Filibuster Roulette

The Democrats have sent a bill, introduced by Tom Harkin, to the floor of the Senate proposing to end the filibuster as we know it, a procedure that, while not written into the Constitution, has nevertheless been there since not long after the founding of the Republic.  The filibuster actually goes back much further, and was used by Roman Senators to stall legislation they didn't like, but, in modern practice, filibusters are handled under Rule 22 of the Senate, which does not require holding the floor to be successful.  Although, at the present time, 67 votes are actually required to change Senate rules, a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (U.S. v. Ballin) stated that changes to Senate rules can be achieved by a simple majority. From that ruling:

The constitution provides that 'a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business.' In other words, when a majority are present the house in in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a majority, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any single [144 U.S. 1, 6]   member or fraction of the majority present. All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.

NOTE:  Reference is from Findlaw.

You can read more on the history of filibusters here.

The rule now which is about to be introduced would require 60 votes on the first vote, 57 votes on the next vote, then, respectively, 53, and 51.  After that, all that is required is a simple majority.  This change would effective render Rule 22 useless, but the traditional method of filibustering, that is, holding the floor by speaking, will still exist. 

Republicans are, naturally, up in arms over this proposed change in the rules, while Democrats are maintaining that an up or down vote on issues is what is needed.  Does this sound familiar?  In 2005, Republicans threatened the "nuclear option", which would have consisted of doing away with the filibuster entirely in the case of Supreme Court appointments by then President Bush.  Their argument? An up or down vote.  Now that the roles are reversed, Republicans are crying "foul".  But they are the ones who threatened to end filibustering for judges in 2005, and the Democrats, no doubt, remember that.

You reap what you sow.  I thought the nuclear option was a terrible idea 5 years ago, and I believe it's  equivalent, that is being proposed today, is just as bad.  By threating the nuclear option in 2005, Republicans opened Pandora's Box.

Just a thought - Is it too much to ask for Republicans and Democrats to stop the bickering and gamesmanship, and get to the business of doing what's right for America?  You be the judge, at the ballot box, when the next election rolls around.

Of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama

What's in the news today?  Sarah Palin's oldest daughter, Bristol is seeking child support from her ex-boyfriend, Levi Johnston, and it is all over the media.  But I must ask "What is so earth shattering about this revelation"?  As someone who has bashed Palin for equating the ability to see Russia from an island off the coast of Alaska to being an expert in foreign policy, I find the depths to which so-called talking heads can descend quite disgusting.

Divorces, child custody battles, and attempts to obtain child support from deadbeat fathers, happen every day, all over the world.  So Palin's daughter is attempting to get child support from her ex-boyfriend, after they created a child out of wedlock.  So what?  Because this gives the far left so much meat for their character assassination grinders, as they attempt to link events in Bristol's life to Sarah Palin's being fit to be a mother, and of her pro-life stance in politics.

As for Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin, they should realize that their fight for custody of Tripp is going to result in one severe casualty, the child.  Bristol serves no purpose in not allowing Levi to see his daughter, other than using the child as a tool to exact revenge.  And Levi?  His excuse, that he is not allowed to see his daughter, is lame.  If he really cared about Tripp, he would just send the money, and save all the excuses for the courts.  By their actions, both Bristol and Levi are setting their daughter up for eventual failure in life.

But where does Sarah Palin come in?  She doesn't.  For all we know, she could be the best mother in the world, but even that can never guarantee that her kids will end up with values.  All she can do is try.  A while back, I was convicted of a DWI.  Was that my mother's or father's fault?  Of course not. The blame is all mine.  Parents can only do so much.  But Palin will never be able to try hard enough in the eyes of some of those on the far left.  To them, she will always be in the wrong.  These are also the same people who rallied around Obama, when the "birthers" and "teabaggers" attempted to assassinate his character.  You would think that, after the smear attacks on Obama by Orly Taitz and her minions, that the far left would understand that some things are just too slimy, even for politics.  Or, could it be that, much like the birthers, the only thing that matters to many of the Palin bashers is the letter, either a D or an R, that comes after the name of someone?

Should we just chalk it up to politics, or should we, the American people, demand more out of those who supposedly speak for us?  I believe that the answer to this question is a no-brainer.

The new Iranian uprising. This time, the Mullahs will fall

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson

And, it seems, that the Iranian people, after taking casualties, are now beginning to inflict them. Although not in the mainstream media, the Iranian resistance and uprising is very real.

The son of Ahmadinejad's opponent in the last election, Seyad Mousavi, has now been disappeared, and he has most likely been murdered by the Mullahs. The Bah'ai' 7 are still languishing in prison, while the Mullahs attempt to execute them for the crime of practicing their religion, and the Basij, the Mullahs' morality police, are killing Iranian civilians by the score.

Now the people are fighting back. Check out these videos, posted on The Daily Beast.

When religion marries the state, the result is always the same - Tyranny. We saw it in the Spanish Inquisition, when Jews and other "non believers" were tortured to death. We saw it in Salem, Massechussets, when witches were executed. We saw it in the Old South, when black voters were lynched by the KKK. We have seen it, over the ages, in myriad places around the world. And now we see it in Iran, which is controlled by yet another group of religious fanatics, whose prescription for those who don't accept THEIR VERSION of Allah is death.

It didn't stand in Spain. It didn't stand in Salem. It didn't stand in the Old South. It didn't stand anyplace else. And it certainly won't stand in Iran. Death to the Mullahs. So says Thomas Jefferson, who understood that, sometimes, it takes death and violence to throw off the yoke of oppression. These Mullahs are not Godly. They are the Devil's spawn, and the sooner they are dead and buried, the better.

Now here's an idea - Instead of threatening to bomb Iran, why not just give guns to it's enslaved population, who would put them to excellent use? Meanwhile, enjoy this picture of the Mullahs' henchmen getting the crap kicked out of them.



Iran - You rock. Now finish the job, and kill those SOBs - Every damn last one of them. The words of Thomas Jefferson aren't just for Americans. They are universal. Water the tree, and water it well.

Scott Brown for President? Absolutely!

On the heels of his stunning election victory over Martha Coakley, Scott Brown has suddenly been propelled into the national spotlight, and already, domain names are being snapped up in anticipation of a Brown run at the presidency in 2012. Check out Scott Brown for President and Scott Brown 2012. But is Scott Brown prepared to be president? I believe he not only is, but will sink President Obama in the next election.

When it comes to experience, Brown has served as a selectman, a state Congressman, and a state Senator. At this time, he has a couple of years to get some US Senatorial experience under his belt. Brown also holds a law degree. Does this experience sound a bit like the experience of another candidate? Of course, and Obama won the Presidency in 2008. In addition, Scott Brown is a Lt. Colonel in the Massachusetts National Guard. While these qualifications may be a bit light, compared to some of the other contenders, both in the past, and among other projected GOP candidates in 2012, I’ll take them. If some among us can support an idiot like Sarah Palin for President, I have no problem supporting Brown, who has orders of magnitude more charisma, experience, and knowledge than Palin could ever hope to obtain.

Of course, we all know that experience and knowledge only account for part of a potential candidate’s viability as a presidential contender. A candidate also needs that intangible asset known as charisma, the ability to sweep voters off their feet, and send a message that resonates with them. Like him or not, Obama has that ability, which accounts for much of the reason he is sitting in the Oval office today. Whether or not he let down his voters is another story. He played an excellent game in 2008, and was rewarded with victory. Face it. Republicans lost to a better player. However, with Brown, the GOP has a real contender, and not the milquetoast candidates it paraded around during the last election cycle. Watching Brown work the crowds, and watching his election victory speech, I realized that he has the charisma of Ronald Reagan. I, for one, am very excited for the first time since The Gipper held office. Brown is a winner, folks, and his coming into the national spotlight is a gift that was dropped right into the laps of the GOP.

In 2008, the Republican Party settled for mediocrity. They cannot afford to settle for it again in 2012. This is why I support Scott Brown. If the GOP wants to be viable, it must drop Palin and the others like a hot potato, and go with a true winner.

My prediction? Brown will run, and Brown will win. You heard it from me.

Why the hell should we be in Haiti, anyways?

I think this video explains a lot about why we should be there.  The reward is America once again claiming a role in the world as a nation to be looked up to.  America does care, and the whole world knows it.  And listen to the Haitian crowd chant "USA, USA, USA" as this team pulls a survivor out of a collapsed building.  This alone is worth more than 100 cynical PR guys spinning stories.  This is real, and this is what being "Americans" is all about.

I have my problems with this administration.  I believe that Obama is wrong in many areas.  However, on this issue, I fully support his efforts, along with the efforts of former presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr, as well as all those who have gone to Haiti, either by deployment, or as civilian volunteers.  They are all pulling together, and doing the right thing, as Americans have always done.  America - You rock!! 

I don't know about anybody else, but, at this very moment, I am listening to God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood.  Who wants to join me in a celebration of who we are?

Pat Robertson - It is now official

It is now official, folks. Pat Robertson has lost his mind. Pat Robertson is batshit insane.

Quote:

Speaking Wednesday about the earthquake in Haiti that the country's president estimates has taken the lives of "hundreds of thousands," Robertson implied that the quake, and the general suffering of the Western Hemisphere's poorest country, was the result of a "pact with the devil" that Haitian rebels made in the 18th century.

This is the same Pat Robertson that blamed 911 on the victims. This is the same Pat Robertson who blamed Hurricane Katrina on the victims. This is the same Pat Robertson who...... Do I need to go on?

But enough about that. First of all, many historians say that Haiti's so-called "pact with the devil" never even happened, and even those historians who say that it did happen, say that those who did the voodoo ritual were not a "mainstream" part of the Haitian Revolution. If Pat Robertson claims that God hates Haiti because Haitians are in league with the devil, then he would have to admit that the KKK represents the United States of America. Of course, we all know that the KKK nowhere represents America anymore than the devil represents Haiti. But you won't convince the high and mighty hypocrite, Pat Robertson, whose musings belong in a mental institution, rather than in a house of God.

So let me ask you - Who has really made a pact with the devil? Was it Haiti, or was it Pat Robertson? Let's examine the evidence:

1) Robertson took donations meant to feed the poor in Liberia, and used them to mine gold. His partner in crime? None other than Charles Taylor, the mass murderer, who was eventually overthrown. And when Taylor was finally brought to justice, Robertson called it an act against Christians.

2) Robertson took donations meant to feed the poor in Zaire, and used them to mine diamonds.  His partner there was another mass murderer, Mobutu Sese Seko, the mad dictator, who terrorized that nation for years, until he was overthrown in the First Congo War.

3) Robertson took donations from his followers and used them to buy race horses. He bought one of his horses for more than half a million dollars and named him "Mr. Pat".

4) Robertson took donations from his followers and used them to start a company to sell "protein shakes". He claimed that drinking the shakes allowed him to do 2,000 pound leg presses. Yes, you heard that right.

5) Robertson took money, and used it in an attempt to rebuild an oil refinery.

Since I don't want to overload the internet with ALL that Robertson has done, I think I will just stop here. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

So, is it Pat Robertson who is in league with the devil, rather than those poor and destitute victims of the Haitian earthquake? I can't speak for myself, so I will bring out the Good Book to answer that question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by II Peter 2:1-3 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not

One last question - Why does Pat Robertson still claim that he is a man of God, and why the hell do people still listen to him? I, for one, want to stay as far away as possible from this wolf in sheep's clothing because I do not want to end up in that special place in hell that God has reserved for the hypocrites.

Pat Robertson is a false prophet, and a charlatan sent by the devil, and not the man of God he claims to be. How do I know? Because the Bible says that you can judge a man's word by the fruit it bears. And Robertson's fruit is rotten to the core.