Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, December 16, 2014


OK... ok... better late than never!

 Today's "theme"...


Posted by at

4 comments:

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394737/stutzmans-star-role-cromnibus-joel-gehrke

For a member of Congress to accuse his party leaders of lying to him, and for their aides to return the favor, is about as rare as the drama that surrounded last week’s procedural vote — a vote that led to the passage of the $1.1 trillion spending bill.

That’s the situation Representative Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.) found himself in last week after he lent his support to the spending package at a moment when it seemed unlikely to ever receive a final vote.

Stutzman initially voted no on what is known as “the rule” — the procedural step that allows House leadership to bring the bill to the floor for debate.

When he and one other member switched their no votes to yes, they set the stage for the ultimate success of the spending package.

The episode only heightens the distrust between leadership and conservative grassroots activists, who usually expect establishment Republicans to betray them. That suspicion has empowered junior lawmakers to override the will of more-senior Republicans.

Once in the limelight, Stutzman reacted by sending mixed messages and then falling as silent as the Republican leaders. He elevated the controversy Thursday night, when he claimed that his support for the rule was obtained under false pretenses.

“Earlier today, I supported the rule because I was informed by leadership that the cromnibus was dead and a short-term CR would take its place,” Stutzman said in a Thursday-evening statement after National Review Online reported on the apparent deal. “I was very surprised and even more disappointed to see the cromnibus back on the floor.”

Republican leadership passed the bill Thursday evening after President Obama and House Democratic whip Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) convinced dozens of Democrats who had tried to kill the cromnibus on the procedural vote to nonetheless support the final package.

GOP leaders denied reneging on a promise to Stutzman: “Speaker Boehner did not talk with Representative Stutzman yesterday, and we don’t know what he is talking about,” one senior GOP leadership aide tells NRO. A senior aide to House leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) was even more definitive: “At no time was that communicated by the leadership team or the whip team.”

* SOMEONE IS LYING. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE IT'S STUTZMAN. HE HAD NOTHING TO GAIN AND EVERYTHING TO LOSE BY ACCUSING HIS "SENIORS" OF LYING AFTER BREAKING UNDER THEIR PRESSURE.

* ON THE OTHER HAND... BOEHNER & (BAD) COMPANY HAVE EVERYTHING TO GAIN BY DENYING STUTZMAN'S CHARGE. IF STUTZMAN'S INITIAL CHARGE WERE TO GAIN MAJOR PUBLICITY AND THEN BLOWBACK BOEHNER WOULD BE IN DEEP SHIT INDEED.

It makes sense that it’s Stutzman at the center of such a controversy. Throughout his four years in Congress, the tea-party congressman has been the backbencher with some of the closest ties to GOP leadership. But he’s also prone to bucking the party line when it violates his conservative principles.

Stutzman worked with Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) last October in an attempt to defund ObamaCare by attaching the proposal to a must-pass spending bill that funded the rest of government, despite leadership’s initial hesitance to pick a fight over defunding ObamaCare.

When Senate Democrats blocked the measure, and the government then shut down, Stutzman made an embarrassing gaffe. “We have to get something out of this,” Stutzman told reporters at the time. “And I don’t know what that even is.” Stutzman walked back the comment the next day, saying that he had “carelessly misrepresented” the position of the Republican conference.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

December 16, 2014 at 11:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The shutdown fight isn’t the only time the Indiana conservative has demonstrated a willingness to cross party leaders. In the summer of 2012, he challenged “Washington’s unholy alliance of farm policy and nutrition policy,” a reference to the farm bill, which contains farm subsidies and food-stamp funding. Stutzman voted against the farm bill — a risky move given that he represents a farming district — and forced Republicans to split the food-stamp provisions away from the farm bill. He was kicked off the whip team for his defiance.

Stutzman isn’t a stranger to behind-the-scenes party politics. He won his congressional seat by convincing a majority of Republican precinct captains who attended a caucus to back him as the successor to Representative Mark Souder, his old boss. Souder resigned suddenly in 2010 after admitting that he was having an affair with a part-time staffer. Among Indiana Republicans, Stutzman — or at least his political team — is rumored to have triggered the resignation by leaking the damaging information to Fox News.

“Though I am frustrated at Marlin (more in a minute), he’s probably best qualified and basically a very good man, for all his over-aggressive ambition,” Souder wrote to party officials in a Facebook message shortly after his resignation.

Stutzman has been candid about wanting to move up in the world, telling Roll Call that he made a long-shot bid for House whip in order to set the stage for later advancement. “Sometimes you have to lose in order to build something for the future,” Stutzman said in an August interview. That future could include moving up in leadership, running for Indiana governor when Republican Mike Pence leaves office, or challenging Senator Joe Donnelly (D., Ind.) in 2018.

“I don’t close very many doors, and I don’t burn very many bridges,” Stutzman told Roll Call.

That ambition provides some insight into the situation that captivated Washington’s attention last week.

Stutzman issued an inflammatory statement, but only after the cromnibus package had passed the House; he accused leadership of breaking a promise during the several hours of recess Thursday afternoon and evening, when they were whipping votes for the bill. Since issuing the statement, he has refused to say anything about the matter that might further antagonize leadership. His aides rebuffed requests from NRO for an account of his conversations with leadership on the House floor, while his spokesman told a local reporter that the situation wouldn’t “make him distrust leadership.”

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* AND THIS CLOWN IS "ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS" OVERALL.

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

Leadership aides have been similarly scant on details, beyond contradicting Stutzman. “I think he’s ambitious enough to want to curry favor with the leadership,” one Indiana conservative who knows Stutzman tells NRO. But the prospect of running for statewide office “means he needs to curry favor with more of the tea-party types.”

In short, Stutzman wants some higher office — be that governor, senator, or House leadership — but he doesn’t seem to know what that is yet. As a result, he doesn’t have an incentive to say anything more about his unexpected procedural vote.

* LET'S SEE WHAT HIS CONSTITUENTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT IN TWO YEARS!

December 16, 2014 at 11:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/65-percent-children-live-households-federal-aid-programs

The percentage of children living in households participating in TANF, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid or the National School Lunch Program has been on the rise.

* WELCOME TO OBAMA'S AMERICA!

The Census Bureau reported in a study released this week that 65% of American children lived in households taking aid from one or more federal program as of the fall of 2011.

* AND YOU WONDER WHY I BELIEVE AS I BELIEVE - NAMELY THAT WE'RE GOING DOWN THE TUBES.

"Almost two-thirds (65%) of children," said the Census Bureau, "lived in households that participated in at least one or more of the following government aid programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Medicaid, and the National School Lunch Program."

* AND IT'S NOT JUST THE LEFT WHICH WANTS AN EVER-WIDER SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT. NOPE. IT'S THE CRONY CAPITALISTS AND FARM STATE RINOs WHO SIPHON THE CREAM OFF THE TOP OF GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURAL POLICIES WHICH PUSH FOOD "AID."

How to be dependent on government is now one of the earliest life lessons America is teaching nearly a supermajority of children. In 2003, according to the Census Bureau, there were a total of 72,658,000 children 17 and under in the United States, and 40,337,000 of these children — or 56% — lived in households receiving aid from one of more of these programs.

By 2011, there were 74,294,000 children 17 and under and 47,939,000 of these children — or 65% — lived in households receiving aid from one or more of these programs.

Children living in households that have never taken federal assistance are now a minority in the United States.

In the future, they will be among a minority of adults.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The new willingness among Americans to live on government largesse is matched by another trend: disregard for marriage and traditional family life. As recently as 1970, according to the Census Bureau, 85.2% of American children were living with two parents.

* IN 2011... ONLY 68% OF THIS SAME POPULATION GROUPING WERE LIVING WITH TWO PARENTS...

* HOWEVER... LOOKING CLOSER... THE DECLINE IS ACTUALLY EVER WORSE! (READ ON!)

Of the 74,294,000 children 17 and under in the United States in the fall of 2011, 50,442,000 — or 68 percent — were living with two parents. However, 3,760,000 of those children were living with two parents who were not married, leaving only 46,682,000 children — or 63% — living with two married parents.

* 63% FOLKS...

* OH... AND GUESS WHAT... (READ ON...)

"The economic status of children living with cohabitating parents more closely resembled single-parent families," the study said. After children living with a single parent, they were the most likely to be in poverty.

* MORE STATS? OK...

Only 59.8% of children whose parents were both born in the United States lived with two married parents.

The ultimate struggle for the future of America is not political or economic, but cultural. It is between those who believe in self-reliance and traditional family life and those who do not.

December 16, 2014 at 11:21 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/16/judge-finds-obama-amnesty-unconstitutional/

A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers.

* TRUE... WITH CONGRESS' BLESSING... BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER; CONGRESS HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO RELINQUISH ITS POWERS NOR EVEN TRANSFER THEM. (I KNOW IT'S DONE SO IN THE PAST... AD NAUSEUM... BUT I'M TALKING AS A MATTER OF LAW.)

The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy.

* WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF WERE ENOUGH OF A ROAD MAP?

(*DEEP SIGH*)

Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress.

* DUH!

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.

* DUH!

Immigrant rights advocates said the ruling was a shocking overstep of the court’s authority. Indeed, the Obama administration has argued in federal court in Washington that judges have no power to review the president’s decision-making.

* AGAIN... A QUICK REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF WILL SHOW THAT ONLY CONGRESS CAN LIMIT THE COURT'S OVERSIGHT.

Judge Schwab issued the ruling the same day the Senate voted to confirm Mr. Obama’s pick to head U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that the president instructed to stand down on most deportations.

* IRONIC, HUH?

Sarah R. Saldana was confirmed on a near party-line vote, overcoming objections from Senate Republicans who said approval of the nomination amounted to a show of support for the president.

* THIS FROM THE SAME BUNCH WHO ALIGNED WITH OBAMA, PELOSI, AND REID TO FUND OBAMA'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL DICTATES...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* STILL... HYPOCRISY ASIDE... UNLIKE AN ENGLISH KING, CONGRESS CANNOT SIMPLY ABDICATE - AT LEAST NOT LEGALLY.

Judge Schwab repeatedly used Mr. Obama’s own words against him. He listed the times the president said he didn’t have the power to take the kinds of actions he has now taken.

December 16, 2014 at 11:22 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)