Vile, Leftist Hypocrisy Update: Senate Democrats Go Nuclear, Eliminate Filibusters On Obama Nominees

Reid, Democrats Trigger ‘Nuclear’ Option; Eliminate Most Filibusters On Nominees – Washington Post

The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn on Thursday, when Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.

.

The rule change means federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote super majority that has been required for more than two centuries.

The change does not apply to Supreme Court nominations. But the vote, mostly along party lines, reverses nearly 225 years of precedent and dramatically alters the landscape for both Democratic and Republican presidents, especially if their own political party holds a majority of, but fewer than 60, Senate seats.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Democrats of a power grab and suggested that they will regret their decision if Republicans regain control of the chamber.

“We’re not interested in having a gun put to our head any longer,” McConnell said. “Some of us have been around here long enough to know that the shoe is sometimes on the other foot.” McConnell then addressed Democrats directly, saying: “You may regret this a lot sooner than you think,” he said.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned Democrats against the rule change on Wednesday, saying that if the GOP reclaimed the Senate majority, Republicans would further alter the rules to include Supreme Court nominees, so that Democrats could not filibuster a Republican pick for the nation’s highest court.

The vote to change the rule passed 52-48. Three Democrats – Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) – joined with 45 Republicans in opposing the measure. Levin is a longtime senator who remembers well the years when Democratic filibusters blocked nominees of Republican presidents; Manchin and Pryor come from Republican-leaning states.

Infuriated by what he sees as a pattern of obstruction and delay over President Obama’s nominees, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) triggered the so-called “nuclear option” by proposing a motion to reconsider the nomination of Patricia Millet, one of the judicial nominees whom Republicans recently blocked by a filibuster, to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

The Senate voted 57-40, with three abstentions, to reconsider Millett’s nomination. Several procedural votes followed. The Senate Parliamentarian, speaking through Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the chamber’s president pro temp, then ruled that 60 votes are needed to cut off a filibuster and move to a final confirmation vote. Reid appealed that ruling, asking senators to decide whether it should stand.

Senators began voting about 12:15 p.m. The final vote was 52 in favor of changing the rule, 48 against.

The Democratic victory paves the way for the rapid confirmation of Millett and two other nominee to the D.C. appeals court. All have recently been stymied by GOP filibusters, amid Republican assertions that the critical appellate court simply did not need any more judges.

But the impact of the move is be more far-reaching. The means for executing this rules change – a simple-majority vote, rather than the long-standing two-thirds majority required to change the chamber’s standing rules – is more controversial than the actual move itself.

Many Senate majorities have thought about using this technical maneuver to get around centuries of parliamentary precedent, but none has done so in a unilateral move on a major change of rules or precedents. This simple-majority vote has been executed in the past to change relatively minor precedents involving how to handle amendments; for example, one such change short-circuited the number of filibusters that the minority party could deploy on nominations.

Reid has rattled his saber on the filibuster rules at least three other times in the past three years, yielding each time to a bipartisan compromise brokered by the chamber’s elder statesmen.

But no deal emerged by the time debate started Thursday morning. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the main negotiator who brokered recent deals to avert such a showdown, as well as one in 2005, met with Reid on Wednesday, but neither side reported progress.

The main protagonists for the rules change have been junior Democrats elected in the last six or seven years, who have alleged that Republicans have used the arcane filibuster rules to create a procedural logjam that has left the Senate deadlocked. Upon arriving in 2009, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) said, he found that “the Senate was a graveyard for good ideas.”

As he recounted in a speech this week, Udall said, “I am sorry to say that little has changed. The digging continues.”

As envisioned earlier this week, Democrats would issue a new rule that would still allow for 60-vote-threshold filibusters on legislation and nominees to the Supreme Court.

Republicans, weary from the third rules fight this year, seemed to have adopted a resigned indifference to this latest threat, as opposed to the heated rhetoric in mid-July when the issue last flared up. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, mocked the idea that the Democrats would leave in place the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominations, in the event that a GOP nominee wins the White House in 2016.

He made clear that if that occurred, and the GOP reclaimed the Senate majority, the Republicans would then alter the rules so that Democrats could not filibuster a Republican pick for the Supreme Court. “If [Reid] changes the rules for some judicial nominees, he is effectively changing them for all judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court,” Grassley said Wednesday.

Reid’s move is a reversal of his position in 2005, when he was minority leader and fought the GOP majority’s bid to change rules on a party-line vote. A bipartisan, rump caucus led by McCain defused that effort.

At the time, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was the No. 2 GOP leader and helped push the effort to eliminate filibusters on the George W. Bush White House’s judicial selections. Eight years later, McConnell, now the minority leader, has grown publicly furious over Reid’s threats to use the same maneuver.

Democrats contend that this GOP minority, with a handful of senators elected as tea party heroes, has overrun McConnell’s institutional inclinations and served as a procedural roadblock on most rudimentary things. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1967 through 2012, majority leaders had to file motions to try to break a filibuster of a judicial nominee 67 times – and 31 of those, more than 46 percent – occurred in the last five years of an Obama White House and Democratic majority.

Republicans contend that their aggressive posture is merely a natural growth from a decades-long war over the federal judiciary, noting that what prompted the 2005 rules showdown were at least 10 filibusters of GOP judicial nominees. To date, only a handful of Obama’s judicial selections have gone to a vote and been filibustered by the minority.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

FLASHBACK – 2005


.

.

Names Of Vile Democrats On House Committee Who Walked Out On Benghazi Victims’ Family Members

Names Of Democrats On House Oversight Committee Who Walked Out On Benghazi Victim Family Members – Fire Andrea Mitchell

The slimy Democrats on the House Oversight Committee shamelessly walked out during testimony of Benghazi victim family members Patricia Smith is the mother of Sean Smith and Charles Woods is the father of Ty Woods. Here are the names of the disgusting Democrats who make up the House Oversight Committee and who should be ashamed of themselves:

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. John Tierney (MA-6)
Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (MO-1)
Rep. Stephen Lynch (MA-9)
Rep. Jim Cooper (TN-5)
Rep. Gerald Connolly (VA-11)
Rep. Matt Cartwright (PA-17)
Rep. Mark Pocan (WI-2)
Rep. Tammy Duckworth (IL-8)
Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-7)
Rep. Peter Welch (VT)
Rep. Tony Cardenas (CA-29)
Rep. Steve Horsford (NV-4)
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-1)

.

Here is that those slimy Democrats missed.

Pat Smith (mother of Sean Smith)

.

.
All of these filthy Democrats are in safe districts anyway, so they will suffer no backlash at all over their absolutely disgusting behavior. According to a commenter, Elijah Cummings and Jackie Speier did not walkout like the rest of the pond scum on this list.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Illinois Legislature Blocks Veto Of Vile, Leftist Governor, Passes Concealed Carry Bill

IL Senate Blocks Quinn’s Veto, State Becomes Last To Pass Concealed Carry – Big Government

The Illinois House, without debate, has struck down the amendatory veto Governor Pat Quinn issued to House Bill 183 by a 77-31 vote, allowing residents to carry concealed firearms. The Illinois Senate has now followed suit and also voted against Quinn’s veto by a margin of 41-17.

.
……….

With the passage of the bill, Illinois becomes the last state in the union to allow its residents to carry concealed firearms.

The Illinois State Police must now be ready to process an anticipated 300,000 first year applications within six months. Residents must pay $150 and non-residents will be required to pay $300, in addition to 16 hours of required training, to apply for the five-year permit.

See Illinois State Police FAQ’s regarding the legislation here.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Vile Obamacare Abortion Mandate In Hobby Lobby Case

Court Opposes Obama On Abortion Mandate – WorldNetDaily

A federal appeals court in Denver has ruled against the Obamacare abortion mandate that forces religious business owners to violate their beliefs by paying for abortifacients.

.

The ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case returned to the district court level for swift resolution of the request by the owners of Hobby Lobby for an injunction until the dispute fully is resolved.

The district court previously refused to allow the injunction, and even Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the company owners to start paying for abortifacients for their employees, in direct violation of their faith.

However, the 10th Circuit took the case with the unusual step that the full court would hear the arguments rather than a three-judge panel.

In their decision, the court said Hobby Lobby has “established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.”

The case is just one of more than five dozen pending in U.S. courts now challenging Obama’s demand that employers pay for abortifacients for their employee regardless of their religious faith and beliefs.

A five-judge majority on the court said the mandate creates a substantial burden, because if the owners do not comply with Obama’s demands, based on their religious beliefs, they would be subjected to millions of dollars in fines annually.

The judges also said the government did not satisfy the requirement to show that any burden on the religious exercise of the plaintiffs was overridden by some “compelling” government interest or that it was imposed in the least intrusive way possible.

The court pointedly noted that Obama’s administration already has exempted “tens of millions of people” from the same mandate, so to do so for Hobby Lobby hardly would create an impact.

The American Center for Law and Justice was one of the dozens of organizations that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the dispute.

“We are pleased with the outcome of this case, especially because the 10th Circuit majority tracks the arguments we presented,” the group said. ” …These are the same arguments we have presented in the other mandate cases in which we are involved.”

The Green family, owners of the chain of hundreds of stores in 40 states, said, through the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, they are optimistic.

“My family and I believe very strongly in our conviction that life begins at conception, and the emergency contraceptives that we would be forced to provide in our employee health plan under this mandate are contrary to that conviction,” said David Green, founder. “We believe that business owners should not have to be forced to choose between following their faith and following the law.”

Hobby Lobby is the largest business so far to file a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services mandate under Obamacare. But it is just one of many plaintiffs who make up more than 60 lawsuits launched already.

Other plaintiffs include Colorado Christian University, Ave Maria University and Wheaton College of Illinois.

“We hold that Hobby Lobby and Mardel [a related company] are entitled to bring claims under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.”

The 165-page opinion said Hobby Lobby has standing to sue, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. The opinion also said the majority holds that the district court erred in finding that Hobby Lobby had not demonstrated a likelihood of success.

The judges noted that the company owners established their work on Christian principles and continue to run them that way, refusing to open on Sundays or engage in business activities that promote alcohol use.

The company also buys newspaper ads inviting people to “know Jesus as Lord and Savior.”

The court noted that the law allows exemptions to Obamacare for religious employers, but religious for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby were deliberately targeted for the requirement.

“The plaintiffs assert that because more than 13,000 individuals are insured under the Hobby Lobby plan… [Obamacare fines] would total at least $1.3 million per day, or almost $475 million per year.”

The fines, combined with the fact the government was unable to show it had narrowly tailored the requirement, means the government’s argument must fail, the court said.

“In addition, the Supreme Court has settled that individuals have Free Exercise rights with respect to their for-profit businesses… In short, individuals may incorporate for religious purposes and keep the Free Exercise rights, and unincorporated individuals may pursue profit while keeping their Free Exercise rights.”

The court said the government has the idea that when individuals incorporate but are not tax-exempt under the IRS code, “Free Exercise rights somehow disappear.”

But the judges said religious expression and religious conduct can be communicated by individuals and for-profit corporations alike.

Several other district judges have ordered that the abortion mandate not be enforced against individual companies until the dispute is resolved, but the government is appealing the decisions.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Megyn Kelly Confronts Parasitic Leftist Rep. McDermott Over His Vile Treatment Of IRS Victims


.

Vile, Commie Teachers Union Video Features ‘Rich’ Urinating On ‘Poor’

California Teachers Union Video Features ‘Rich’ Urinating On The ‘Poor’ – EagNews

A new video produced by the California Federation of Teachers – which could be playing in your child’s classroom as we speak – drums up the typical class warfare images we’ve come to expect from Big Labor.

“Tax the Rich: An Animated Fairy Tale,” written by CFT staffer Fred Glass (2011 compensation: $139,800) and narrated by proud leftist actor (and 1 percenter) Ed Asner, advocates for higher taxes on the “rich” as the cure for government’s insatiable thirst for spending.

The video claims the rich got rich through tax cuts and tax loopholes and even tax evasion.

But when the 99 percent fought back, the “rich” apparently urinated on the “poor,” at least according to the video. What a classy way to frame your argument for children, Big Labor.

.

.
The video also claims that when the housing market crashed, the government printed money for “rich people” but they didn’t give any to “ordinary people whose houses and jobs were broken by the crash.”

That’s a patently false statement, as evidenced by a handy-dandy chart courtesy of the New York Times. Here’s a sampling of what was contained in President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package:

- Help states prevent cuts to essential services like education – $53.6 billion

- Extend and increase unemployment compensation – $35.8 billion

- Health coverage under Cobra – $25.1 billion

- Increase food assistance – $20.9 billion

- Increase the maximum Pell Grant by $500 – $15.6 billion

- Provide cash payment to seniors, disabled veterans and other needy individuals – $14.4 billion

- Provide additional money to schools serving low-income children – $13 billion

- Provide additional money for special education – $12.2 billion

- Create new bonds for improvements in public education – $10.9 billion

And the list goes on and on.

The California Federation of Teachers’ video is little more than unsurprising leftist propaganda, aimed to indoctrinate children with no basis in fact. Do you know if your child is watching it in school?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

*VIDEO* Backdoor Dream Act: President Asshat’s Vile Usurpation Of Legislative & Judicial Authority

Third Vile, Parasitic, Race-Baiting Leftist Fired By NBC News Over Another Misleading Zimmerman Tape Edit

Another Misleading Edit Costs Another NBC News Employee Her Job – TVNewser

Lilia Luciano, a Miami-based NBC News correspondent, is no longer working for the network, TVNewser has learned.

………………

Luciano last reported for NBC News March 31. Until that point, she had been reporting mainly on the Trayvon Martin story. Sources tell TVNewser Luciano’s dismissal came after an investigation which also led to the firing of a seasoned NBC News producer over a similar, misleading edit. In a story for the “Today” show on March 20, Luciano used part of the George Zimmerman 911 call in which an entire phrase (italicized below) was taken from a later part of the conversation:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.

A week later, on March 27, another correspondent, Ron Allen used similar audio from that 911 call in his story, leaving out the dispatcher’s follow-up question.

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

As we’ve reported, here’s how the conversation actually happened:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy – is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

That edit resulted in the dismissal of the NBC News Miami producer. NBC News confirms with TVNewser that Luciano is no longer with the network. She joined NBC News from Univision just 18 months ago.

Luciano is the third NBC employee to have lost their job over this story. As TVSpy reported last week, WTVJ reporter Jeff Burnside was fired for a similar circumstance.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

*VIDEO* Alfonzo Rachel Weighs In On Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, And Vile, Leftist Race Pimps

*VIDEO* Everything You Need To Know About The Leftist ‘Occupy’ Movement In America

*VIDEO* TSA Harasses Mentally Disabled Man As Possible Terrorist

C-SPAN Host Allows Anti-Semitic Rant – WorldNetDaily

A C-SPAN host has let a caller and a guest both launch anti-Semitic rants without objection or censure, and then declined to explain why the harsh criticism of Israel – described as of “no worth” – was allowed.

The discourse came recently while Bill Scanlan was hosting the program, and a video of the exchange has been preserved at a website called “the elder of ziyon.

The site describes the exchange as including an “unbelievably anti-Semitic question by the caller,” but also criticized that the C-SPAN anchor doesn’t even blink. C-SPAN guest Michael Scheuer also is captured “pretty much telling the world how Israel deserves to be the target of terror attacks.”

The episode started with an unidentified caller to the show:

“I, for one, am sick and tired of all these Jews coming on CSPAN and other stations and pushing us to go to war against our Muslim friends,” the caller said. “They’re willing to spend the last drop of American blood and treasure to get their way in the world… They have way too much power in this country.”

Scanlan didn’t comment.

But Scheuer, a former CIA worker who served as the chief of the bin Laden issue station from 1996 through 1999, took up the theme.

“I think American foreign policy eventually is up to American people,” said Scheuer, who was outed as the “anonymous” author of “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.” ,

He said for the last 30 years people in the U.S. have “not been able to discuss” the U.S. policy toward Israel.

“Whether we want to be involved fighting Israel’s wars in the future is something Americans should be able to talk about,” he said. “They may vote yes. They may want to see their kids killed in Iraq or Yemen… to protect Israel.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story