We are the drain the swamp people

What deference to truth and the people in Steve King’s Iowa congressional district did Kevin McCarthy show to Steve King?

Answer: None – because Steve King never lied, was forthcoming (a fault in political parlance) and his constituents were gas lighted – by the Republican establishment in Iowa

King’s Iowa constituency was denied effective representation by King’s removal from committees through  (according to King)  prevaricating Kevin McCarthy. 

Giving George Santos committee assignments — taking away Steve Kings — Kevin McCarthy is/was behind both.  Go figure. 

Rep. George Santos Gets Committee Assignments After All

We understand that there is apparently no operative law to deny liar George Santos from being sworn in.

Why Congress Can’t Refuse to Seat Santos.

But how does giving him committee assignments show any sense of political integrity? STOP LAUGHING!

As far as we know nothing stops his district’s GOP leaders from pursuing a recall or resignation . . . and at least making him persona non grata. People of substance in that district (not to be found in DC apparently) can use his case to establish themselves comparatively as the party of integrity (no party or candidate is perfect). The party in his district can win again.

Now we can agree with the biting truth and ridicule in the memes we set forth here but acting like Dems, lowering oneself to their level is not the way to gain loyalty, no-party voters, or in our more idealistic view sustainable power. We consider the pursuit of an aura of integrity politically advantageous and expedient. We know “what a concept”

Democrats demanding George Santos resign over resume lies are silent on Biden’s decades of lies.

Santos Can’t Touch the Democrats’ Duplicity.

New York Democrats introduce SANTOS Act to punish lawmakers who lie about background

Hell take them up on it.  The honest effect would be a  stupendous advantage for Republicans

0

0

An article by Scott Morefield writing at Townhall drew our appreciation this morning.  Read his comments regarding the civil liberties dangers surrounding efforts to catch a serial killer.

The Idaho Suspect, DNA, And Why Ann Coulter Misses the Mark On Crime And Civil Liberty

We applaud Scott’s comments about the surveillance state and also as regards the inferences about the dangers of companies being required to or volunteering to treat your DNA like their property or the governments in submitting it to dragnet warrants.

If there are 10 or 100 geneology database companies does the government get to blanket them all with warrants on the pretext of catching a killer? Everybody gets searched to find a lead or establish evidence? Then why shouldn’t every medical facility in a given area or nationwide be subject to the dragnet? And with all that information in hand who thinks the government won’t establish their own database? I mean after all if it saves one person or family from the serial killer killing again isn’t it worth it?

Truth is the most prolific killer is the state and one of their key tools is surveillance and secret information. Now they don’t always kill with guns they often don white coats and claim public health emergency or the greater good (in their jaundiced view). The view of Coulter and big-government types is ~~ we have this tool and we must use it ~~. It is their relentless logic and justification. It is also the logic of death of freedom by government.

Coulter has become a proponent of it. She has become afraid of shadows and willing to do anything to avoid them to be safe from them. How pathetic. Our advice to Coulter is to carry a gun if she is so afraid and leave the DNA of any actual murderous perp where they stand.

0

0

Phrase “Platform Republican”  ought to be a rallying cry

Ben Sasse resigning from the U.S. Senate with his replacement being a conservative former governor is a good thing. As Senator “pain-in-the-Sasse” Sasse is such a prickly character he is better off in academia where his smarter-than-though pretense of intellectual superiority might have more cashe`.  Or not, but that is his and the University of Florida’s problem. In fairness Sasse had merits but when the opportunity arrises there is no need to be half-Sasse about his replacement.

This Daily Caller report yesterday about the two-year appointment of Ricketts of the four remaining in Sasse’s term (a new election for the remaining two years will be set) is fine as far as it goes but most non-Nebraskans are unaware as to what the appointment of former Governor Ricketts means ideologically. Nebraska has done worse than Sasse but now it has done better

Former Governor Appointed To Replace Sen. Ben Sasse

Not all Republicans are the same (witness retiring Sasse).  The two links below flesh out where Ricketrts can presumed to be. We took particular delight in hearing of Ricketts in a primary battle for governor establishing himself as a “Platform Republican” – which are consistently conservative around the country.  Ricketts stated positions and record as governor were consistent with that adopted moniker.

Ballotpedia — Pete Ricketts

Wikipedia – Pete Ricketts

We think the phrase Platform Republican properly invokes what ought to be a standard for Republicans seeking office, re-election.

0

0

The Twenty –  the rough number of Republican holdouts to the confirmation of Kevin McCarthy – a group that ought to go down in history as champions in the fight to restore the republic.

The Two-Hundred –– the rough number reflecting the bulk of the Republican Caucus who are oh so willing to rubber stamp McCarthy without condition in furtherance of business as usual in the House — pork laden bills in particular — shirking responsibility. Some of them are even complainers about The System but who exposed themselves as phonies by trying to avoid serious inducements to reform.

It took fifteen votes for Kevin McCarthy to agree to the needed reforms in House rules that he would have never acceded to if  The Twenty had not held fast. He could have had his coronation on day one of voting because he knew what The Twenty wanted which was supported by the sentiment of activist Republicans across the nation. He misjudged their perseverance.

After enough of The Twenty felt that  McCarthy had agreed to the package of needed reforms they gave their support to his quest for Speaker or withdrew their opposition.

We will see if the Two Hundred, bought and paid for by The System, vote for the rules McCarthy said he will support.  Maybe he has the power to implement them on his own but it remains to be seen if he will honor the commitment to The Twenty or try to subvert them*.

The Twenty* spoke truth to power using the power (leverage) they had to force reforms on the kicking and screaming louts who McCarthy had eating out of his hand, almost literally.  That would be The Two-hundred

The Twenty may be the saviors of The People’s House, decayed by years of Speakers using highhanded tactics to push through gargantuan spending authorizations, stifling debate, ignoring or corrupting rules, basically being dictators.

So it looks like maybe 10% of the Republican caucus ~~20 of ~~ 220 deserve respect for pursuing the right thing, the others not so much. If not closet Quislings in leftist occupied DC that The Two-Hundred are weaklings seems to fit. The Twenty are the Lions of the House. God bless them and give them wisdom and stamina to continue the fight.

*More on The Speaker in coming posts.

0

0

Now we are not saying a person acceptable to the 20 House members holding up confirmation of Kevin McCarthy, or outright opposing his speakership, is the Jesus factor.  However given many of the 200 Republican’s supporting McCarthy and their demonstrated unprincipled behavior it is as appropriate to refer to their clamoring for “moving on” with McCarthy without further reforms to the body politic in the House as the  give us Barabbas  – business as usual – crowd. And besides they started it with their insurrectionist/terrorist/mutineers/idiots/saboteurs pitchfork bellowing.

Dear Fox and other Conservative Inc. corporate shills trying to do a number on The Twenty:

Instead of spotlighting the 20 try some real reporting and spotlight the 200 and why they are not telling McCarthy to accept the reforms that the Republican base wants to see happen — especially ending the pork laden indefensible 2000 + spending bills that they all get to say tsk tsk about as they vote for them unread except for the dogeared pages of the earmarks they got in the belief that the bacon is what it is all about however wasteful.

If McCarthy would accede to the needed reforms he is holding out on he could be speaker on the next vote.

Again, why are so many Republicans opposing the needed reforms the base wants? That ought to be the debate. It is the wrong question to taunt the 20 with identifying who they want, any of the 20 would be better than McCarthy. The better question is why so many conservatives are betraying the base for essentially business as usual.

Then there is the misplaced loyalty (I bought you) BS hurled at The Twenty that McCarthy spent millions to help they and other republicans get elected  1) it was not McCarthy’s money and he was spending largely on the nominees of the party 2) The “tradition” of giving so much money to one guy to parcel out on the presumption that the recipients will be loyal to McCarthy, who will be loyal to the mega donors is corrupt. Did the recipients swear allegiance to McCarthy or the Constitution? Perhaps too many of the 200 swore themselves to McCarthy and business as usual.

Roger Stone while not my favorite Republican strategist over the years made this comment at Infowars: – “Any Support Kevin McCarthy Has in House Is ‘Bought and Paid For’‘. Few have as much experience with Rinos and the establishment beltway types as Stone having been a creature of the swamp plying the crevices for decades.

Related reading:

Tucker Carlson Asks Why Does Everyone in DC Want to Demonize, Attack and Eliminate the House Reform Group

John Fredericks: ‘FOX News Is 24/7 Shill for Kevin McCarthy’

https://dossier.substack.com/p/the-uniparty-roosters-crow-for-kevin

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2023/01/04/a-significant-majority-of-republican-voters-agree-with-the-gop-rebels-n1658511

https://www.aol.com/fox-news-host-calls-gop-064426602.html

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2023/01/05/mccarthy-concessions-n2617930?recip=676350

https://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/glenn-beck-what-speaker-debate-really-about

https://pjnewsletter.com/gop-house-mccarthy-hannity-boebert/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pjnewsletter

Tucker Carlson Asks Why Does Everyone in DC Want to Demonize, Attack and Eliminate the House Reform Group

RINOs to Grassroots America: Shut Up! Know Your Place!

0

0

• The spotlight needs to be on individual congressman in each of their districts as to why they want business largely as usual — because without more reforms that is what it will be.
• Why are McCarthy and his 200 supporters holding out against reforms supported by the Republican base
• Who are the terrorists against the considered opinion of the Republican base?

It seems to us that the Republican base in general supports the various reforms that the “Terrorist”** twenty demand of Kevin McCarthy in order to garner their support for his quest to be speaker.  McCarthy has acceded to some we are told, but why not all of them as they all seem reasonable?  He could have the Speakership promptly if he did.  What powers are so important to the swamp?

Perhaps the key relates to omni-bus bills and spending disciplined, the budgeting process prepared in time, not laden with pork and always the  bums rush to pass lest “government be shut down”

Instead of the twenty being made to look like a fringe of the party for holding out for more needed reforms, the 200 supporting McCarthy without those reforms need to be spotlighted in each of their districts. That includes Iowa’s Republican delegation. Miller-Meeks, Feenstra, Hinson, Congressman-elect Nunn who seem secretly for porkulas bill processes.  Why do they oppose the reforms the twenty demand? If they are for the reforms then why are THEY not encouraging McCarthy to adopt them? The imbroglio could end quickly but for them.  Who are the terrorists against considered opinion of the republican base?

**The shibboleth dropped by congressman Dan Crenshaw in his denunciation of those who are holding fast in their opposition to McCarthy as Speaker.  Once thought to be an insurgent, Crenshaw has for some time cast himself as the iconoclast “the good reasonable big-government establishment guy” a.k.a. hit man against conservatives.  Thus he has been aptly named “McCain with an eyepatch”.

0

0

• A little tidbit to remember
• Speaker fights are nothing new even in recent years

Elephants are supposed to have long memories. Anyway what’s that he’s stepping on.

What, say it isn’t so, “insurgents” a.k.a. “terrorists”* were able to pull down a Speaker of the House grip on power?!

Nancy Pelosi was under obligation to step down from speaker EVEN if Democrats held on to the House in the 2022 mid-terms

Did it hurt her ability to govern the lot? Were Democrats ineffectual as a result?

From this morning’s Daily Signal recap of extended Speaker votes over the course of our nation’s history:

7 Big Fights for Speaker of the House (excerpt)

Democrats won control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections, but 21 of the newly elected and returning Democrats vowed during the campaign that they would not vote for House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to reclaim the speakership. 

Of those 21 Democrats, 13 were freshmen; another previously had won a special election in Pennsylvania. They were a mix of far-left progressives in deep-blue congressional districts, where Pelosi was viewed as an out-of-touch Washington hand, and moderates who ran in red and purple districts who didn’t like her politics. 

Another 19 successful Democrat candidates in the 2018 midterm elections were noncommittal during their campaigns about whether they would vote for Pelosi to return as House speaker in January 2019 after her stint in the job from 2007 to 2011. 

Initially, Democrats’ goal was to allow these new members to keep their promise by opposing Pelosi for speaker in a meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, but support her in the House floor vote. However, 16 Democrats formalized their opposition by signing a letter asserting that they were “committed to voting for new leadership in both our caucus meeting and on the House floor.” 

Eventually, Pelosi was forced to negotiate a deal with these Democrats, agreeing that she and her leadership team of Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and James Clyburn, D-S.C., would term-limit themselves to four years. 

This convinced most of the rebellious Democrats to return to the fold. On Jan. 3, 2019, the opening day of the session, just 12 Democrats voted for someone other than Pelosi for speaker while three abstained. 

Pelosi still had enough support, 220 votes, to become speaker again.

* Nice little term coined by Dan “Eyepatch McCain” Crenshaw regarding the twenty who are holding out for needed reforms in how the country does business.

0

0

• Based on his political pedigree not likely and that is the problem

We think Kevin McCarthy persona is one of a game player — another insider who would try to keep business as usual in the House.

Oh there are conservatives votes and efforts to his credit but he is “Boehner-light” given a few of McCarthy’s concessions — but largely of the swamp and Boehnereish. The porkulas bills rushed through at the last minute “to avoid a shut down” will continue.  That is where he gets most of his support, including from the entire Iowa Republican delegation able to vote. To mix some metaphors the country is on a cliff and McCarthy seems more the type to manage the fall, concerned more that the Swamp survives, to fight another day, except they don’t fight very hard.

The optics of the multiple votes worry many conservatives and there is a big media group-think if not cabal (which includes Fox) intent on making  the 20 current holdouts appear obstructionist.  But the more obstructionist they stay in furtherance of more needed reforms the larger they loom in American history and the safety of our republic.

Here are a few takes on the situation which no one has to agree with completely of course but are mostly not incompatable.

From Congressman Mark Goetz:

Those of us who will not be voting for Kevin McCarthy today take no joy in this discomfort that this moment has brought. But if you want to drain the swamp, you cannot put the biggest alligator in charge of the exercise,” Gaetz said. “I’m a Florida man and I know of what I speak.

From Erick Erickson: Here’s How to Get a Speaker of the House by Noon

Tucker Carlson: Two Things McCarthy Should Do To Win Speaker’s Gavel   ( there are things as important as these Tucker)

Mick Mulvaney Details Why Kevin McCarthy Is Facing Such Intense Opposition in Speakership Bid.    (substitute the word principled for personal and Mulvaney makes more sense.)

0

0

Joseph Bauer article at Townhall: The Falsehood of White Privilege. takes on the concepts of systemic racism and white privilege. Commending it to you first, we embellish on the worthy article herein:

Yes the Dems did invent the term “systemic racism” and they are perpetrators of it in the form of “affirmative action”

What is more “systemic” than that concept?

If you build race based requirements into institutions as part of assumptions about another race — is that not systemic? Building in systemic racism to supposedly combat systemic racism is racism.

It is also clear that liberal ideology is the causes of the underperformance they link to race, as pointed out in the article — aggravated by the welfare state. 

Welfare dependence is affecting whites as well but the advanced systemic sequelae is on blacks because of race linked presumptions that any race would absorb about their alleged situation (what they are told their situation is).

Victimhood and its blame counterpart white privilege are “systemic” sociological avenues of resentment and racial division by  victim status. 

Equal opportunity without lowering of standards is what is demanded by human nature. Any special help should not be race focused and should be contingent and private — with government being racially blind. The strengthening of family units of whatever race would be the greatest boon to universal welfare improvement.

0

0

Thanks to SF for forwarding the first two items(caption ours)

To get your head around this one requires liberalspeak. Our translation is that the one on the left is that the biological female on the left who calls herself a man gave birth to the baby shown after being artificially inseminated by a a man who thinks he is a woman. The person holding the baby is “non-binary” so the apparent he dates whatever sex. Got that?

Maybe this is a bit pissimistic

0

0