Posts

The Real Reason Republicans Are Retiring? Fear of Assassination, According to GOP Lawmaker

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., said a wave of his fellow Republicans are retiring because they may fear being assassinated.

Brooks made the remark while speaking on “The Dale Jackson Show” about the first Republican congressional baseball team practice since House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot and injured last year, according to Roll Call .

“One of the things that’s concerning me is the assassination risk may become a factor,” he said of Republican lawmakers retiring.

Brooks pointed to the number of members on the Republican baseball team who are not running for re-election. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Reps. Ryan Costello, R-Pa., Pat Meehan, R-Pa., Dennis Ross, R-Fla., and Tom Rooney, R-Fla., have announced their retirements. (Read more from “The Real Reason Republicans Are Retiring? Fear of Assassination, According to GOP Lawmaker” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Yorkers Are Asked About Republican Friends – Their Responses Are Insanity

A new video from PragerU shows that many residents of New York City don’t have any Republican friends — and don’t want to.

“I don’t like that kind of extremism.”

. . .

One woman said she wouldn’t be friends with a Republican because she doesn’t like “that kind of extremism.”

Another woman said, “I don’t know, I feel like people in New York are more open minded, and not as like, ‘Oh, no abortions! No this!’ More just like minding their own business. I don’t know, less wanting to regulate everything.”

When the interviewer, Will Witt, pointed out that it was Democrats who were more fond of regulation, she responded, “I don’t know. I honestly don’t know that much about politics.” (Read more from “New Yorkers Are Asked About Republican Friends – Their Responses Are Insanity” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This May Be the Dumbest Idea House Republicans Have Ever Had

House Democrats are ready to revolt against Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., if party leadership fails to deliver for the Democrats in the 2018 midterms. But Republicans? Republicans plan on sticking with the same failed leadership if they lose in the midterms.

Expectations from GOP lawmakers who spoke to The Hill Tuesday show that if Republicans blow their majority in November, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is in a good position to take the number one GOP leadership spot. It all hinges on whether or not Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., leaves Congress after the election.

“Hopefully in November, we’re talking about a third term for Speaker Ryan,” one House Republican told the Hill. “But if that’s not the case, I think Kevin’s the guy, and that comes from a more conservative member.”

Why is Kevin “the guy?” According to The Hill, if Republicans go back to being a minority party, McCarthy would need just a majority of the GOP conference to secure the minority leader job. His closest competition might be the number three Republican, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., but the Republicans who spoke under condition of anonymity say that while Scalise could win the speaker job if Ryan leaves and the GOP keeps its majority, it’s “McCathy’s to lose” in the minority. Many Republicans are in McCarthy’s debt after he’s crisscrossed the nation fundraising in their districts. The favors he’s owed, plus his good relationship with the president, would likely be enough to head off a challenge from a more conservative Republican.

“I think there will be a play from the right. But will it be the Freedom Caucus 30 or will it be a larger movement? And would Scalise lead it? I don’t know,” said another GOP lawmaker. “But if McCarthy shows strength and there’s no opening, then I think McCarthy stays on as leader.”

Keeping the current GOP leadership in the House after losing the majority under said leadership would be dumb. Really, really, dumb.

Why are Republicans in a position where they could lose their House majority in the first place? Because when the failures of Obamacare were the pressing issue on the minds of most Americans, Republican leaders put forward their own RINOcare bill that broke their promise to repeal Obamacare. Because when it came time to cut taxes, bungled messaging from House Republicans and a flawed bill convinced too many Americans that their taxes were going up. Because when it comes to advancing the Trump immigration agenda and securing the border, leaders like McCarthy are dragging their feet at the behest of open-borders, big-agriculture businesses.

Republicans aren’t keeping their promises to voters.

What is the purpose of Republican leadership? The idea is to lead, right? The point is to make sure that Republicans make their best effort to persuade voters to vote for the GOP — and then keep the promises they make to voters after they are elected. And the goal is to keep getting elected, right?

Well, if Republicans aren’t keeping the promises they made to voters, and if voters punish them for it in 2018, how could it possibly make sense to keep the same leadership team if the party fails under that leadership?

If Republicans lose their House majority, they should drop McCarthy along with the entire leadership team and start from scratch, rebuilding the the conservative agenda that put them in power in the first place. (For more from the author of “This May Be the Dumbest Idea House Republicans Have Ever Had” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Passes Kate’s Law, as Part of Illegal Immigrant Crackdown

House Republicans took action Thursday to crack down on illegal immigrants and the cities that shelter them.

One bill passed by the House would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities and another, Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.

Kate’s Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed with a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.

Kate’s Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday.

President Trump called the bill’s passage “good news” in a tweet, adding “House just passed #KatesLaw. Hopefully Senate will follow.”

(Read more from “House Passes Kate’s Law, as Part of Illegal Immigrant Crackdown” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Students and Faculty Protesters Demand Punishment of College Republicans Group

Student and faculty protesters rushed a college administration building Monday calling for the school to punish its College Republicans group.

Orange Coast College faculty and students protested the school’s College Republicans chapter after the group published emails from OCC professor Jessica Alabi to Orange Coast College President Dennis Harkins. The emails revealed the professor said she would “stand up” to the group, if the president did not, according to Campus Reform.

The materials also showed that Alabi stopped members of the group from attending a campus event because they were perceived as a threat to the “safe space.” The College Repulicans want OCC to investigate the professor.

The protesters shouted, “No hate, no KKK, no fascist USA” and “Get that club out of our face.” Students held socialist flags and symbols or signs mocking the College Republicans.

“It makes no sense to me why the union and a vocal minority of students would protest against the OCC Republicans for simply asking for an investigation into the matter and protections for students from being discriminated against on the basis of their political affiliation,” said Joshua Recalde-Martinez, the OCC College Republicans’ former president. (Read more from “Students and Faculty Protesters Demand Punishment of College Republicans Group” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Republicans Could Overcome Filibusters by Senate Democrats

As Democrats strategize on how to stop conservative legislation from making its way to Donald Trump’s desk in the White House, Republicans have a little-known rule in their toolbox that would allow them to pass legislation, including a repeal of Obamacare, with a simple majority.

Democrats were able to keep 48 seats in the Senate after Tuesday’s election, giving the party the power to filibuster legislation and effectively prevent conservative policies from being enacted.

But Republicans can turn to a seldom-used Senate rule that would allow them to pass legislation by a simple majority vote—legislation that has a greater chance of earning Trump’s signature after he assumes office Jan. 20.

Called the two-speech rule, the tool limits senators to giving only two speeches in one legislative day on a question before the Senate. A legislative day, which differs from a calendar day, ends when the upper chamber adjourns.

Once a senator gives those two speeches, he or she is not allowed to speak again.

The Senate then would vote on the bill up for debate when there aren’t any more senators who are permitted to speak.

Senators don’t often use the two-speech rule, a December 2014 report from the Congressional Research Service states. However, the report acknowledged that senators may choose to invoke the rule “as a means of attempting to overcome a filibuster.”

Republican senators explored using the two-speech rule earlier this year, when both the House and the Senate were focused on passing 12 individual appropriations bills to fund the government for 2017.

A memo early this year from a Republican Senate aide, James Wallner, urged conservative senators to enforce the two-speech rule to avoid filibusters by Democratic colleagues.

At the time, Wallner was executive director of the Senate Steering Committee, the upper chamber’s conservative caucus. Wallner currently is group vice president for research at The Heritage Foundation.

His Jan. 11 memo says, in part:

The strategy should increase the costs (both physical and political) on individual Democrats for obstructing the Senate’s appropriations work. Doing so forces them to bear the burden of blocking consideration of specific appropriations bills. It also makes the minority’s obstruction tangible to the American people, thereby increasing the public’s awareness of Democrats’ efforts.

Senate Republicans need to secure 60 votes to advance legislation, but will fall short of that threshold in the 115th Congress, when they will hold 52 seats.

Republicans currently occupy 54 Senate seats.

But invoking the two-speech rule would circumvent the chance for a filibuster, as senators instead would voice their opposition or support rather than vote on whether to advance legislation.

Although the Wallner memo focused on how to move appropriations bills forward, the two-speech rule could be applied to future legislation addressing Obamacare—Republican leaders have said they are committed to repealing the health care law—as well as to Supreme Court nominations.

Since Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, one seat has remained vacant on the high court. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a D.C. appeals court judge, but Senate Republicans refused to move the nomination and chose instead to wait for a new president to be sworn in.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate in 2014, GOP lawmakers have been stymied in their ability to pass legislation that has any Democratic opposition.

Instead, Democrats have withheld votes on motions to proceed—which advance legislation for final passage—in an effort to “extract concessions” from Republican leaders, the Wallner memo stated.

Democrats’ efforts have been especially noticeable during spending fights in recent years. In response to filibusters from the minority party, Republicans frequently have removed GOP-favored policy riders attached to legislation or raised spending levels once they return to the negotiating table, action that has angered conservative members. (For more from the author of “How Republicans Could Overcome Filibusters by Senate Democrats” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republican Leaders Afraid to Lead, Reward Democrats for Their Sit-In Stunt

While the United States remains vulnerable to the threat of radical Islamist terrorism, House leadership idles its time by considering a vote on a bill that cooperates with the left’s narrative and erodes the rule of law and our God-given, constitutional rights.

Last week, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., properly called out the Democrats for the “chaos” their sit-in on gun control caused in the House. But this week, he is effectively rewarding what he called their “stunt” by proposing a vote on a gun control bill instead of focusing on how Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen slipped through the FBI’s grasp so that we can better protect Americans in the future.

The Homeland Safety and Security Act, H.R. 5611, capitulates to the left by making the debate about gun control and does nothing to tackle the underlying danger that Islamist extremism poses here in the United States. It takes no steps to solve the threat posed to the United States by Islamists across the globe. It creates a new, unelected, unaccountable assistant secretary appointed by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who has proven himself to be willfully blind to the threat posed by radical Islamist terrorism.

Just last week former Homeland Security officer Philip Haney testified that the agency eliminated more than 850 records it had that linked to the Muslim Brotherhood because the Obama administration was cooperating with the terrorist organization on counterterrorism. Why does the Republican-controlled House want to spend at least $30 million over five years on a catastrophic department that empowers Obama’s failed strategy of ignoring the true threat posed by jihadis?

Instead of taking steps to prevent another Orlando terrorist attack, this bill creates epic legal precedent by allowing the federal government to restrict rights secured in our Constitution based on what the government predicts someone will do in the future.

The bill allows a judge to restrict Americans’ constitutional rights if a judge has “probable cause to believe” that person will someday become a terrorist. And it sets the precedent that Americans can lose God-given constitutional rights arbitrarily—as long as a member of government thinks we might commit a crime. It upends the presumption of innocence and the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers.

GOP leadership considered allowing this Trojan-horse bill to come to the floor even as other, good bills that address the root causes of terrorism languish in committee.

One such bill that I support designates the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Another would halt the influx of refugees from the world’s terror hot spots until they are vetted properly—sending a clear message to the American people, and to those who wish to do us harm, that we in Congress are listening and will act to defend against domestic and foreign threats.

Significant portions of this terrible “homeland security” bill did not go through the regular committee approval process, nor does it appear that GOP leadership plans to allow the amendment process to follow regular order.

If someone is a convicted terrorist, they should be jailed or deported—period. There are current laws on the books that tell us exactly what should happen if someone is convicted of terrorism, and we should make sure that our government is enforcing these laws. We need neither betray our rights, nor submit to a wholesale change of due process, to arrest and detain terrorists.

To effectively combat ISIS and global Islamists, Congress must look at solutions that are much broader than just a response to what happened in Orlando. Orlando is just one of several recent terrorist attacks around the globe which ISIS and its henchmen have proudly celebrated on social media.

The United States is in a global war on terror. Even the Democrats admit as much by asking for an AUMF to authorize that war, but Congress has still not acted. The Obama administration’s response to global terror has been feckless and incompetent, but Republicans in the House seem to be content spectators instead of leaders.

Rather than looking at how to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans, GOP leadership in the House should allow votes on bills that focus on the true cause of terrorism: terrorists. (For more from the author of “Republican Leaders Afraid to Lead, Reward Democrats for Their Sit-In Stunt” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

GOP Will Have Largest House Majority Since Before FDR

Credit - Townhall.com

Credit – Townhall.com

On Wednesday, the Associated Press called the outstanding race for congress in Arizona’s 2nd Congressional district. Rep. Ron Barber (D-AZ), a former aide to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and her successor in office, was narrowly defeated by Republican Martha McSally.

With McSally’s victory, the 2014 midterm elections have officially concluded. At the start of the 114th Congress, Republicans will enjoy their largest majority in the House of Representatives since prior to the Great Depression and the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt with 247 members. The last time the GOP enjoyed that large of a majority was the 71st Congress in 1929 and 1930.

In the Senate, the GOP will be in an almost equally unparalleled position of power.

“Republicans will control 54 out of 100 seats,” The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake noted. “That’s tied for their fourth-highest number of seats since that same 1929-30 Congress, but the larger three were majorities of 55 seats — i.e. only one more seat.”

Combined with the GOP’s dominance at the state legislative level (Republicans control 56 percent of seats in the legislatures, the highest number since 1920), and the party’s control of 31 of 50 gubernatorial mansions, the Republican Party will be in the strongest position it has seen since prior to the popularization of Democratic progressivism.

Read more from this story HERE.

Univ of Michigan Dept. Chair: I Hate Republicans and You Should Too

Credit - National Review

Credit – National Review

A University of Michigan department chairwoman has published an article titled, “It’s Okay To Hate Republicans,” which will probably make all of her conservative students feel really comfortable and totally certain that they’re being graded fairly.

“I hate Republicans,” communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece. “I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood.’”

She writes that although the fact that her “tendency is to blame the Republicans . . . may seem biased,” historical and psychological research back her up, and so it’s basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad!

Douglas said that in the 1970s she did work for a Republican, Rhode Island’s senate minority leader Fred Lippitt, but she hates them all now because Lippitt was a “brand of Republican” who no longer exists in that he was “fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Republicans 'Soul-Searching' Over Reversing the 'Nuclear Option'

McConnell_Senate Republicans, who condemned a Democratic decision last year to require only 51 votes to confirm judicial and executive branch nominees, are struggling to decide whether to reverse the so-called “nuclear option” or leave it in place when they take the majority in January.

The rules change lowered the threshold for judges and President Obama’s executive branch appointees from 60 votes to 51 votes.

Democrats invoked the change with a simple majority vote rather than a typically required supermajority, infuriating Republicans, who promised the Democrats would “pay a heavy price” for the move.

But with the majority just weeks away from their grasp, the Republicans are “soul searching” about whether to change it back.

Meeting behind closed doors Tuesday with soon-to-be Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., most members appeared undecided about what to do, although a few have come out strongly in favor of or against reversing the rules change.

Read more from this story HERE.