Tag: us senate
Every election cycle has its share of controversies and the 2022 midterm elections are no different. In the race for an open Senate seat in Pennsylvania, we have Republican Dr. Mehmet "Dr. Oz" Oz and Democrat John "I'm Not a Doctor, But I Play One in My Parents' Basement" Fetterman. Now, I don't have a dog in this race (mainly because a) I don't live in Pennsylvania, and b) I don't care for either candidate), but there was something interesting that came up after a recent interview with Fetterman.
An NBC reporter had a one-on-one interview with Fetterman and video footage showed the candidate having clear problems answering questions. Not like the usual politician, mind you. Actual problems understanding and responding to questions. Granted, Fetterman had a stroke which affected his hearing and speech, so this isn't unusual. However, the Left found a way to attack the reporter and the interview as "ableist" because both made Fetterman look incapable to handle the rigors of being a Senator. In Fetterman's defense, I've had more rigorous naps than what a Senator has to deal with, but I wanted to touch on the ableist topic for a bit, if for no other reason than to expose some of the hidden truths behind the Left's outrage in this case.
ableism
What the Left thinks it means – discriminating in favor of people who appear to be more capable at the expense of those who are less so
What it really means – another way for Leftists to generate resentment for conditions that may not be controllable
Human beings can be incredibly superficial, as anyone who has followed the fashion, cosmetics, and plastic surgery professions can attest. It's easy to overlook the potential contributions someone with disabilities can make if we just look at the surface. It's a matter of finding where they can have the best impact. In a scientific lecture, I would listen to Dr. Stephen Hawking in a heartbeat, but I wouldn't want him to play center for the Los Angeles Lakers, mainly because, well, he's dead. Then again, given the Lakers' recent post-season history, it might be an improvement.
Leftists typically don't think much beyond the surface level of such a population because to do so would mean they would have to consider a smarter, more inclusive approach. Instead, it's one-size-fits-all! If you're black, Hispanic, gay, lesbian, female, disabled/handicapped, or whatever else, you're automatically oppressed! And if you happen to be a black Hispanic gay lesbian female disabled/handicapped person, you could be the next White House Press Secretary under Joe Biden.
Meanwhile, the "oppressors" (i.e. the "ableists") are stuck in a Faustian deal when interacting with those who have disabilities. For as selfish and superficial as people can be, there are still quite a few of us out there with genuine concern and compassion. Although we may just want to help, we sometimes overcorrect and wind up treating the handicapped as the incapable, which makes us look ableist. And if we don't even make an overture to help, we're branded as ableist anyway because, according to the Left, we're horrified by those different than us.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Of course, I'll be damned if I let Leftists define what I am. (See what I did there?) The fact the Left has taken up this cause at this point for a Senate candidate, while not doing the same for a Republican candidate who had a stroke, says a lot about them, and not a lot of it good. I'm sure they'll try to pass it off as a change of heart, raised consciousness, or trying to make it sound like it's no big deal, blaming the reporter for the furor over the story, or comparing him to the aforementioned Dr. Hawking. You know, the usual post-fuck-up protocol for Leftists.
In the meantime, the matter of ableism is still on the table. Although I will concede there are people who will treat people with disabilities as though they were less than human, most people fall into the category is "we have no fucking clue of what to do, so it's gonna be awkward." We're just trying to figure it out without offending anyone. Of course, with Leftists involved, that's impossible because they're always offended at something. And when they get offended, they get pissed off and willing to cut a bitch on your behalf.
Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there's nothing good on TV), is actually diminishing the people Leftists believe they're supporting. Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there's still nothing good on TV), is pretty much on-brand for the Left. They need there to be victims so they have someone to fight for, thus fulfilling their psychological needs. As far as the people they're fighting for are concerned, fuck 'em! It's the Leftists' feelings and goals that really matter!
And it's this attitude that drives the entire ableism idea. You're not trying to fix anything; you're just trying to find a way to make yourselves feel less awkward about people with disabilities. Instead of treating each person like a human being, Leftists have to see the handicapped as broken, mainly because Leftists tend to be broken people themselves. And Leftists believe only they can fix anything just by caring enough.
That's why I never hire Leftist plumbers.
The key to overcoming ableism, or at least what the Leftists feel is ableism, is taking the time to recognize what everyone brings to the table. Sure, you might not want to get in a car with a blind Uber driver, but getting someone to translate Braille? Top of the fucking list. But Leftists are of the attitude that unless you have a blind Uber driver, you're somehow diminishing the driver's self-worth, which is bullshit. By trying to shoehorn a person into a position he or she isn't capable of doing, you're only hurting the person you've attempted to elevate.
Your Honor, I present Exhibits A and B, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
Whomever wins the Senate race in Pennsylvania, the Left will accuse people of ableism. If John Fetterman loses, it'll be because people didn't look past his mental lapses to see his potential. If he wins, any criticism of his performance will be chalked up as ableism. It's a no-win situation, but it's one that can be overcome by not playing at all. Treat everyone the way you want to be treated and pay attention to the needs and wants of the disabled. At worst, you'll make a new friend or gain a better understanding of what they go through, which will make future interactions…well, still awkward, but less so. But in embracing the awkwardness, we can do something the Left can never do: get past our prejudices.
Oh, and bathe.
Author ThomasPosted on October 16, 2022 October 14, 2022 Categories Guest Author, Humor, Media, Politics, Social IssuesTags 2022 elections, ableism, disabled, dr oz, handicapped, john fetterman, leftist lexicon, mehmet oz, midterms, pennsylvania senate race, us senate
If you heard some shouting coming from the vicinity of Washington, DC, lately, you might be surprised to learn it wasn't Leftists this microsecond. With the help of 14 Republican Senators, a new gun control bill called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will be brought before the Senate for debate and what proponents hope will be passage. That number swelled to 15 when it was brought to a vote, ensuring the bill's passage and sending it to the House of Representatives for a vote. As you might expect from a government body who can't balance its/our own checkbook, it's a mixed bag of good ideas (more funding for mental health in communities) and letting-Eric-Swalwell-write-anti-spying-legislation-level bad ideas.
One of the items in the bill is an idea that Leftists have been promoting for a couple of years now called "red flag laws." Where does this idea fall on the good-to-Swalwell scale? Let's find out!
What the Left thinks it means – laws designed to prevent potential shooters from committing mass shootings before they happen
What it really means – the latest in a long line of gun control measures destined to fail
Without going too far into the weeds with terminology, here are the basics behind red flag laws. If a gun owner takes actions that suggest he or she will harm himself/herself or others, family members and/or law enforcement can ask a judge to intervene and prohibit the gun owner from accessing his/her guns. This is meant to be a temporary measure so the gun owner can get the help he/she needs to deal with the issues that raised the red flags in the first place. Surely this is a good idea, right?
Take a drive over to the road to Hell and let me know what you find.
Aside from the obvious "Minority Report" vibe, there are more than a few things wrong with red flag laws. The biggest issue is the fact just about anything can be seen as a trigger (see what I did there?) to raise red flags. If you suddenly do a lot of searching on the Interwebs for guns, that can be a red flag. If you suddenly do a lot of searching on the Interwebs for yoga, that can't be a red flag, but it may certainly put your Man Card in jeopardy. That applies to you, too, ladies.
If anything can be a red flag, than everything can be, which creates an environment where a gun owner who has not committed a crime is automatically assumed to be the next mass shooter with zero hard evidence. Maybe the gun owner was trying to do comparison shopping for his or her next purchase and decided to look up gun reviews online. Or maybe he/she had a question about legal modifications for a gun or rifle he/she already owned. To the Left, these are red flags that can cause the legal ball a-rollin'.
And that's where things get really messy, legally. The concerned family member or law enforcement officer goes to a judge to issue a temporary injunction on the basis of public safety. Oh, I forgot to mention this tiny detail: the gun owner doesn't even need to be at the hearing for the injunction to be approved.
Hey, wait a minute. Isn't there something about the accused being able to face his accusers in some document that's fairly important to Americans? Well, there is the Sixth Amendment that deals with criminal trials requiring a swift trial before a jury of one's peers, so that doesn't necessarily apply here. However, there are several good arguments to be made with the Seventh and Eighth Amendments that would apply. The Seventh secures the right to a jury trial "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars…" (which would cover pretty much all firearms, especially with inflation these days, amirite) and the Eight states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Although the Sixth Amendment argument is more emotionally compelling, the stronger case is made with the Seventh and Eight Amendments in my opinion.
You can quit laughing now.
Still, the fact a gun owner can have his/her guns taken by a judge, even temporarily, without an opportunity to offer a defense isn't a good look. It's made worse by the idea there are some judges on various benches who would rubber-stamp any possible red flag as legitimate. Subscribe to the wrong political ideology, express your freedoms in a way someone else doesn't like, take your Starbucks without whipped cream and sprinkles, order the wrong color wine with your meal, the possibilities are endless. And they're also very stupid and easy to abuse. All it takes is one pissed-off ex who carries a grudge and a pro-gun control judge to get your property taken from you without recourse, all without you committing a criminal or civil infraction.
All in the name of public safety. Preemptive public safety, that is.
Or at least that's what fans of red flag laws will tell you. How are they doing in practice? Welllllll…that's a bit of a hard one to answer. Currently there are 19 states with red flag laws in place, as well as the District of Columbia. As of this writing, the jury is still out on whether red flag laws are effective in dealing with potential mass shootings, which makes it hard to make the argument they work. After all, in order to confirm the effectiveness of said laws, the shooter would almost have to admit he or she was dissuaded from shooting people because of the red flag laws. And last time I checked, I don't think that's happened yet, if ever. However, red flag laws have had a definite impact on…suicide attempts, which represent a significant portion of annual gun deaths. Although this is a good thing, it's not evidence of the laws' effectiveness against mass shootings.
By the way, Illinois has red flag laws in place, but they still have several shootings every weekend. Why, it's almost as if…people who are bound and determined to ignore the law will…ignore the law! In some cases, a desire to skirt the law makes lawbreakers creative. Right now there are any number of ways to avoid red flag laws altogether, including buying black market guns or hiding existing guns well in advance so they wouldn't be confiscated. No matter how different red flag laws are from previous gun laws, they will invariably end in failure and fatalities.
Which is precisely what they're intended to do.
Government isn't in the problem-solving business because a) they don't know how, and b) solving problems leads to less power and money going to politicians. Politicians need there to be mass shootings to justify power grabs disguised as long-overdue gun safety measures. But with each law that gets passed, we get further away from actual safety and personal freedom.
And red flag laws are waaaaaaaaay off in Leftist field, which is just down the road from Totalitarianville on the bad side of town.
All is not lost, however. Oklahoma actually has an anti-red flag law on the books, which is a step in the right direction. Any law that forces law-abiding citizens to compromise basic Constitutional rights on the promise of safety without a guarantee of it needs to be counteracted within the system of government. Even so, we cannot rely on the courts for favorable rulings, especially when you consider there will be a sitting Supreme Court Justice who couldn't define what a woman is in spite of being one. If you hear of a politician pushing for red flag laws where you live, speak up and challenge the idea.
And if you're in a state where any of the 15 Republican Senators who voted to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, give them hell for not standing up for Constitutional rights.
And you can tell them I sent you.
Author ThomasPosted on June 26, 2022 June 25, 2022 Categories Guest Author, Humor, Justice, PoliticsTags bipartisan safer communities act, gun control, gun laws, gun safety, leftist lexicon, red flag laws, us senate
After last week's Lexicon entry about abortion, I wanted to do something in a lighter vein.
So, we're talking about the filibuster. I know! I'm as excited as you are!
Actually, we do have to go back to the abortion debate for a little while because it plays a role in the discussion, and we have Senator Elizabeth "Chief Running Mouth" Warren to thank for it. See, the Senate tried to make the abortion protections laid out in Roe v. Wade federal law last week in the form of The Women's Health Protection Act, but it ran into a little snag: it didn't have enough votes to bypass a potential filibuster (which is absurd as we'll find out later). As a result, Chief Running Mouth took to the media to renew her call to eliminate the filibuster.
Hoo boy. We're going to need Mayflower to help us unpack all of the wrong here.
What the Left thinks it means – an antiquated unconstitutional Senate rule that threatens democracy
What it really means – a Senate rule that Leftists will rue eliminating if they get their way
Time for a quick civics lesson. Although we tend to work on a majority rule model here in America, there are some exceptions designed to prevent the majority from totally steamrolling the minority. One such tool is the filibuster, which is when the minority can cobble together at least 60 votes to prevent a bill from going forward. Even the threat of a filibuster can be enough to change how a bill is written or presented.
In today's hyper-partisan world, that happens less often than David Duke gets invited to the NAACP Spirit Awards.
Since Democrats hold a numerical majority thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris, they don't necessarily feel they need to reach across the aisle to get things done, which puts their current opposition to the filibuster into perspective. It also puts their previous use of the filibuster into perspective, since they love to use it when they're in the minority. If it wasn't for double standards, Leftists would have no standards at all.
Leftists by their very nature are control freaks (in addition to being other kinds of freaks). They feel they have to rule completely because anything else gives opponents the ability to disagree with them. With enough naysayers, Leftists can't get done what they want, which is a sin in their eyes akin to killing puppies, destroying the planet, and worst of all…not being a Leftist!
This desire for control has been at the core of a lot of defeats for Senate Democrats, including The Women's Health Protection Act. Instead of reading the room and coming up with a bill that would get Republican votes, Leftists tried to ram through a bill banking on Republicans to surrender out of fear of public opinion. Wellll…that didn't happen, and one Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin, sided with the Republicans to make the vote to move forward with the bill 51-49. And it shouldn't be overlooked it was the Senate Democrats who forced the vote. Talk about a self-own! On the plus side for Leftists, Senator Kyrsten Sinema voted with the Democrats, so she might be able to get back on their Winter Solstice card lists.
But the failure wasn't because Senate Democrats fucked up! It was that damn filibuster! And it's about time to we got rid of that unconstitutional rule that prevents progress!
First, let's deal with the constitutionality argument. Although it's true the filibuster doesn't appear in the Constitution, there is this passage from Article I Section 5 that would apply here:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…
This has been interpreted to mean the House of Representatives and Senate can make their own rules, which means the filibuster is constitutional. You would think someone who taught law might be able to figure that out, but we're dealing with Elizabeth Warren here. She's as sharp as a Nerf ball, as anyone who understands her missives on economics an attest.
Or as anyone who understands what a majority is can attest, for that matter. The filibuster literally had very little to do with the failure because, and let me spell it out for the good Senator and any other Leftists who are reading this…the votes weren't there. You had a threshold and failed to meet it. Those were the rules in place at the time, and you lost. Until you change the Senate rules or amend the Constitution to remove the filibuster as a means of ending debate or altering legislation, those are the rules you have to live by.
Of course, nothing can stop you from bitching about it, even if we didn't have a First Amendment in place. But can you at least bitch about it intelligently? A tall order, I know, but could you do it for your Uncle Thomas? Please?
Although it's fashionable to shit on the filibuster, it does serve an important role, even today. Just because one party or the other has a majority doesn't mean that party is right. The fact the filibuster exists in the Senate is a feature, not a flaw, because the Founding Fathers established the Senate as a more deliberative body. If you want bills written up on the fickle whims of the public, you go to the House. If you want substantive discussions, you go to the Senate.
Well, nobody's perfect, not even the Founding Fathers.
Even though the filibuster isn't working well today, it still provides a necessary release valve for impulsive legislation not well thought out and poorly presented. You know, like The Women's Health Protection Act? (On a side note, how does this bill protect women's health when statistically the most babies aborted would be female? But I'm not a biologist, so there's that.)
So, before you Leftists throw out the unborn baby with the bathwater, consider this. Senate Republicans have resisted calls to do away with the filibuster when they've been in the minority because they understand it still has value, even when the previous President believed otherwise.
That's right, Leftists. You now are on the same side as Donald Trump.
As the meme says, congratulations. You just played yourself.
Author ThomasPosted on May 15, 2022 May 13, 2022 Categories Guest Author, Humor, PoliticsTags abortion, filibuster, leftist lexicon, roe v wade, senator elizabeth warren, us constitution, us senate
Life is full of choices. What do you want for dinner? What car should I buy next? Ginger or Mary Ann? Well, thanks to the Left, we now have another choice.
We can have a filibuster in the US Senate, or we can have democracy.
This choice came about due to Leftists attempting to push through voting reforms, but ran into a little snag called Senate rules. To sway public opinion, Leftists are now saying we cannot preserve both democracy and the filibuster in the Senate.
Of course, there's a bit more to the story. And by a bit, I mean a whole fucking lot.
democracy or the filibuster
What the Left thinks it means – the decision between making it easier for people to vote and retaining a Senate rule that doesn't make sense
What it really means – a false choice between something we don't have and something the Left doesn't like right now
Let's deal with the elephant in the room first: we are not a democracy and never have been. We are a constitutional republic. Granted, we've been using democracy and republic interchangeably, but there are clear differences that prevent the two from being synonyms. First, they're spelled differently. Second, and probably more important, a democracy doesn't require electing officials because the people have the power to decide the outcome of matters. A republic does.
Granted, Leftists are going to say this is a semantic difference, but it's really not. It's like saying a chihuahua and an elephant are the same because they're both four-legged animals. But, as anyone who has tried to housebreak an elephant will tell you, they're not the same. Regardless, the fact remains we don't have a democracy, thus half of the choice is false on its face. You know, like Nancy Pelosi's face?
The other half of the decision is a lot less technical, but no less important to understand and appreciate. The best way to describe it is a higher threshold than a simple majority and it's usually reserved for matters of high importance. That way a crackpot majority can't ram through self-serving laws merely by having a few more crackpots than the opposition. It's a useful tool for the minority party in the Senate because the mere threat of one is often enough to take a piece of legislation back to the negotiating table.
Of course, that happening these days is rarer than how Dracula takes his steak. Neither major party has been able to count on having the minimum 60 votes to overcome a filibuster threat for several years now, but instead of trying to craft actual bipartisan legislation, they dig in deeper and get nothing done.
Which is fine by me, by the way.
But it's not fine by Leftists. They have big plans to turn America into the socialist shithole like they've always wanted. Due to the current makeup of the Senate, Democrats have 48 seats and Republicans have 50 seats, with two Independent Senators caucusing with the Democrats. To force a tie, every Democrat and the two Independents have to vote in a bloc, thus allowing the President of the Senate (Vice President Kamala Harris in this case) to cast the deciding vote.
Enter Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, two Democrats who have gotten the ire of Leftists for…not wanting to get rid of the filibuster. Just remember, Leftists are free thinkers. Just ask them. But, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. In this case, even free is too expensive.
Behind the rhetoric, there is some serious deception going on and the Left hopes you'll forget all about it and support making the filibuster as obsolete as Ralph Northam's future with the NAACP. For this next section, we're going to assume the Left is correct about America being a democracy.
The first Senate filibuster in American history occurred in 1837, which means it has been in existence for 185 years. Also, Senate Democrats used or threatened a filibuster over 300 times under President Donald Trump. And it's only become a threat to democracy now? Sorry, but I'm throwing the brown bullshit flag on this one. The only reason the Left wants us to think it's a problem now is because they don't get to use it like they did when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate.
It's almost as if the Left aren't trying to protect democracy so much as they're trying to protect Democrat-acy.
Now that we've entertained the Left's "America is a democracy" fantasy, we must go back and deal with the real world. One of the reasons the Left is hellbent for leather to get rid of the filibuster is because they claim Republicans will get rid of it when they're in the majority. Even though…they didn't. In fact, Mitch "Old Age Mutant Senator Turtle" McConnell bucked President Trump when the latter wanted the Senate to do away with it. And to date, Republicans have not attempted to eliminate the filibuster, although they did render it toothless when it came to judicial nominees. Still, a weakened filibuster under certain conditions isn't the same as eliminating it altogether, which is what the Left wants now.
But as many a Leftist has yet to fully understand, political power is always in flux. Democrats may control the Senate now, but they may not after Election Day. The very thing they want to eliminate will become another tool to use when they're out of power. Then, I guarantee Leftists will sing a totally different tune. How can I be so sure?
Because New York Senator Chuck "Amy's Funnier Relative" Schumer sang that tune a few years ago when he defended the filibuster. If you doubt me, look up Senator Tom Cotton's recent speech in the Senate where he quoted Sen. Schumer directly. The only thing consistent about the Left is their inconsistency, that's for sure.
Although I see a need to reform the filibuster, it's not the existential threat the Left makes it out to be. It's a safeguard against bad decisions, of which there are plenty in Washington, DC, like the effort to get rid of it. Funny how that works, isn't it?
There is no choice between democracy and the filibuster to be had. Since we don't have the former, we can keep the latter with no issues.
Except for Leftists, who don't have issues so much as subscriptions.
Author ThomasPosted on January 16, 2022 January 15, 2022 Categories Guest Author, Humor, PoliticsTags chuck schumer, civics, democracy or the filibuster, filibuster or democracy, leftist lexicon, mitch mcconnell, president donald trump, president joe biden, tom cotton, us senate, vice president kamala harris
As much as I rail on Leftists here and elsewhere, I still consider myself a fair man. I will give credit where and when it's due, much to the chagrin of people rooting for one party or the other. As much as it pains me to say, sometimes Leftists come up with good ideas.
Of course, what I'm about to write about isn't one of them.
Since President Joe Biden's Build Back Better bill is DOA in the Senate (that is Debunked On Arrival) thanks to 50 Senators and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, Leftists have been fuming. How could one man hold up such important legislation, all the while ignoring the other fifty fucking Senators? In fact, some, including Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser have gone so far as to suggest the Senate needs to be reformed, if not done away with completely.
So, let's take a trip to Washington, DC, and figure out what all the yelling's about, shall we?
What the Left thinks it means – a body of government with archaic rules and practices that doesn't represent America and is full of corrupt politicians
What it really means – a body of government that political focuses on theater rather than actual progress
I'm not going to go into a deep history of the Senate because a) you probably already know it, and b) I don't want you to fall asleep. The Reader's Digest Condensed Version is the Founding Fathers wanted to create two bodies in the Legislative Branch to address citizens' concerns, one designed to capture most of the concerns and draft legislation, and one designed to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of the legislation the House sends its way.
So, how's that working out in 2021? Not so well. Due to the precarious balance of power we've seen in the past couple of decades, neither Democrats nor Republicans have been able to establish a secure foothold over control of the Senate for more than a few years. Thus, gridlock has become the norm. And, instead of working across the aisle to find common ground, the Senate has become a rowdy elementary school playground with expense accounts.
And it's not much nicer outside the Beltway. Just look at Joe Manchin's Twitter mentions. Without the confines of cordiality Senators try to maintain since the Senators might need to, you know, work together, anything goes, especially online. (On a side note, is it possible to include any more commas in one sentence?) People are emboldened to Tweet first, ask questions never, which makes them look brave to the people who agree with them and assholish to the people who disagree with them. And some of that same attitude has found its way into the Senate where you're more likely to find civility at an ANTIFA rally than within those hallowed halls.
But just like the relative that gets drunk at the family Christmas and pukes in the flower pot, the Senate is a mess, but it's our mess so we cut it some slack. One of the ways the Left wants to fix the mess is to add more states and, thus, add more Senators. More specifically, Leftist Senators. It's a similar approach the Left wants to apply to the US Supreme Court as a means to increase their power base. And they both have the same flaw: the next time a Republican wins, it allows him or her to reciprocate, thus undercutting the Left's power. Of course, Leftists are the smartest people in the room, provided the room is empty and there are no single-celled organisms present, so they haven't figured this part out yet. I remain hopeful, though, that they'll figure it out before the turn of the millennium or before they cause real damage to the country.
Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath waiting on the latter.
To be fair, I do agree the Senate rules need some tweaking, namely with the filibuster. In the old days, Senators actually had to stand in the well of the Senate and talk the entire time, not just threaten it to get what they wanted. Think Wendy "Abortion Barbie" Davis, but without cute shoes the Left fawn over. On the down side, it would require some Senators to talk endlessly (which they do anyway), but on the plus side it would cut down on anything actually getting done. So, six of one…
Overall, though, I feel the Senate as an institution is pretty good. It's just the people who are currently in it that's the problem. Adding more Senators won't fix it and will only exacerbate it. (Of course, that's what the Left usually wants, so it's nothing new.) What will fix it is us being a little pickier when it comes to Senate candidates. Party politics be damned. What good is a Senator who votes the party line and yet is a blithering idiot? That's how we got in this fucking mess in the first place! Since the Senate is supposed to be the more deliberative body, we need to be electing smarter Senators.
And, yes, that requires us to be smarter, too, so we can weed out the bullshit artists and find the deep thinkers. You may disagree or even dislike them, but we could use a few more Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzes and a lot fewer Marco Rubios and Dick Durbins because the former have the brains to think through the implications of legislation while the latter are too busy doing what their respective parties say without question. While my suggestion is the harder route, it will bring the Senate back to at least some respectability and ultimately produce better results.
If you need further encouragement, let me say one thing: Senator Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. With the way things are now, it's a realistic possibility in our lifetimes if we're not careful.
As for the Leftists complaining about how unfair the Senate is because California and Wyoming have the same number of Senators, we already have a body that is based on population. It's called the House of Representatives, and given the idiots that comprise it right now, we don't need to make another one. One is bad enough, no matter what Dick Van Patten says.
Author ThomasPosted on December 26, 2021 December 25, 2021 Categories Guest Author, Humor, PoliticsTags gridlock, leftist lexicon, senator joe manchin, the senate, us senate
Since the events of January 6th, the Left has demanded there be a commission set up to review what happened, not unlike the 9/11 Commission. Let me save you a few million bucks: some stupid people did stupid and illegal things, and the Left hyperventilated over it. Yet, that hasn't stopped House Democrats from passing a bill that would set up the January 6th Commission. Instead, the Senate stopped it.
It seems like when there's a major event like 9/11 or 1/6, the Left wants to set up commissions to "get to the bottom of it" with the hopes the findings can be used to prevent future events. Sometimes they'll jazz it up by calling them "blue ribbon commissions," but the principle, at least in theory, is the same. Yet, in practice…well, we'll get to that after the obligatory Lexicon opening.
What the Left thinks it means – a bipartisan group designed to look over the facts of a matter and devise proposals to prevent the matter from happening again
What it really means – an excuse to spend money to get utterly worthless results
My statement in the first paragraph about what happened 1/6 is only partially a joke, which is a higher percentage than my actual jokes, but not as big of a joke as the concept of a 1/6 Commission is. At this point, the events have been analyzed, reanalyzed, put through the various ideological spin cycles, and turned into everything but a Ken Burns documentary series on PBS. There might even be a Broadway musical, t-shirt, or sneaker deal in the process. And all with the same purpose: to squeeze out even more milk from the milked-dry cash cow that was the "insurrection."
As much as I say more power to 'em for trying it, the issue comes down to the use of tax dollars towards what is at this point a foregone conclusion. Nothing any commission, bipartisan or otherwise, could come up with would be shocking new information, and the suggestions they could come up with would either be common sense or an appeal for more money and bigger government. You want to know how I know this?
Check out the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They were about as useless as Auto Tune for Yoko Ono, only much more painful to consider.
This goes back to one of my hard and fast universal truths of life: Government isn't in the problem-solving business. This opens up a whole slew of follow-up questions, the primary one being why we need a commission to look into anything. It's really pretty simple: the report becomes a cudgel to use against a particular person or political ideology. With the 9/11 Commission, it was George W. Bush (even though the original warnings he was supposed to act on were more vague than a Michael Bay storyline). And with a 1/6 Commission, the target would be Donald Trump because he helps them raise money indirectly.
There is a secondary reason I'm not even sure the Left recognizes. With both houses of Congress and the White House under Democrat control, Leftists should be able to get pretty much anything they want done. All they have to do is vote along party lines and it's pretty much a done deal. Yet, if you've been paying attention (and I know you have), they can't even organize a one-car accident, let alone advance an ideological agenda. What better way to avoid having to answer questions about why the Leftist agenda has stalled worse than a Yugo in a flood than to attack a common enemy in Trump? And because Democrats hold the White House and Congress, they can initiate whatever actions they feel are necessary to take the heat off them…I mean to hold Trump accountable.
The strategy in play here works in the long term as well. To put it mildly, the Democrats are skittish about 2022 when Republicans stand to gain seats as conventional political wisdom goes. Then again, conventional political wisdom never predicted we'd be saying President Donald Trump, but that's neither here nor there. Commissions, like the 9/11 and the proposed 1/6 ones, tend not to move that fast. They make the sloth from "Zootopia" look like the Road Runner on energy drinks. In short, this means it's a sure bet any commission set up for the January 6th "insurrection" will take a while to start, let alone conclude, which would easily take it into 2022 and beyond where Leftists can run against Trump instead of against their actual opponents. This could easily bleed over into the 2024 Presidential election, given the glacial nature of these commissions.
The problem the Left faces here is one of their own creation. Imagine that! One of their favorite talking points about 1/6 is how everything was caught on video so we could see what happened. Yet, out of that knowledge comes…the need for a commission to look into what happened? As most Leftist ideas do, this runs smackdab in the face of logic. Why would we need to dig deeper into the matter if we all know what happened?
Unless, of course, the commission is a Trojan Horse.
Let me explain as I adjust my tinfoil conspiracy theorist hat. If this commission is to be bipartisan and true to its intent, it will have to look into every aspect of the events of 1/6. Including a certain Speaker of the House who may have made it more difficult to contain the "insurgents." It might also have to figure out how the protesters who got inside the Capitol were inspired by Donald Trump's January 6th speech…before he gave it. It's these little details that always trip up the best attempts of the Left to throw shade. Granted, a 1/6 commission might not have to look too deeply into matters like these, but they would have to explain why or have their work mocked by a certain Midwestern blogger who likes to come up with weekly words the Left love to use.
Here's where the Trojan Horse aspect comes into play. The Left knows certain parties within their midst have dirty hands and a real commission designed to investigate the Leftist narrative for factual underpinnings might stumble across how those hands got dirty in the first place. To protect those individuals, it might be necessary to appear to support a commission but not follow through on it. Of course, this will enrage the Orange Man Bad crowd, but it's a good CYA move.
Then, there's the Left's recent obsession with eliminating the filibuster in the Senate. After decades of using it whenever possible, the Left has had enough of the filibuster and want to get rid of it because those evil nasty Republicans are threatening to use it to do the same thing the Left did! Who could have seen that coming, amirite? Anyway, the recent failure of the Senate to pass legislation that would create the 1/6 Commission breathed new life into the movement because the Left doesn't like the fact they would have to get at least 60 votes to get it passed and avoid a filibuster. So, since they lost, they insist the rules need to be changed so they can win. With this defeat, the Left now has more ammunition to renew the call to remove the filibuster as an option. (Which, of course, is a bad idea, but try telling them that.)
Regardless, the idea of a 1/6 Commission may seem good and logical on the surface, but it's a recipe for disaster, especially for those who have a genuine passion to get to the bottom of what happened. If you want to find out, do your own research. If you want to spend a lot of money and get nowhere, get a high-end treadmill. At least it will be less expensive than a government commission.
Author ThomasPosted on May 30, 2021 May 30, 2021 Categories Guest Author, Humor, PoliticsTags 1/6 commission, 1/6/21, 9/11 commission, commission, leftist lexicon, us senate
With a new President comes new hopes. The hope that the President will make wise decisions in the face of amazing pressure. The hope the President does what's best for the American people. And, in this case, the hope the President doesn't nod off during a state dinner.
But the hopes don't end with the President. Leftists are now hoping to do away with a tool the Senate has used for centuries, the filibuster. And they're doing it in the only way they know how: using a hashtag, #EndtheFilibuster. Although Leftists have used the filibuster in the past (see Wendy Davis), they now think it's outlived its usefulness.
As with most things, the Left hasn't thought this out, as we'll soon see.
#EndtheFilibuster
What the Left thinks it means – a movement to get rid of an antiquated process that prevents progress
What it really means – a movement to remove the voice of the minority in the Senate
Now, for a quick history/civics lesson before we get into the meat of the issue. Senate rules allow for members to delay or stop legislation from passing by getting up and speaking until the controversy is resolved. Usually, this is done by members of the minority party in the Senate to block legislation, but it can be used to make a statement. Namely, some politicians love the sound of their own voices. This bit of political theater is known as a filibuster, and it's a mixed bag as far as effectiveness. These days, the threat of a filibuster is enough to get politicians to back down.
Now that Democrats control the Senate, they want to take that option away from Republicans due to allegations of the GOP abusing it. Whether they actually did is a matter of opinion, but it's interesting to note the timing of this desire to do away with the filibuster. I mean, this isn't something the Left has made a focal point last year when they were campaigning to taking back the Senate. As soon as they got the votes and won the two open seats they needed, the filibuster became Leftist Enemy Number 1. (Excluding Donald Trump, of course.)
Maybe it's me, but I seem to remember the Left wanting to silence conservative voices for, oh, the past decade or so, and it makes me wonder if the removal of the filibuster is in line with that philosophy. But I'm sure no one could be that petty, right?
Sorry. I forgot we were dealing with Leftists here. They hold grudges like Atlas holds up the globe.
Regardless, this current move to eliminate the filibuster is a bad idea that assumes far too much and leaves it open for others to use it against the Left down the line. Say what you will about Mitch McConnell, but he has a working understanding of Senate rules and traditions that is unmatched by his Democrat/Leftist detractors. That makes it easier for him to get what he wants by letting his opponents do all the work for him. Just ask Harry Reid about how the "nuclear option" on judicial nominees worked out for him. (Spoiler Alert: it's how Donald Trump got his Supreme Court nominees through so quickly.)
This same kind of short-sighted strategy is in play here. The Left loves to think once they get into power they won't ever be unseated. Politics doesn't work that way. For every swing in one direction there will be a swing in the other direction eventually. Assuming permanence without evidence and without considering the long-term effects if things go south is like buying a Ferrari assuming you're going to hit a slot jackpot at Uncle Cheater's Casino and Pawn Shop. It works great if your plans come to fruition, but it's a nightmare if it doesn't. And when it comes to politics, the Left has been playing a lot of slots while avoiding the calls from the Ferrari dealership about when they can expect payment.
On the other side of the coin, the Left can't call for unity while silencing the Right. I mean, they'll try, but they will have a hard time convincing the public they're serious about it. Although most people don't know about Parler or Gab, they know about fairness. If one party consistently tries to curtail the other's ability to do business, voters and potential voters may start feeling sympathy towards the injured party, which can swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. With the next election cycle being the midterm elections in 2022 and with the historical tendency for voters to create a divided government, this spells trouble for the Left.
So, naturally, they want to keep pulling the slot machine lever and taking their chances.
Although ending the filibuster is a bad idea, I do think the practice needs to be modified by requiring a personal stake in the outcome. If you threaten a filibuster on a bill, get your comfy shoes on because you will be speaking upright for quite some time. If you threaten a filibuster and don't follow through, you should be punished financially for it and deserve to be mocked mercilessly. Either way, the parties will either have to learn to work together to come up with bipartisan legislation or they get mocked and have to pay out of pocket for it. That's a win-win in my book!
Although #EndtheFilibuster has all the sexiness of Ernest Borgnine in a burlap teddy, it's gaining traction with Leftists who want to exercise absolute power in the Senate because…reasons. Yet, it's such a monumentally bad idea that shows the Left hasn't learned their lesson from the previous times in recent history they've tried to pull the same kind of power trip only to have it blow up in their faces within an election cycle or two.
At least they're consistent with their insanity.
Author ThomasPosted on January 31, 2021 January 28, 2021 Categories Guest Author, Humor, PoliticsTags #endthefilibuster, filibuster, leftist lexicon, us senate
Advice and Consent
With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the U.S. Supreme Court is down a member. It is the President's job to nominate a replacement Justice for the Supreme Court. And per the Constitution it is the Senate's job to confirm or deny such appointments.
Throughout President Trump's presidency the Senate has dragged its heels in the confirmations of his Administration. No other president in history has had such a delay in getting their nominees appointed or even getting Senate hearings for them. So the Senate certainly isn't Pro-Trump otherwise this would not be the case.
During the previous administration, there was an opening on the Supreme Court and President Obama did his duty in nominating a replacement Justice. And the Senate did their duty as well.
They rightly refused to have a hearing for the confirmation of Merrick Garland who was nominated by President Obama. The Constitution clearly states that the President needs the Advice and Consent of the Senate to appoint Judges to the Supreme Court. The Senate did not give their Advice or Consent in President Obama's nomination of Mr. Garland. Yet he didn't have any issues getting his administration confirmed.
The Senate is under no obligation to give consent to any appointment. That is why there are many still open positions within the Administration of President Trump. The Senate hasn't given their consent to his appointments. He will either have to withdraw the nominees and appoint someone else or wait to see if it gets filled.
So here we are coming up on a presidential election in November. And President Trump is still the President of the United States until at least January 20th of 2021. And I pray that he is President for the next four years as well.
No matter the outcome of the coming election. If President Trump submits a nomination to the Senate. The Senate has every right to either hold hearings and confirm the nomination or reject it.
Author chrisPosted on September 22, 2020 Categories PoliticsTags advice and consent, merrick garland, president obama, president trump, ruth bader ginsburg, SCOTUS, trump appointments, us senate
The President or someone else?
There seems to be a lot of confusion when it comes to the job qualifications and description of the President of the United States. So let's get this cleared up.
Our nation's founders were brilliant men. And they wrote out the qualifications needed to be President and what the job description was. So we don't need to guess or make it up as we go.
All of the details can be found in the Constitution. Anything else added or taken away is your own personal preferences. So your opinion is logged and noted. But irrelevant when it comes to the facts.
Article II, Section 1 is where it lists the qualifications to become President of the United States. You must win the election through the Electors, that is the Electoral College and take the oath of office.
But before you can win the election and take the oath of office you must also have these qualifications: One must be a Natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years of age, and lived within the United States for at least 14 years immediately prior to being elected.
That is it for qualifications to be President. No lengthy resume of public service. No skill in oratory. No tests of morality or divulging ones tax history.
As for the job description and duties of the President, again the Constitution clearly tells us that too. The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The President proposes bills to Congress, this is so his agenda can move forward. And since the President is the executive power, it is his job to enforce the laws.
Another part of the President's job is to give a state of the union report from time to time to Congress.
Many of the duties of the President require the US Senate to consent. This is used for the enactment of any Treaty and the appointment of officers of the United States government.
That is it. That is the end of the job qualifications and the job description for the President of the United States. Anything else is opinion or tradition. These are the facts written in the Constitution.
Author chrisPosted on April 29, 2020 Categories PoliticsTags congress, duties, job description, president, qualifications, us senate1 Comment on The President or someone else?