Connect with us

Politics

House Republicans Still Backing Down to Democrats

Like a prisoner who still acts like a captive even when he’s been released.

Published

on

Just like under Obama’s last couple of years, House Republicans still let Democrats decide their limits.

Like a prisoner who still acts like a captive even when he’s been released, House Republicans still act like Democrats have the upper hand. This is probably mostly due to the Democrat-controlled media environment. As Donald Trump has shown us, the only way to govern like a Conservative is to openly despise the media as the fake news they are. Otherwise, you are owned by them.

Christopher Jacobs reports, “To Prove Democrats Run Congress Even In The Minority, Check Out The Latest Spending Fight.”

Trending: WATCH: Candace Owens Rips White Liberal Activists Who Lecture Her About Threats to Blacks

In short, because Democrats might object. Appropriations measures need 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster, and Democrats have said they will not vote for any bill that includes so-called “poison pill” appropriations riders. The definition of a “poison pill” of course lies in the eyes of the beholder.

take our poll - story continues below

Have smartphones made the world better or worse?

  • Have smartphones made the world better or worse?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Politico wrote about the spending process six weeks ago, noting that new Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Ranking Member Pat Leahy (D-VT) “have resolved to work out matters privately. Both parties have agreed to hold their noses to vote for a bill that they consider imperfect, but good enough.”

That “kumbaya” dynamic has led Senate Republican leaders and appropriators to try and avoid the Cruz amendment entirely. They don’t want to vote against the amendment, because conservatives like me support it and will (rightly) point out their hypocrisy if they do. But they don’t want the amendment to pass either, because they fear that Democrats won’t vote to pass the underlying bill if it does. So they hope the amendment will die a quiet death.

It’s a kabuki show, an exercise in failure theater. On the downside, the amendment may not pass, because appropriators don’t want it to. But on the upside, if provisions like the Cruz amendment remain out of the bill, at least Congress will get the opportunity to bust through budget caps and go on another spending binge!

[…]

At this point some leadership types might point out that it’s easy for people like me to sit on the sidelines and criticize, but that Republicans in Congress must actually govern. That point has more than a grain of truth to it.

On the other hand, “governing” for Republicans usually means “governing like Democrats.” Case in point: The sorry spectacle I described in March, wherein Republican committee chairmen—who, last I checked, won election two years ago on a platform of repealing Obamacare—begged Democrats to include a bailout of Obamacare’s exchanges in that month’s 2,200-page omnibus appropriations bill.

Read the full post.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

New Women’s March Board Member Gets Kicked To The Curb After Two Days On The Job Over Anti-Semitic Tweets

This lady is deplorable.

Published

on

There seems to be something about the Women’s March that’s a beacon for individuals who just love to hate Jews and Israel. In fact, the group’s latest board member was only on the job two days before being booted after anti-Semitic tweets were discovered on her Twitter profile. Hmmm. Really does make you wonder. Why do these kind of people gravitate toward this group? via TheBlaze: On Monday, The Washington Post reported that inaugural co-chairs Bob Bland, Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour had stepped down from their positions at the organization, noting that the trio had “been dogged by accusations of anti-Semitism, infighting and financial mismanagement.” Conservative news outlets were quick to point out that many in the 17-member board replacing the former leaders were no better, and exposed an array of anti-Semitic tweets and messages expressing support for black nationalist Louis Farrakhan. One of the new board members was Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The Washington Examiner reported that Billoo’s Twitter feed was “filled with anti-Zionist tweets, which the Anti-Defamation League has deemed ‘anti-Semitic.'” On Wednesday, Billoo revealed that she had been voted off the board of the Women’s March, following “an Islamophobic smear campaign.” She went on to slam the organization for letting her go, saying “it has effectively said, we will work on some women’s rights at the expense of others.” So wait a minute. Is she really going to play the victim card here? It certainly seems that’s what she’s doing. It’s kind of hard to garner any sort of sympathy for a person trying to claim they are the victim of some sort of hate and racism, when they themselves have been engaged in heinous acts of hatred themselves. Billoo wasn’t removed because she’s a Muslim. She was removed…

Continue Reading

News

Andrew Yang Plans To Combat Climate Change By Forcing You To Stop Eating Meat By Jacking Up Prices

How about no.

Published

on

Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang is all about being a crusader against climate change, so much in fact, he’s created a plan to stop it by forcing you to stop eating meat. How does he plan to do that? By making the prices so high and expensive you simply can’t afford to purchase it. Typical leftist, wanting to try and limit people’s freedom and force them do something he believes is best, despite the fact the science on this whole subject is flimsy. via TheBlaze: “I do think it’s difficult to regulate diets. So what you would want to do again is you’d want those cattle producers to have to internalize the cost of emissions,” Yang continued. “So then, what that would naturally do, and some people are going to hate this, but it would probably make those products more expensive,” he concluded. “And that is appropriate, because there is a cost to producing food in that way. And so if you were to make it more expensive, then you would end up changing consumption patterns.” The plan follows in the vein of that from the “Green New Deal” from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), which bizarrely plotted to eliminate “farting cows” in a FAQ document ridiculed brutally by her critics. The document was eventually deleted from her official website. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1174748818988052480 Or, how about this, we just let people eat whatever they want, since we all know for a fact that not eating meat isn’t going to have any sort of actual, legitimate impact on climate change? That sounds like a much better plan in my book, wouldn’t you agree? You see, much of the evidence coming out now, suggests that what the planet is experiencing now is a normal fluctuation in temperatures that has occurred since God created it. It’s…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend