Senator Durbin ought to read the Constitution sometime

Big Fur Hat lays into Senator Durbin

Lil Dick Durbin can go F himself, sideways 

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin has in the past had a very subjective and abstract view of the Constitution, and on Fox News Sunday he once again wondered which people might be “entitled” to constitutional protections and which people might not:

“You’ve raised an important point and I heard Sen. Graham call for special counsel,” Durbin said. “I’m not ready to do this at this moment. I would like to know if Holder has any conflict in here beyond what we heard when it comes to the Fox case.”

“But here is the bottom line — the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.”

 

 

 

*VIDEO* Senator Marco Rubio Discusses His Immigration Scheme On Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday


.
Ed’s two cents worth:

With all due respect, Senator Rubio, why should the American citizenry believe that our federal government – or any liberal state government, for that matter – will actually enforce new immigration laws they disagree with when they aren’t enforcing the ones they object to right now?

As for a secure border fence, we were promised one of those years ago, and it still hasn’t materialized. Tell me, how can the feds be trusted to do the right thing tomorrow when they’ve allowed sanctuary cities to exist – in conspicuous violation of federal law – for so many years?

While elucidating your plan, you mentioned a new commission who’s ultimate administrative authority would be “triggered” into play if the Mexican border remains less than 90% secure after half a decade. Yet the Obama regime tells us that this border is more inviolable today than ever before, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

Suppose the Democrats win the White House in 2016. Are we to just accept the word of another leftist-controlled Department of Homeland Security when it inevitably tells us that the border is suddenly and miraculously more than 90% secure? Do you not believe that such a DHS might lie to us in order to retain its authority in this respect?

Perhaps after the southern security fence we’ve already paid for is actually completed, and government officials and business owners are prosecuted en mass for blatantly defying our laws as pertains to illegal aliens, we can begin to talk about a new set of rules that deal with our remaining immigration problems. Is that not a reasonable proposition?

Whether you believe so or not, Senator, I can only hope you will eventually come to understand that the reason why few conservatives are getting behind your plan isn’t because your ideas are necessarily objectionable. It’s because true right-wingers like me don’t believe that most of your colleagues are honest people who will keep to their word on this issue. In short, we have no reason to think that our federal government will do this time around what it has failed utterly to do in the past, which is faithfully enforce its own immigration laws.

.

Selective Memory Syndrome strikes noted buffoon Chuck Hagel

Poor Chuck, his pathetic testimony before Congress is not his fault, he just cannot remember anything!

, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.

I might have said what I do not remember saying, but if I did, I did not mean it, I think.

Via Politico:

Chuck Hagel is disavowing a comment he reportedly made six years ago tying the State Department to Israel, according to South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Graham announced on “Fox News Sunday” that Hagel sent him a letter, saying that he did not recall making the remark in a 2007 speech at Rutgers University. In that speech, the former Republican senator from Nebraska reportedly said the State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli foreign minister’s office. Graham, also a Republican, called that alleged remark “disturbing,” as critics said it was part of a pattern where President Barack Obama’s nominee to be the next secretary of defense has taken stances seen as hostile to Israel.

But Hagel has furiously sought to rebut criticism over Israel and appears to have done so in his letter to Graham, who had sought clarification.

“He did not recall saying that,” Graham said of Hagel’s letter. “He disavows saying that. … If that’s true, that would end that matter.”

“I will take him at his word,” Graham said, “until something else comes along.”

Come on Lindsey! Wake up! He is LYING. Good Freaking Grief, just when I was ready to say some good things about the Senator Graham he reverts back to Wimp Mode!

Oh those wacky Democrats

You just never know when their heads will start spinning and spewing out complete nonsense. 

Commie Kids Say the Darnedest Things

Considering that the federal government is spending over $3.5 trillion per year, that it is running yearly deficits of well over $1 trillion, that the national debt is over $16.5 trillion despite government revenues steadily climbing, that unfunded liabilities will run us an estimated $86.8 trillion, and that the entire gross domestic product is about $15.5 trillion, would you say the irresponsible and/or deliberately destructive socialist looters steering this Titanic at a giant iceberg of insolvency have a spending problem? Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t:

“We have to recognize that, which cuts really help us and which cuts hurt our future? And cuts in education [i.e., payoffs to teachers unions], scientific research [i.e., useless green energy boondoggles like Solyndra] and the rest are harmful, and they are what are affected by the sequestration,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.” “So, it is almost a false argument to say we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) doesn’t see one either. When asked if the country has a spending problem, he replied:

“The country has a paying for problem.”

Good Freaking grief! What else can we say except FACEPALM!

double-facepalm epic-facepalm-gif-5618 epic-facepalm-gif-i11

 

Your DaleyGator Blog Headline of the Day

Comes via Stacy McCain, who has this gem 

Essay Contest Winner: ‘Why I’m Not a Democrat, in Three Words’

And those three words are, “Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ah poor Little Debbie. She has been afflicted with a very big mouth, and a very little brain. Which can lead to a case of S.M.S. Selective Memory Syndrome

Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past.

“Americans need to ask themselves, why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that?” the DNC chair, a chief surrogate for President Obama’s reelection team, said on Fox News Sunday two days ago. “Just something, a thought, that I’d like to leave folks with.”

Dear Karl Rove: Please, shut up and go away!

Sorry folks, but this guy agitates me to no end. He strikes me as a guy who has sold himself as some sort of political genius when he really is not. I hate the way Fox sucks up to him, and I hate his politics before principles style, which to me amounts to nothing more than ideological cowardice!. I ask you am I wrong?

OK here is  a thought that struck me right as I hit the publish button. What if Team Romney tells this Super Pac to go ahead and run the ad? They tell them that they will come out, and denounce the use of the ad. Doesn’t that cover Romney’s ass so to speak? The ad runs, so it benefits Romney with some voters, but Romney has denounced the ad, very early, so his bases are covered there as well. Just throwing that out there.

Someone ought to have a chat with Newt’s ego

Newt, politics is like poker, you have to know when to fold. That time for you is now. Well, actually it has been for weeks now, but still, Newt, give it up. Id dor no other reason than to shut a certain blogger up.

If you haven’t been reading this blog regularly, you may have been shocked by Newt’s confession today on Fox News Sunday:

“Unfortunately, our guys tried to match Romney,” Gingrich said of the Florida match-up. “It turned out, we didn’t have anything like his capacity to raise money.”
Gingrich said he has a little less than $4.5 million in campaign debt, and he’s operating on a shoestring budget.

I was there when it happened, although nobody realized it at the time, and it took another seven weeks to learn the truth.

On Feb. 21, the day after his January FEC report became available, I said Gingrich’sspending was “unsustainable,” and when his February report became public March 20, I said he was bankrupt.

Oh Newt, this is why I never wanted you in this race. I knew, or at least I had a good idea that your massively over-inflated ego would stop you from getting out when you should, sadly, I was right.

Now THAT is cutting the budget!

I have to say, this Paul Ryan chap is looking like a winner! I mean when he talks about budget cuts, he means business!

The Republicans have recently come under fire by conservative voters–myself included–for what is perceived as their mishandling of the current budget negotiations after having failed to live up to their proposal to cut $100 billion in spending from the current budget, but are the Republicans finally beginning to get serious about this issue? While the current budget negotiations are underway Paul Ryan is working on a budget for the next fiscal year which he is set to unveil on Tuesday. This budget would include a cut in federal spending of $4 trillion over the next decade. The details are still not available, but here is what we know so far:

A “premium support system” for Medicare. In the future, older people would choose plans in the marketplace and the government would subsidize those plans. Ryan said that would differ from the voucher system he has proposed in the past. Those 55 and older would remain under the present Medicare system. Ryan acknowledged that the “premium support system” would shift more costs to Medicare recipients, especially what he called “wealthy seniors.” He did not define at what level someone would be considered wealthy.

-Block grants to states for Medicaid, the health program for the poor. Ryan disputed reports that the plan would seek savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid, but would say only that the details would be in the plan.”Medicare and Medicaid spending will go up every single year under our budget. They don’t just go up as much as they’re going right now,” he said. Ryan said governors have told members of Congress they want “the freedom to customize our Medicaid programs. … We want to get governors freedom to do that.”

-A statutory cap on actual discretionary spending as a percentage of the economy. While Ryan did not specify the amount during the interview, he said it would be at a lower level than proposed by Obama and would return the government to its “historic size.”

-Pro-growth tax changes, including lower tax rates and broadening the tax base. Ryan said overhauling taxes would boost the economy. The plan will not propose tax increases.

Well, I will need to see the proposal, but, I like the sound of that number! Sounds like someone IS dead serious about getting a handle on America’s fiscal insanity. The Mind Numbed Robot is liking this too

Fortitude.

…as in testicular fortitude.

As used by R.S. McCain to accurately describe Rep. Paul Ryan, who announced the first real plan to cut government’s wasteful spending.

Stacy McCain likes Ryan’s, er, he admires Ryan’s, ummm guts, yeah, that’s it!

The gentleman from Wisconsin steps up:

The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee said his party’s budget proposal for 2012 would cut deficits by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, vowing to tackle costly entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.
The proposal, set to be unveiled Tuesday, would serve as the Republicans’ official response to President Obama’s proposed $3.7 trillion budget for 2012. The White House claims its plan would cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade.
But Ryan, R-Wis., in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” accused Obama of “punting” and said Republicans’ plan would exceed the fiscal goals set by the president’s fiscal commission — which issued a report calling for $4 trillion in cuts. That report never made it out of committee.
“We can’t keep kicking this can down the road,” Ryan said. “The president has punted. We’re not going to follow suit.”

The Beltway spin on this: By proposing large cuts for the fiscal 2012 budget, Ryan’s plan gives House Republicans political “cover” if negotiations over the remainder of the fiscal 2011 budget require them to accept smaller levels of cuts for the current year.

I could care less about buying the GOP “cover” that is fine, but the meat here is that finally, a Republican leader is ACTING like a leader in a major way! No BS, no nibbling at the debt, no dancing, no prancing, or playing games. Paul Ryan has come out swinging for the fences, he has come out, let me say it again, LEADING! You want to get the GOP base fired up? Propose budget cuts that actually cut something.

Representative Paul Ryan, a mastermind on economics and budgetary issues, was on Fox News Sunday declaring that Republicans will lead when it comes to the 2012 budget.

Unlike President Obama and the Democrats who are missing in action, Ryan will release a 2012 budget proposal that will greatly reduce federal spending by tackling Medicare and Medicaid.

Ryan said it’s ironic that President Obama will relaunch his reelection campaign on the week that Republicans are trying to get Democrats to debate budgetary issues and get us out of the debt crisis looming in the horizon.

This Tuesday, Ryan will lay out his budget which will include more than $4 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Leading where Obama and the Democrats won’t.

Transcript via The Hill:

“Where the president has failed to lead, we’re going to lead and we’re going to put out ideas to fix this problem,” Ryan said.

“Democrats could use the plan as a “political weapon,” Ryan said.

“We are giving them a political weapon to go out against us, but they will have to lie and demagogue to make that a political weapon. They are going to demagogue us, and it’s that demagoguery that has always prevented political leaders in the past from actually trying to fix the problem. We can’t keep kicking this can down the road.”

He added, “Shame on them if they do that.”

They will demagogue, he knows it, I know it, you know it. But, consider that they have been doing the Democratic Dance of Demagogue and Doom like the Devil over the paltry cuts proposed so far. Harry Reid and his cohorts would bitch if Ryan suggested we cut five bucks of spending. Let them take that bag of BS to the American people if they choose to

Famed New Jersey Blogger: Boehner has a funny tan

Actually Chris lays out a good case that John Boehner might need to strengthen his fiscal spine a tad!

Ruh roh. House Speaker John Boehner is waffling on the debt ceiling. Which unfortunately doesn’t come as too big of a surprise given his track record. The Man With The Orange Tan has never been much of a conservative, fiscal or otherwise.

But we’re stuck with him as Speaker, so maybe we need to whack him with a clue-by-four before he does something dumb. And I’ve got just the man to do it — Chris Christie.

Christie, so far, seems very strong on spending, and I do hope Boehner remembers WHY he has the Speaker’s gavel. Hint Mr. Speaker, it AIN’T because of your tan.