CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Pandering to American Muslims Democrats Plot To Kill Bipartisan Bill To Toughen Background Checks On Syrian Refugees

Today Senate Democrats plan to try and kill the bipartisan legislation to enhance background checks on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. In November a bill that would require FBI and other federal security certification of each new incoming refugee from the two countries easily passed the House on a veto-proof vote of 289 to 137.  Republicans were joined by 47 Democrats who voted for the more thorough background checks in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris, which were carried out in part by Syrian passport holders posing as refugees.

According the Washington Post's Karoun Demirjian, many Republicans see the House bill as a reasonable middle ground between Barack Obama’s plans to expand Syrian refugee resettlement, and Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban all Muslims from the U.S.:

Trump sparked a firestorm following the ISIS-inspired attack in San Bernardino when he called for a “total” ban on Muslims entering the United States, at least for a while. Other Republican leaders raced to disavow his comments and distance themselves from Trump on the issue.

I see it as a common sense approach to defend America from Paris-like attacks, more San Bernardino-like attacks and to prevent sexual attacks like those being conducted by migrants invading Europe. That is real immigration reform.

Nevertheless, Democrats' pandering began immediately as soon as the bill passed the House. Allegedly in response to bellyaching from pro-immigrant, refugee, and Muslim groups, Democrats promised to block the bill with a filibuster and President Obama has threatened to veto the bill. But that was just the start of the pandering.

Shortly after the House passage of the common sense bipartisan immigration reform, it was revealed by the Orlando Sentinel that the American Muslim Democratic Caucus of Florida became the newest officially recognized caucus of the Florida Democratic Party. The purpose of this new arm of the Florida Democrats is to get Muslim-Americans registered to vote — as Democrats. Why, when Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the state's population, according to the Pew Research Center? According to the Sentinel, "even relatively small constituencies can have a big impact on elections. Florida is an evenly divided state in presidential election, and small number of votes can determine who wins the state's 29 electoral votes — more than 10 percent of the total needed to win the presidency."

The Democrats didn't stop the pandering there. During a Democratic National Committee (DNC) Executive Committee meeting the DNC made the pandering official policy of the Democrats' national party by adopting a resolution condemning the anti-Muslim rhetoric of the 2016 presidential campaign. If you care to you can read the pandering resolution here.

Nor did the Democrats' pandering start after the passage of the House bill. In October Hillary Clinton Tweeted a campaign video containing this shot of Hillary wearing a hijab. And don't forget Muslims played a critical role in Democrat James Webb ousting then incumbent Republican Sen. George Allen.

Cross posted from RedState.

Obama delays the budget process yet again

Image credit: Office of Management and Budget

A new report from Congressional Quarterly suggests that ObamaCare isn't the only item being delayed in the White House these days. Apparently the official White House budget proposal, which is required by law to be submitted to Congress no later than the first Monday of February, is on track to be "at least a month behind" schedule: 

From the CQ Morning Briefing: 

WHITE HOUSE BUDGET DELAYED: The White House is said to be at least a month behind its own schedule for developing a fiscal 2015 budget, which by statute is supposed to be submitted to Congress on the first Monday in February. That will slow work on next year’s spending bills, even though the budget accord negotiated by House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., and Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., established overall discretionary spending levels.

This is hardly shocking from a White House where delays, extensions, and "that rule doesn't apply to me" thinking has become the norm. We don't have to go into a long dissertation about the ever mounting White House-approved delays in ObamaCare. Nor Obama's incessant foot dragging delays of the Keystone Pipeline.

The budget situation, though, is particularly egregious. With this year's pending failure, five of Obama's last six budgets have been submitted late, including last year's FY2014 proposal which was sent to Congress 65 days late. That's more than any president since the Budget and Accounting Act was passed in 1921. 

As President Obama put it in a November radio address, budgets "expose what our priorities are as a country for all to see." Ironic emphasis on the "all to see." Apparently these Obama priorities are just not important enough for Obama "the Incompetent's" White House to manage to write down on schedule. 

There is no penalty for submitting a budget late (other than being perceived as incompetent), but the Obama White House's complete disregard for the law here has real implications in the budget process. While the House and the Senate have agreed on top line budget numbers for FY2015 with the recent deal, the Republicans in the House still need to pass a series of appropriations bills for each part of the government, in order to specify what will be funded. Every day that the White House delays its budget proposal is another day that the House is forced to waste as FY2015 inches closer. Worse, the delays jeopardize any possibility Congress for to get it done.

Republicans could (and probably will) start forging their own bills, but Harry Reid would swat all those down. These delays in the past have been culpable for Congress' failure to pass the necessary appropriations bills. It looks like the White House is looking to do it yet again.

Who wants to bet that, if and when this latest delay knocks the wind out of House Republicans, Obama will then go out on the campaign trail and rail against the "do-nothing" Congress?

At the end of the day, it's just another Obama failure to lead. It leaves one wondering whether Obama's White House is ignorantly unaware of the results of their failure, or if they just don't care. 

Family health issues end the Liz Cheney Senate campaign

Liz Cheney has ended her campaign for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican Sen. Mike Enzi. 

In a statement released this morning, Cheney explained she was ending the campaign because of serious family health issues:

Serious health issues have recently arisen in our family, and under the circumstances, I have decided to discontinue my campaign. My children and their futures were the motivation for our campaign and their health and well being will always be my overriding priority.

Phil and I want to thank the thousands of people in Wyoming and all across the country who have supported my campaign.  As a mother and a patriot, I know that the work of defending freedom and protecting liberty must continue for each generation.  Though this campaign stops today,  my commitment to keep fighting with you and your families for the fundamental values that have made this nation and Wyoming great will never stop.

According to the Casper Star-Tribune, one of Cheney’s five children has type 1 diabetes. Cheney wrote in an email that she would not say anything more about the nature of the health issue on Monday.

Cheney announced her campaign less than six months ago in a YouTube video, which you can watch here. Her withdrawal all but guarantees Enzi a fourth term. Wyoming has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1970.

As you can see in this video, Cheney's campaign got of to a rough start and wasn't appreciated by the Republican elite.

The very public family squabble between Liz and her lesbian sister Mary, about same sex versus traditional marriage cost Liz more points with the Republican elite struggling to re-brand the party.

I hope Cheney does continue to fight for the fundamental values that have made this nation great. She would have been a great addition to the U.S. Senate.

Senate Democrats have done what Harry Reid said would be the end of the Senate

Photo credir: Jack W. Aeby, July 16, 1945, Civilian worker at Los Alamos laboratory, working under the aegis of the Manhattan Project.

Under the leadership of Harry Reid, and with the blessing of President Obama, Senate Democrats actually  nuked the filibuster.

According to Chris Cillizza, Sean Sullivan, the issue that Reid saw as important enough to do something he said would change the U.S. Senate forever is the confirmation of three nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit:

This time around, Democrats have pushed three nominees to the crucial D.C. circuit court, which handles most of the critical cases on interpreting federal law. The Rs say the court — which tilts toward GOP-appointed judges at the moment — doesn’t need any more judges. And McCain’s gang of GOP senators agreed, blocking all 3 of Obama’s nominees.

Some see these nominees as an effort to pack the court after a series of decisions Obama did not like.

The issue was similar last July when Reid and company convinced the Republicans to capitulate on President Obama's terrible nominees to the National Labor Relations Board. In tricking the Republicans into approving numerous nominees the Democrats promised they were "not touching judges."

Harry Reid (D-NV): "We’re not touching judges. That's what they were talking about. This is not judges.” (NBC's "Meet The Press," 7/14/13)

Reid didn't stop there. He made a similar promise at a Press briefing:

Harry Reid (D-NV): "We're not talking about changing the filibuster rules that relates to nominations for judges. …this is not about judges." (Sen. Reid, Press Briefing, 7/11/13)

Reid wasn't alone in making such representations. Senators Sherrod Brown and Amy Klobuchar also offeredsimilar assurances:

Sherrod Brown (D-OH): "…I think any president should have the ability to put people in place for the -- at the pleasure of the president. These are not judges. That's a whole another issue." (MSNBC, 7/9/13)

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): "…I don't understand why for these nominees, I'm not talking about judges here, I'm talking about the president's team, of which there are currently over 180 people that are just pending right now before the Senate for the Executive Office nominations. Why we can't just do 51 votes is beyond me." (ABC’s “This Week,” 7/14/13)

We reported on Reid's threatened use of the nuclear option then and apparently it's time to dust that article off and publish parts of it again.

Harry Reid was the Senate Democrats' Whip when George W. Bush became president. Under him, the Senate Democrats mounted an unprecedented filibuster campaign against Bush's judicial nominees. According to The Heritage Foundation's Todd Gaziano, the average number of days a Court of Appeals nominee waited for final Senate action grew from 39 during the Reagan Presidency, 95 during the George H. W. Bush Presidency, and 115 during the Clinton Presidency to 400 during the first 22 months of the second Bush presidency.

The Democrats' unprecedented delays imposed upon Bush's judicial nominees resulted in talk of using the nuclear option to end the Democrats' filibusters. The nuclear option is shorthand for changing the Senate rules so that presidential nominations would no longer be subject to filibuster -- meaning they could be approved with just 51 votes, as opposed to the usual 60.

This is something that Senate Democrats warned about in apocalyptic terms when they were in the minority.

In May 2005 it looked as if Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was actually going to pull the nuclear trigger. Sen. Reid gave a decent speech on the Senate floor explaining why nuking the filibuster would be wrong:

The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.

Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.

[. . .]

It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.

And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.

[. . .]

For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

Reid wasn't the only Senate Democrat to speak against the nuclear option in 2005. Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Baucus, Dodd, Feinstein, and Schumer, also railed against the proposed use of reconciliation to end Democrat filibusters.

You can watch highlights of some of their their speeches in the following video:

BARACK OBAMA 4/13/05: "Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications of what has been called the nuclear option and what effect that might have on this Chamber and on this country. I urge all of us to think not just about winning every debate but about protecting free and democratic debate." (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Floor remarks, Washington, DC, 4/13/05, Click here to watch.)

BARACK OBAMA 4/13/05: "The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse." (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05, Click here to watch.)

BARACK OBAMA 4/13/05: "Right now we are faced with rising gas prices, skyrocketing tuition costs, a record number of uninsured Americans, and some of the most serious national security threats we have ever had, while our bravest young men and women are risking their lives halfway around the world to keep us safe. These are challenges we all want to meet and problems we all want to solve, even if we do not always agree on how to do it. But if the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That does not serve anybody's best interest, and it certainly is not what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that. We owe them much more." (Sen. Barack Obama, Floor remarks, Washington, D.C., 4/13/05, Click here to watch.)

Barack Obama 4/25/05: "The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended."

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "So this President has come to the majority in the Senate and basically said: Change the rules. Do it the way I want it done. And I guess there were not very many voices on the other side of the aisle that acted the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said: Mr. President, we are with you. We support you. But that is a bridge too far. We cannot go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President. We have confirmed 95 percent of your nominees. And if you cannot get 60 votes for a nominee, maybe you should think about who you are sending to us to be confirmed because for a lifetime appointment, 60 votes, bringing together a consensus of Senators from all regions of the country, who look at the same record and draw the same conclusion, means that perhaps that nominee should not be on the Federal bench." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor remarks, 5/23/05, Click here to watch.)

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: "We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum."

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: "Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: "The nuclear option if successful 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."

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: "Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I have not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I have been here for over three decades. This is the single most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate. I suspect the Senator would agree with that. We should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party, propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It is nothing more or nothing less. … We have been through these periods before in American history but never, to the best of my knowledge, has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body." (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor remarks, Washington, D.C., 5/23/05, Click here to watch.)

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: "But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration."

Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: "I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co-sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority."

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: "If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power."

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient -- well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so."

Harry Reid 5/18/05: "The filibuster is not a scheme and it certainly isn't new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick. It's part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate. It was well-known in colonial legislatures before we became a country, and it's an integral part of our country's 214-year history. The first filibuster in the United States Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress. Since then, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. It's been employed on legislative matters, it's been employed on procedural matters relating to the president's nominations for Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts, and it's been used on judges for all those years. One scholar estimates that 20 percent of the judges nominated by presidents have fallen by the wayside, most of them as a result of filibusters. Senators have used the filibuster to stand up to popular presidents, to block legislation, and, yes, even, as I've stated, to stall executive nominees. The roots of the filibuster are found in the Constitution and in our own rules." (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor remarks, 5/18/05, Click here to watch.)

Harry Reid 5/18/05: "For 200 years we've had the right to extended debate. It's not some procedural gimmick. It's within the vision of the founding fathers of our country. They did it; we didn't do it. They established a government so that no one person and no single party could have total control. Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power. They want to do away with Mr. Smith, as depicted in that great movie, being able to come to Washington. They want to do away with the filibuster. They think they're wiser than our founding fathers. I doubt that that's true." (Sen. Harry Reid, Floor remarks, 5/18/05, Click here to watch.)

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "And I just had to hope that maybe between now and the time we have this vote there would be enough Senators who will say: Mr. President, no. We are sorry, we cannot go there. We are going to remember our Founders. We are going to remember what made this country great. We are going to maintain the integrity of the U.S. Senate." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Floor remarks, 5/23/05, Click here to watch.)

Joe Biden 5/23/05: "Isn't what is really going on here that the majority does not want to hear what others have to say, even if it is the truth? Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said: You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. The nuclear option abandons America's sense of fair play. It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. But I am afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons." (Sen. Joe Biden, Floor remarks, 5/23/05, Click here to watch.)

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: "They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way."

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President."

Max Baucus 5/19/2005: "This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel."

Mitch McConnell appropriately summed it all up today, "If you like the rules of the Senate, you can keep them."

Cooler heads prevailed in 2005. The so-called Gang of 14 negotiated a compromise which avoided the deployment of the nuclear option.

In 2008, Reid talked about the importance of the filibuster with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle during an interview about Reid's book, "The Good Fight." Reid told Daschle that as long as he was the Senate leader the Senate would not face the nuclear option. That the threat of using it was a "black chapter in the history of the Senate" and that he really believes it will "ruin our country."

Don't take my word for it. You can watch the discussion between Reid and Daschle here. You can also read a transcript of it below:

Daschle: You talk Harry about the nuclear option, you just mentioned it on chapter seven of your book, describes the circumstances with the nuclear option. Just so our viewers can better understand, what was the nuclear option and what likelihood is there that we going to have to face nuclear option-like questions again?

Reid: What the Republicans came up with was a way to change our country forever. They made a decision if they didn’t get every judge they wanted, every judge they wanted, then they were going to make the Senate just like the House of Representatives. We would in effect have a unicameral legislature where a simple majority would determine whatever happens.

In the House of Representatives today Pelosi is the leader. Prior to that was Hastert. Whatever they wanted, Hastret or Pelosi, they get done. The rules over there allow that. The Senate was set up to be different. That was the genius, the vision, of our founding fathers – that this bicameral legislature, which was unique, had two different duties. One, was as Franklin said, to pour the coffee into the saucer and let it cool off. That‘s why you have the ability to filibuster and to terminate filibuster. They wanted to get rid of all that. That’s what the nuke option all about.

Daschle: And is there any likelihood that we’re going to face circumstances like that again?

Reid: As long as I’m the leader, the answer is no. I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to that again. Because I really do believe it will ruin our country. I’ve said, I said during that debate, that in all my years in government, that is the most important thing I ever worked on.

Reid put it this way in his book, the nuclear option "would lead to the end of the United States Senate":

"I just couldn’t believe that Bill Frist was going to do this. The storm had been gathering all year, and word from conservative columnists and in conservative circles was that Senator Frist of Tennessee, who was the Majority Leader, had decided to pursue a rules change that would kill the filibuster for judicial nominations. And once you opened that Pandora’s box, it was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldn’t get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate." – Harry Reid in his 2008 book "The Good Fight"

What could justify Reid's use of the nuclear option he has repeatedly said "would be the end of the United States Senate," "would ruin the country," and even the threat of using it was "a black chapter in the history of the Senate?"

As Reid has written, once you open that Pandora’s box, it's just a matter of time before a Senate leader who can't get his way on something moves to eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. "And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate."

Reid's nuking of the filibuster provides a couple of teaching moments. first, it is an example of why Republicans can't afford to compromise with the Democrats. When you try to appease them, it just encourages them and they keep coming back for more. You would think that with the bashing they are taking over ObamaCare the Democrats would have learned more respect for governing by consensus as opposed to strick party-line simple majority rule.

Second, it demonstrates that President Obama isn't the only Democrat who has an honesty problem.

Liz Cheney's 'new generation' U.S. Senate campaign

Liz Cheney got to Senator Mike Enzi when she announced that she is running for the U.S. Senate seat Enzi has occupied since 1997 and said it's time for a new generation of leaders.

Enzi, who is 69, told CNN's Dana Bash he isn't too old:

"I'm absolutely not too old to be senator. I'd say I'm kinda in the median age for this body"

According to CNN, the median age of  stood at 62 before 67-year-old Ed Markey was sworn in on Tuesday. Cheney is 46.

Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, says she is running because she is concerned about the direction of the country:

"I am running because I believe deeply in the values that have made our state and our nation great. I am running because I believe it is necessary for a new generation of leaders to step up to the plate. I am running because I know, as a mother and a patriot, we can no longer afford simply to go along to get along. We can’t continue business as usual in Washington. I am running because I know we are taxed more than enough already [emphasis added]"

Cheney made her announcement in a YouTube video:

Transcript of Cheney's announcement:

"Liz Cheney Announces Candidacy for U.S. Senate

Over the last several years, people across our great state have urged me to consider running for the Senate in 2014. As I have traveled to every corner of Wyoming, seeing old friends and meeting new, I have been honored to have the chance to speak with many of you about your concerns, fears and hopes for the future. I have listened carefully, and discussed the possibility of running for office at length with Phil and the kids. Today, I am launching my candidacy for the United States Senate.

We are blessed by our heritage in Wyoming – a heritage built on the values brought here by our forefathers and mothers. These were people like those in my own family who first came here in 1852 in search of religious freedom; people like my great grandfather and his brothers, who came as ranch hands and settled at Lysite in 1907; people like my grandmother who was raised in the Salt Creek oil fields and grew up to become Natrona County’s first female deputy sheriff. These men and women and thousands of others like them built our state on their hopes for freedom, their search for opportunity, their belief in independence and equality, and their dedication to the values of our founding documents. They understood the responsibility of neighbor to neighbor and of one generation to the next. Today, these values are under assault by a federal government grown far beyond anything the pioneers of our great state could ever have imagined – or would have tolerated.

The last four and a half years have been particularly devastating. Our national debt is nearing $17 trillion, with no end in sight, imposing an inexcusable burden on our children and grandchildren. We have watched as our taxpayer dollars are wasted on investments that go bankrupt, “stimulus” projects that never get off the ground, and federal government programs that don’t create jobs. Washington seems convinced that more government borrowing and spending are the solutions to every problem. They are dedicated to taking more money out of our pockets and massively expanding the government’s role in our lives.

President Obama has launched a war on our Second Amendment rights. He has launched a war on our religious freedom. He has used the IRS to launch a war on our freedom of speech and he has used the EPA to launch a war on Wyoming’s ranchers, farmers, and energy industry. He is working to nationalize one-sixth of the economy with job-killing Obamacare. He has so effectively diminished our strength abroad that there is no longer a question about whether this was his intent. He is working to pre-emptively disarm America, while rogue states like North Korea and Iran build nuclear weapons capabilities and stockpiles. He has held no one to account for the attack on our consulate and the murder of our diplomats in Benghazi. And he has refused, repeatedly, to be truthful with the American people. At the same time, the president and his allies in Congress are working to implant his liberal philosophy so deeply into our body politic that we will be dealing with its effects long after he is gone from office.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

We can get our nation back on track. Instead of cutting deals with the president’s liberal allies, we should be opposing them every step of the way. We can stop President Obama policies, including those that are hurting Wyoming most. We can roll back the power of the federal government. We can lower taxes. We can stop the infringement of the EPA and other federal agencies on Wyoming agriculture and energy producers. We can give the private sector the freedom and incentives it needs to grow and create jobs. We can become energy independent, and we can usher in an economic renaissance with policies that take full advantage of our tremendous energy reserves. We can elect leaders who are worthy of commanding our men and women in uniform. This is our state and our country, and we don’t need to accept what Washington, DC has been doing to us.

We can prevail by remembering what we stand for as conservatives: limited government, low taxes, a strong national defense, opportunity for all, the inviolability of our Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the importance of the family as the fundamental building block in our society, and the value of every human life. We know the United States is the exceptional nation and we know the men and women who wear her uniform are the greatest fighting force, and the greatest force for good, the world has ever known.

To prevail, we must start now. President Obama and his liberal allies will try to stop us every step of the way. But if we are passive, if we fail to take up this challenge, if we fail to defend our nation against these destructive policies, our very freedoms will be at risk.

I am running because I believe deeply in the values that have made our state and our nation great. I am running because I believe it is necessary for a new generation of leaders to step up to the plate. I am running because I know, as a mother and a patriot, we can no longer afford simply to go along to get along. We can’t continue business as usual in Washington. I am running because I know we are taxed more than enough already. I am running because I know Wyoming needs a strong voice in Washington, someone who knows how to get things done, and isn’t afraid to fight for what’s right. I will never compromise when our freedom is at stake.

Every victorious movement in history has required the full participation of men and women of courage, conviction and principle. In the face of these challenges and with a clear-eyed view of the better and brighter future that is possible for us all, I hope you will join me in this fight."

Cheney practiced law and held several positions in President George H.W. Bush’s administration. As Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, she was the second-ranking official in the state department bureau responsible for U.S. policy in the Middle East. After Obama became president she founded Keep America Safe, a non-profit organization dedicated to keeping the United States secure from terrorist threats.

This campaign is not like recent Republican primary campaigns where a Conservative challenger takes on a more moderate incumbent. As the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan point out Enzi is not lacking in Conservative ratings:

Enzi was the 8th most conservative senator in 2012, according to National Journal’s vote ratings and has a 93 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. (Enzi’s Heritage Action score is a slightly less robust 67, the lowest of the state’s three federal representatives.)

The primary campaign won't be a cake walk. Enzi announced he would seek reelection Tuesday. He was quickly backed by the other two members of Wyoming's congressional delegation Republicans Sen. John Barrasso and Rep. Cynthia Lummis and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Sen. Rand Paul has said that he would support Enzi. Paul's support is payback for Dick Cheney's endorsement of Paul's primary opponent in 2010, suggesting Paul would be dangerous for national security.

Cheney has Republican establishment support as well:

Former Republican National Committee Finance Chairman Mel Sembler, who served as ambassador to Italy, told POLITICO he’s all-in for the former vice president’s daughter. Republican strategist Mary Matalin cautioned the powers-that-be in Washington not to try and undermine the younger Cheney’s campaign in an email:

"The so-called ‘Establishment’ should let the voters decide."

Wyoming Republican National Committeewoman Marti Halverson pledged to stay neutral in the race and said she hopes that the national committees, including the RNC and NRSC, follow suit.

Cheney has also been endorsed by my RedState's Erick Erickson:

I'm pleased to endorse Liz Cheney for the United States Senate.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) July 16, 2013

Finally it should be noted that a sleeper reelection Senate campaign just turned into a very high profile and expensive primary race.

Reid's place in Senate history: a nuclear black chapter?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can dish it out, but he can't take it.

Harry Reid was Senate Democratic Whip when George W. Bush became president. Under him, the Senate Democrats mounted an unprecedented filibuster campaign against Bush's judicial nominees. According to The Heritage Foundation's Todd Gaziano, the average number of days a Court of Appeals nominee waited for final Senate action grew from 39 during the Reagan Presidency, 95 during the George H. W. Bush Presidency, and 115 during the Clinton Presidency to 400 during the first 22 months of the second Bush presidency.

The Democrats' unprecedented delays imposed upon Bush's judicial nominees resulted in talk of using the nuclear option to end the Democrats' filibusters. The nuclear option is shorthand for changing the Senate rules so that presidential nominations would no longer be subject to filibuster -- meaning they could be approved with just 51 votes, as opposed to the usual 60. 

This is something that Senate Democrats warned about in apocalyptic terms when they were in the minority.

In May 2005 it looked as if Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was actually going to pull the nuclear trigger. Sen. Reid gave a good speech on the Senate floor explaining why nuking the filibuster would be wrong:

The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.

Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.

 [. . .]

It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.

It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.

And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.

[. . .]

For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

Reid wasn't the only Senate Democrat to speak against the nuclear option in 2005. Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, Baucus, Dodd, Feinstein, and Schumer, also railed against the proposed use of reconciliation to end Democrat filibusters.

You can watch highlights of their speeches in this video:

Barack Obama 4/25/05: "The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended."

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said 'change the rules.' 'Do it the way I want it done.' And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said 'Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.' You have to restrain yourself Mr. President." 

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: "We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum." 

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: "Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government."

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: "The nuclear option if successful 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." 

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: "This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab."

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: "But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration." 

Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: "I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co-sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority." 

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: "If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power."

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient -- well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so."

Joe Biden 5/23/05: "I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now but you won’t own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: "They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way."

 Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: "The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President."

Max Baucus 5/19/2005: "This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel."

Cooler heads prevailed in 2005. The so-called Gang of 14 negotiated a compromise which avoided the deployment of the nuclear option.

In 2008, Reid talked about the importance of the filibuster with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle during an interview about Reid's book, "The Good Fight." Reid told Daschle that as long as he was the Senate leader the Senate would not face the nuclear option. That the threat of using it was a "black chapter in the history of the Senate" and that he really believes it will "ruin our country."

Don't take my word for it. You can watch the discussion between Reid and Daschle here. You can also read a transcript of it below:

Daschle: You talk Harry about the nuclear option, you just mentioned it on chapter seven of your book, describes the circumstances with the nuclear option. Just so our viewers can better understand, what was the nuclear option and what likelihood is there that we going to have to face nuclear option-like questions again?

Reid: What the Republicans came up with was a way to change our country forever. They made a decision if they didn’t get every judge they wanted, every judge they wanted, then they were going to make the Senate just like the House of Representatives. We would in effect have a unicameral legislature where a simple majority would determine whatever happens.

In the House of Representatives today Pelosi is the leader. Prior to that was Hastert. Whatever they wanted, Hastret or Pelosi, they get done. The rules over there allow that. The Senate was set up to be different. That was the genius, the vision, of our founding fathers – that this bicameral legislature, which was unique, had two different duties. One, was as Franklin said, to pour the coffee into the saucer and let it cool off. That‘s why you have the ability to filibuster and to terminate filibuster. They wanted to get rid of all that. That’s what the nuke option all about.

Daschle: And is there any likelihood that we’re going to face circumstances like that again?

Reid: As long as I’m the leader, the answer is no. I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to that again. Because I really do believe it will ruin our country. I’ve said, I said during that debate, that in all my years in government, that is the most important thing I ever worked on.

Reid put it this way in his book, the nuclear option "would lead to the end of the United States Senate":

"I just couldn’t believe that Bill Frist was going to do this. The storm had been gathering all year, and word from conservative columnists and in conservative circles was that Senator Frist of Tennessee, who was the Majority Leader, had decided to pursue a rules change that would kill the filibuster for judicial nominations. And once you opened that Pandora’s box, it was just a matter of time before a Senate leader who couldn’t get his way on something moved to eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate." – Harry Reid in his 2008 book "The Good Fight"

Despite his strongly held beliefs about how ill advised using the nuclear option is, Reid has let it be known that he intends to use it, perhaps as early as Tuesday, to prevent Republican filibusters over Obama's nominations. And Reid thinks he has the votes to nuke the filibuster. Why would Reid do such a thing after all he has said and written about how terrible doing so would be? What could justify Reid's use of the nuclear option he has repeatedly said "would be the end of the United States Senate," "would ruin the country," and even the threat of using it was "a black chapter in the history of the Senate?"

According to the Washington Times, Reid wants to use the nuclear option to stop Republicans from being able to filibuster when Obama's nominations to executive branch or independent agency positions --  judges. Reid and Obama tried to make the case that Obama's judicial nominations were being delayed longer -- three times as longer than those of President George W. Bush, but the fact checkers debunked those claims. Politifact found those claims to be only half true, and the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler awarded Obama's assertion two Pinocchios.

The only thing that has changed is now the Democrats have the presidency and control the Senate. And it doesn't matter whether the controlling party nukes the filibuster for judicial or executive nominations. As Reid has written, once you open that Pandora’s box, it's just a matter of time before a Senate leader who can't get his way on something moves to eliminate the filibuster for regular business as well. "And that, simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate."

If Senator Reid does nuke the filibuster, his place in Senate history will be that nuclear black chapter the prevention of which he claims was the most important thing he ever worked on in all his years in government.

Gomez responds to Markey's despicable negative attack ad

Yesterday we took the very Liberal Democrat Congressman Ed "Mudslinging" Markey to task for his despicable ad that features Republican Gabriel Gomez's face directly next to Osama Bin Laden's.

Republican Gabriel Gomez, a former Naval Aviator and Navy SEAL, responded directly to Markey's negative attack ad this morning on Fox and Friends. Gomez called Markey's use of Osama Bin Laden a disgrace, not only to his service, but also to his former teammates and the intelligence of the Massachusetts voters:

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Meanwhile, one of the things that he's done in the campaign is to have a negative ad about you in which you are, I believe, pictured along side Osama bin Laden. Do you have any response to that?

GABRIEL GOMEZ: Yeah. I mean, a career politician like Ed Markey comes swinging out of the gate with his first ad, it's a negative, despicable ad which puts me next to Osama bin Laden which is an absolute disgrace, not only to my service but also to my former teammates and more importantly to the intelligence of the Massachusetts voters. I think people are tired of these despicable, untruthful ads, and I can't think of anything more dishonorable than what he just did.

TUCKER CARLSON: Now you were at, as we said a minute ago in your intro, at the Boston Marathon shortly before those explosives devices went off. Did you hear it? Did you know what it was when you heard it? What was your initial reaction to it?

GOMEZ: I did. I was about a block and a half away. I'd just seen my wife and four young kids before I crossed the finish line. Shortly thereafter, I heard the first explosion and I saw the smoke coming up. I knew right away what happened, just with some experience before in the service. Obviously my first reaction was trying to figure out where my kids and wife were. It took about 25 minutes because of the cell coverage. But I knew right away, and I saw the first responders responding right away, I saw the police officers getting on the horn, getting the emergency vehicles there. I mean, from going from the worst in Boston, I literally saw the best in Boston immediately right after.

You can watch the video of Gomez's response here.

We are not the only ones objecting to Markey' mudslinging. Medal of Honor recipient Thomas Hudner calls Congressman Ed Markey’s Osama Bin Laden ad "dishonorable," and said it should be taken down "immediately":

"I was shocked to see that the first advertisement from Congressman Ed Markey’s campaign is a negative attack on Gabriel Gomez that places a picture of him next to the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden.” said Hudner. “This dishonorable political attack is beneath the dignity of the office for which Congressman Ed Markey is running for and he should immediately take down this outrageous ad.

Gabriel Gomez is a former Navy Pilot and Navy SEAL and fought like so many other brave men and women to defend this country against threats from abroad. As a Veteran, he deserves better than to be juxtaposed with a terrorist for Congressman Markey’s political gain."

Markey's Osama Bin Laden attack ad, entitled 'Meet Gabriel Gomez: Just Another Republican," can be seen here.

Like we said yesterday, there is no other reason why the Markey campaign would take such a negative tone right out the box unless they were fearful of losing.

Senate passes Obama's fiscal cliff tax increases in dead of night

In a move all too reminiscent of the passage of the ever unpopular ObamaCare, last night the Senate voted 89 to 8 to approve the so-called "American Taxpayer Relief Act" (H.R. 8, as amended). The deal was negotiated by Vice President Joseph Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

You can read the 157 page bill below.

Mat 12564

It is very unlikely that any Senator actually read the 157 page bill before they voted on it. It's like former Speaker Pelosi said of the Democrats' ObamaCare bill, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill increases tax revenue by $620 billion while reducing spending by only $15 billion. That's right a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending the ratios were 3:1 and 2:1 respectively.  We should remember that while those tax increases happened, the promised spending cuts did not.

That history makes me question the wisdom of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's effort to "prevent very real financial pain" by agreeing to tax increases in exchange for another spending cuts to be named later:

“As I said, this shouldn’t be the model for how to do things around here. But I think we can say we’ve done some good for the country. We’ve taken care of the revenue side of this debate. Now it’s time to get serious about reducing Washington’s out-of-control spending. That’s a debate the American people want. It’s the debate we’ll have next. And it’s a debate Republicans are ready for.”

The bill raises income tax rates for those taxpayers with incomes more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. These higher income taxpayers will also pay higher rates on investment income, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent. Add the 3.8 percent ObamaCare surcharge on investment income -- another tax that takes effect in January, and the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for those high-income households.

The bill also raises taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000 by limiting personal exemptions and itemized deductions.

Estates taxes will also be increased, with the top rate raised to 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.

The bill also delays the automatic $1.2 trillion draconian sequester spending cuts for sixty days. The sequester cuts, evenly split between defense and certain domestic discretionary spending, were scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. The $24 billion cost of the sequester delay is allegedly made up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Worse, the bill actually increases the deficit by including:

• A permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax.
• A five-year extension of tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s failed 2009 stimulus.
• A one-year extension for unemployment benefits, affecting two million people.
• The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.

The eight Senators who voted against this tax increase included five Republicans and three Democrats:

• Bennett D-CO
• Carper D-DE
• Grassley R-IA
• Harkin D-IA
• Lee R-UT
• Paul R-KY
• Rubio R-FL
• Shelby R-AL.

That leaves a lot of Senators who violated their pledge not to raise taxes.

Now the question is, will the House also approve the American Taxpayer Relief Act?

 

Democrats have no one to blame now

Senator Franken was sworn in yesterday giving the Democrats 60 seats in the Senate and total control over the federal government.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee marked the event with the release of a new video "60"

No Checks. No Balances. No debate. No excuses. The Democrats own everything and have no one to blame now.

Chuck Schumer on 'torture:' 'do what you have to do'

As the Democrat-controlled Senate conducts sanctimonious hearings on enhanced interrogation methods, several Senate Democrat leaders, including Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer, announced support for delaying any prosecutions of Bush administration interrogation methods until after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence finishes investigating the issue.

This is a good time to recall what Schumer said abut torture at a June 8, 2004 Judiciary Committee hearing:

And I'd like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, ‘Do what you have to do.’So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal.

Is it not peculiar that despite all the hullabaloo the Democrats now raise about the enhanced interrogation methods, there is no record of any ranking Congressional Democrat objecting to the interrogation techniques when the Congress critters were briefed about the methods?