay Carey, playing the subservient lying Monica Lewinski begging Obama to fill  him up, is trying desperately to talk his way out of this issue.  But guess what stupid boy, it's not going away.  This will follow Libs right up until the November Elections.  It would be a waste of tax payer money to file the Articles of Impeachment now.  Libs in Congress will tow the line and be only too eager to stand in line to have Obama fill them up too as they kneel.  Wait until after the November Elections.  When Conservatives take the Senate and get a majority.  Then, the House needs to file the Articles of Impeachment for this one reason only.  Then let the Senate have the case.  Where it will actually be a fair trial and not just a bunch of Libs wiping the truth from their mouths with a napkin.

Let this be a lesson for Hillary as well.  She lied about Benghazi.  She wouldn't have leaked that chapter of her fiction book coming out soon (that all Libs will likely have to buy dozens of copies so it looks like someone is actually interested in reading it) to the overwhelmingly Liberal Politico.com, if she wasn't scared that this was going to come back to haunt her.  But, there is overwhelming evidence here as well.  The American People ain't stupid.  They learned their lesson with Slick Willie.

Big Brother....

We have all seen how President Obama and the Demoncrats have been gradually taking over the government; in an unconstitutional manner.  Years ago, the Republicans threatened to use the Nuclear Option, but, never did.  The Nuclear Option would have changed the Senate Rules such that a simple majority, not a super majority, would be able to win approval for such things as nominations to departments and federal court nominations.  This would have eliminated the fillibuster.  The Republicans threatened to do this because the Democrats were stalling on many different nominations including John Bolton as ambassador to the UN and various other nominations to the US Supreme Court  At the time, Democrats said the following:

"The checks and balances, which have been at the core of this Republic, are about to be evaporated...a Constitutional Crisis" Chuck Schummer 2005.

Ending the fillibuster "will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority.  It begins with judicial nominations.  Next will be Executive appointments.  And then legislation."  Diane "I live in California and am in desperate need of plastic surgery" Feinstein.

An alteration of the fillibuster rule "would change teh character of the Senate forever" creating a so called "majoritarian power...that's just not what the Founders intended."  Senator Barak Obama.

To boot, MSNBC stated on 11/22/13 "bring on the Liberal judges."  Interesting how, even though they threatened it, they never did it, intending instead to try to work it out using Senate rules.  Now, we have the Democrats in power, at least until this November, and the shoe is now on the other foot.  Now that they've not only threatened the Nuclear Option, but brought it about, they seem to have no problem now with just ramming through whatever it is that they want.  And, there's nothing to stop them at this point.  They can just pass whatever they want, without any discussion.  Then, you have a dumb ass president who says "I've got a pen and I've got a phone" and he has made it very clear he won't hesitate to use it.  For whatever it is he wants.  There is nothing to stop him, save for the US Supreme Court.  Until some of them retire and he just rams through Liberal nominees that no one will be able to stop.  If it were to come to that, I think the Republicans should simply walk off the job and refuse to be part of the Senate session at the time.  I'm not sure if there has to be a certain number of Senators present to vote or not.  Whether it is or not, however, it would send one hell of a message.  And keep in mind, Libs in the Senate and the White House are just drooling to take away our guns.  Period.  With an Executive Order, what's to stop Obama from making himself President for life?  What?  The US Supreme Court?  Crap, an Executive Order and maybe he'll just eliminate them as well.  Who needs them?  Obama and the Demoncrats can just make all the decisions.

This is exactly what the founding fathers envisioned to keep the various branches in check.  The Balance of Power we were supposed to be taught in schools, when they weren't turned into "re-education camps" of the Left.  If you're a Lib, truly ask yourself this question.  And answer honestly.  If the roles were reversed and Conservatives did this, would YOU be ok with it?  Some day, the Conservatives WILL be in control again, and they will have the power your idiot president and his fellow Demoncrats have created.  You want them having that power?  I don't.  And I'm Conservative.  I don't want anyone having that kind of power.  It's destructive and extremely dangerous.  Libs should be scared as hell that Demoncrats have done this.  Dingy Harry Reid should be scarred crapless if he weren't sure a Obama Zombie moron.

If you truly care about checks and balances, you need to write your person in Congress; both the House and Senate.  If you think it's great for Obama to bypass Congress and just do whatever the hell he wants, great, e-mail that to you congress person.  I don't wanna hear any bitching though when Conservatives use that when they take back over.

If you care about the Constitution, please contact your congressman.  Don't simply tell them you won't vote for them.  That will never do.  Tell them you're going to work very hard to get their ass voted out of Congress.  You'll be very public.  There will be demonstrations at ANY town hall meeting they have and they will be bombarded with "why are you letting this happen?"  And then, come November, DON'T DEVELOP AMNESIA.

The genius of government.....

You have likely NOT heard about this.  The Washington DC city counsel has just passed a new law/ordinance, dictating to businesses that gross more than $1 Billion in annual sales to pay their employees 50% MORE than minimum wage.  This applies to new businesses going in, and established businesses will have to comply in 4 years.  Wal-Mart, which had plans to build 3 additional stores (with 3 others currently under construction) has announced now that they will scrap the 3 planned stores, and at this point are potentially looking at stopping construction on the 3 stores currently under construction already. 

Now, DC resident who are unemployed will not have the opportunity to be employed to the tune of a loss of 1,800 jobs.  The current minimum wage in DC is $8.50 an hour, so with the new law passed by the genius Libs, it would be required for Wal-Mart (and similar retailers) to pay $12.50 an hour.  The government has NO authority to tell a business what they should be paying their employees other than minimum wage.  Because of this act of genius, the DC City Counsel is essentially telling residents that it's far better for them to be unemployed than to have a minimum wage job.  Would like to make more, I'm sure they would.  But at this stage in the game, I bet they'd rather just be employed.  So, congrats to the DC City Counsel for keeping the unemployment rate at its current status.  Wouldn't want too many people being employed now would we?  After all, there'd be less victims that they can claim to be fighting for huh?  Plus, once see how much they pay in taxes, they may just start voting Conservative then huh?

So, the city counsel, and likely the unions, would much rather people continue to suffer and be out of work.  This is apparently the mentality of the Libs.  If those 1800 jobs weren't going away, it is entirely possible, and likely, that many of those folks would be making above minimum wage after a period of time.  They'd have to work their way up, but guess what?  That's life.  NO ONE can just start out at the top and just demand they get better pay without having to work for it.  Well, Libs seem to think so, but then again they just cost the city residents 1,800 jobs, so their credability is pretty much crap at this point.  Thank God though, they're forcing the unemployed to hold out for higher wages.  That way they'll appreciate being unemployed MUCH more! 

So, if you feel like the DC City Counsel made a great decision, by all means, let them know.  If you think they made a very stupid decisions (as I do), they should know that to.  The choice is yours.  If you think it's better for people to be unemployed than to be working, I'm sure the DC City Counsel would love your support.  Their e-mail addresses are below.


pmendelson@dccouncil.us; kmcduffie@dccouncil.us; abonds@dccouncil.us; dgrosso@dccouncil.us; dcatania@dccouncil.us; vorange@dccouncil.us; jgraham@dccouncil.us; jevans@dccouncil.us; mcheh@dccouncil.us; mbowser@dccouncil.us; twells@dccouncil.us; yalexander@dccouncil.us; mbarry@dccouncil.us