Boehner Joins Hands with Pelosi to Defeat Conservatives

[SANDHILLBILLY]

Read this and let write some letters.



http://www.gunowners.org/alert1252014a.htm?src=fb120514

[Lmbass14]

Done.

[RedDot]

Done.

[jFader]

Boeher is such a joke!  Everyday of my life I inch further towards the libertarian party.... if you just started watching politics with no prior knowledge it would be hard to tell the difference between the 2 parties at times.   2 sides of the same coin

[depserv]

A clear, authoritative voice came over the radio: "Good news Winston, Obama carried the Democrats to a great victory in 2014; this means the voters have given him a mandate, and the Republicans too: they must be subordinate to his rule in the name of Democracy. Isn't it wonderful?"

Winston thought for sure he had heard that Republicans won a huge victory in 2014, but the Ministry of Truth had reported that somehow Obama won, so that settled the matter: Winston was not about to risk being exposed as a thought criminal. So he smiled at his neighbor and said "Yes it is wonderful: now our big brother can go on taking care of us, and protecting us from Goldstein and thoughtcrime."

[bullit]

Well here is the "priority" for our 1st District U.S. Representative's Facebook page .......


Congressman Jeff Fortenberry shared a link.
20 hours ago
Pleased that the House of Representatives today passed my legislation directing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail. I invite you to view my remarks on the House floor:

[GreyGeek]

Here are actions by Fortenberry which he thinks his constituents should know about:

http://fortenberry.house.gov/news-releases/

Pick a year and browse.

Here is a record of Fortenberry's votes on legislation:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/41929/jeff-fortenberry#.VIi73139RG8
Sixteen pages of records.

Here are his votes on all gun related legislation:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/41929/jeff-fortenberry/37/guns#.VIi90139RG8

[unfy]

Boeher is such a joke!  Everyday of my life I inch further towards the libertarian party.... if you just started watching politics with no prior knowledge it would be hard to tell the difference between the 2 parties at times.   2 sides of the same coin

Ok, what is the difference between the two parties ?


Abortion!@$*(!@#$

While this might be a 'litmus test' / possible judge of character thing.  It's purely a talking point.  RvW settled the issue a very long time ago.  Lets say that you do happen to be Pro Life (as most folks around here probably are) - if you were elected tomorrow - what could you possibly do to further a Pro Life mentality ?  The SCOTUS already decided the matter.


Guns!@(%!(@%

The Romney - the Red team nominee has video of him speaking as Gov'ner that he is all for gun control. 

How many Red team folks think that registration is okay ?

How many Red team folks think it's about hunting ?


Military!*@%!(@$%

And add to that: foreign intervention.

Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama -- have all bombed / invaded other countries.  All have continued to have large military budgets.


Gov't Spending 1@*(%!@()%!@%

Have you been around for the last 20 years ?

Red team and Blue team budgets don't differ by a whole lot.  And both sides have been spending stupid amounts of money.  Bush TARP's.  Obama bail outs.  Last year's "shutdown" and caving. The recent 1.1T spending bill (which don't kid yourself - that's just a bite sized snack).  Etc


Heath care!(@%)!@%

Romney Care ?

We're still funding ACA ?

etc ?


*sigh*

[Husker_Fan]

Unfy is right. I'm very pro-life, but I know that the Republican party did squat when W was president and had both houses of congress. W even said he would sign a reauthorization of the AWB if it had made it to his desk.

I vote for candidates, not parties.

Also, I'm not impressed with GOA. I take their rhetoric with a metric ton of salt.

[GreyGeek]

While this might be a 'litmus test' / possible judge of character thing.  It's purely a talking point.  RvW settled the issue a very long time ago.  Lets say that you do happen to be Pro Life (as most folks around here probably are) - if you were elected tomorrow - what could you possibly do to further a Pro Life mentality ?  The SCOTUS already decided the matter.

SCOTUS also once ruled that a Black person  was worth only 3/5ths of a White person.  What SCOTUS declares as "decided" truth isn't written in stone.

Unfortunately, as Bohner just proved, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two political parties.   For the most part a national political office is all about power and perks. 

http://ballotpedia.org/Changes_in_Net_Worth_of_U.S._Senators_and_Representatives_%28Personal_Gain_Index%29

For the first time in history, the majority of America's elected officials in Washington, D.C. are millionaires.  At the same time, 50 percent of Americans cannot afford to spend $5,000 in an emergency.
...
For the 49 members who went from a negative net worth to a positive net worth, the average increase was $3.4 million per member.

There is little difference between what is considered the Left Wing MNM and FoxNews.  This is evident by the fact that reporters, journalist, commentators and management regularly switch jobs between the various outlets.  Major Garrett, long with FoxNews, is now with CBS.  Juan Williams, formerly with NPR, is now with Fox .... and the list goes on.

Personally, I believe that the situation is irreversible.  There are simply not enough people left in this country any more who honor God and revere the rule of law under the Constitution.

[SS_N_NE]

One thing that needs to happen is further limit of political office.  Too many incumbent politicians have too much power. It is obvious that these incumbents are puppets of other powers. There never was intention of providing for lifetime political careers. It would not eliminate the problem but definately remove some figure heads.

[depserv]

When the Democrats select a House Speaker they select a hard core liberal bigot like Nancy Pelosi; when the Republicans select one they pick a more moderate liberal who pretends to be a loyal American.  And even though relative opposition to illegal civilian disarmament has been good for the Republicans, they have not nominated a patriot on that issue for a long time.  So I agree: not a lot of difference between the two parties. 

This seems to be a natural course for politics to take: those who buy votes with stolen money will beat a loyal American every time.  Or at least often enough that they end up in control.  And a professional political class likes the idea of having as much power as it can get concentrated in its hands.  Arms and wealth are both forms of power.  And if you look at other forms of power you see the same dynamic.  This is why it's the natural state of a government to grow, until it eventually crushes those it governs.

What we need is some kind of written law that limits what elected leaders can do, so that even the sleaziest of sleazeballs can't steal our money and disarm us.  Oh wait a minute I forgot; we already have that: it's called the Constitution.  Well ok then, what we need is for our elected leaders to obey the law.  What we should have is some kind of government entity that has the power to enforce the law.  Oh wait a minute, we have that too: it's called the Supreme Court.

So what's the problem?  Here's my take on it: the Supreme Court members are appointed and approved by the same people whose laws they will be overseeing.  This situation can't help but fail: it's like letting inmates appoint and approve their own guards.  This was not so much of a problem under the original Constitution because the Senate, which has to approve of judges for the High Court, was appointed by the respective states rather than elected, so it was much less of a political body.  This was changed in 1913 by the 17th Amendment.  Given the idiocy of so much of the electorate and how easily voters can be bought, as well as manipulated by the big lie machine called the liberal press, I'd say an amendment repealing the 17th could do a lot of good.  Or, amend the Constitution so that Supreme Court judges have to be approved by state governors or legislatures instead of the Senate; since states presumably want federal power limited, this might do some good.

[GreyGeek]

This seems to be a natural course for politics to take: those who buy votes with stolen money will beat a loyal American every time.  Or at least often enough that they end up in control.

Exactly.  The Dems have a base of voters composed of government welfare recipients who vote to keep their benefits flowing.   Adding 5 to 11 million illegal aliens to the mix will only insure the conversion of our government to Socialism.  Thirty five states do NOT demand proof of citizenship before allowing someone to vote.   For the remaining 15 states the "Dream Act" carries provisions which allow illegals to get a drivers license and a social security card.  With those they can register to vote even though they are not even legal citizens.   

The biggest SCAM right now is the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits.  It used to be that when the non-profit social agencies, primarily Catholic, sponsored immigrants they had to guarantee their support for several years, until they could assimilate, learn the language and culture, and find a job.  Otherwise, those non-profits had to pay to send them back to where they came from.  Then, legislation was passed that allowed the sponsored immigrants to apply for SSI based on some claimed disability.  To appose it labeled one as a heartless, greedy individual, usually a Republican.

Here is a report from 1995 which reviewed the history behind SSI payments and its abuse until then.

SSI Is an Open-Ended Entitlement Program with Limitless Costs

At the heart of SSI lies an inexhaustible engine of growth: the open-ended impairment concept that allows people to file claims for an infinite variety of reasons. No condition is categorically excluded, even if it is self- inflicted, disputed by experts, or invented just yesterday. As if 22 million substance abusers were not a large enough pool of potential applicants, the open-ended impairment concept will allow claims to be made for all supposedly disabling conditions that become fashionable in the future. Obesity, compulsive gambling, and repressed memory phenomenon are just some of the possibilities for new claims on the horizon. There are currently 48 class-action lawsuits pending or threatened with respect to SSA's disability programs.

Particularly worrisome is that SSI has begun to resemble Medicaid--the fastest growing entitlement program. SSI has shown the same unanticipated growth, vulnerability to fraud, relentless advocacy, class-action lawsuits, cost shifting by the states, use of children as a wedge to expand the program (illegal immigrants -GG), and numerous expansions in eligibility criteria.

SSI Does Not Truly Differentiate between Those Who Can Work and Those Who Cannot

Disability has long been viewed with suspicion and skepticism. Officials in England, as far back as the 15th century, expressed concern that street beggars might be duping the public by pretending to be crippled or blind; manufacturing fake body sores; inflicting lacerations on themselves; or feigning epileptic seizures, dropsy, and leprosy. Fraud is a systemic problem with any public disability program no matter how well constituted.

The 1938 Advisory Council on Social Security stopped short of recommending a disability program, warning that "disability insurance would introduce many administrative problems of great difficulty, and . . . would necessitate intensive and sustained local investigation to prevent abuse."

Proponents of socialized disability programs found a way to overcome that skepticism. According to the 1948 Advisory Council, objective medical testing would sweep away all administrative difficulties and stand "as a safeguard against unjustified claims."(71) The medical model enabled proponents to sell the DI program in 1956 as well as the SSI program in 1972. A supposedly workable definition of "disability" had been found, and the problem of making disability programs politically acceptable was thereby solved through "objective" medical tests.

There is, however, no reliable way to separate the deserving from the undeserving, or to differentiate between those who can produce income and those who cannot. In the hearings on the 1956 legislation, one doctor asked, "Is the delivery boy who loses both legs totally and permanently disabled? Or is the certifying doctor supposed to point out that he can still run a drill press and probably make more money?"

SSI and DI use medical impairment as a substitute for disability, not because impairment is necessarily disabling but because impairment is supposed to be "objectively" determinable and therefore of unquestionable validity. The intellectual foundations of SSI have pretensions to scientific precision where no such precision exists.

There is no necessary connection between medical impairment and inability to work.

During the last 20 years 76 "means tested" programs have been used to validate SSI disability payments.  "Means" testing is just a smoke screen now.   The purpose is to flood Federal welfare system so that it sinks under its own weight, forcing a "righteous" switch to federal programs which control who works and where, how much they are paid, etc...  Later on, it will force "rules" which will dictate where people can spend their money, how much they'll pay, and for what.  Just think of the economies of the USSR and Iron Curtain counties.  It's what the Liberals love because it puts them in complete control.

Oh, btw, SSI payments will soon swamp social security for the elderly.