Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) turned the tables on the media and asked them questions about Benghazi.
The silence was deafening.
I hope you watch it. It is only 3 minutes.
The Media should be embarrassed by Congressman Trey Gowdy’s questions.
|This is most certainly the most embarrassing event that has occurred in the last 16 months.
The burden falls on the media who have not done anything to investigate this.
After viewing this 3.5 minute video, I urge you to forward it to your sphere of influence.
KEEP THIS GOING!!!!
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (Photo: Pete Marovich/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)
3. “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”
4. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
5. “The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the ‘most natural sense’ of the phrase ‘Exchange established by the State’ is an Exchange established by a State. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that ‘it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!)’”
6. “Perhaps sensing the dismal failure of its efforts to show that ‘established by the State’ means ‘established by the State or the Federal Government,’ the Court tries to palm off the pertinent statutory phrase as “inartful drafting.’ This Court, however, has no free-floating power ‘to rescue Congress from its drafting errors.’”
7. “The Court’s decision reflects the philosophy that judges should endure whatever interpretive distortions it takes in order to correct a supposed flaw in the statutory machinery. That philosophy ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress ‘[a]ll legislative Powers’ enumerated in the Constitution. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”
8. “More importantly, the Court forgets that ours is a government of laws and not of men. That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unenacted will of our lawmakers. ‘If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent.’ In the meantime, this Court ‘has no roving license … to disregard clear language simply on the view that … Congress ‘must have intended’ something broader.”
9. “Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchange
Daniel Greenfield wrote a good article this morning for Front Page
Magazine about how Republicans need to handle the media. The following
quote was in one of the replies to the article. I think it needs to be
sent to every Republican.
“I think a good answer to questions about the Confederate Flag would
be, “I’m a Republican and every single Confederate was a Democrat.
You should ask Democrats how they feel about their flag.”
Why does Patrick support the TPA? It seems that conservative House members like Jeff below are concerned enough to not vote for it in its current form. Also, why would anyone vote for something that nobody has had time to read in its entirety? I think I remember something like this not long ago called ObamaCare.
Here is a copy of an email sent out by the SC representative, Jeff Duncan. I think he nails it.
I’ve been receiving quite a few calls about the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, so I thought I’d take this time to send you a quick update.
Yesterday, the House held a procedural vote on TPA, the first true test vote for the legislation. Rule votes are normally fairly routine. The party in power votes for the rule and the minority party votes against them. Most Members of Congress will spend their entire tenure in office never voting against their party on a rule vote. After last night, I will not be one of those Congressmen.
TPA and TPP concern me. I have problems with us passing legislation that fast-tracks a future trade agreement that is kept from the public and is currently only available to Congress in an unfinished form. Not only is it bad enough that I can’t solicit feedback from you because the agreement is classified, but I’m being asked to trust that President Obama is going to keep his word and not make major changes in this agreement that could have severe impacts on our laws and our way of life.
Today, I joined with several of my colleagues in voting against the rule for the bill. We actually were only two votes away from stopping the rule vote from passing, and only lost because GOP leadership were able to convince a handful of Democrats to switch sides at the last second.
There are dozens of reasons why I opposed the rule. For starters, we’re taking up the Senate passed TPA bill. The Senate bill raises revenue. According to the Constitution, revenue raising bills must originate in the House. But the rule vote prohibits House Members from making a point of order to stop the legislation. The rule also prohibits us from objecting to the budget gimmickry and procedural games filled within the language of TPA. For example, in one section of the bill it makes changes to a government program to save tax dollars in order to offset to spending in another area and make the overall legislation budget neutral. However, a separate section repeals the change, but leaves the new spending on the books. This is just dishonest, no matter how you look at it and contributes to the reason people simply don’t trust Washington. Even a member of leadership was quoted yesterday saying that this process concerns him.
I’ve heard the arguments for TPA. “This gives Congress more negotiating power.” “Fast-track can be turned off if we don’t like the agreement that the President gives us.” These are both true, if we believe that Republican Leadership is going to fight harder for a good trade deal than they have against the President’s unlawful executive actions. These are also true if we trust President Obama to follow a “gentleman’s agreement” as I’ve heard it called, even though he won’t follow the Constitution.
I don’t trust Washington to get this right, and that is why I took the extraordinary step of voting against the rule. I plan on continuing my opposition against the final passage of TP
Blessing and Liber
“Obama: I’ve Restored the US as the ‘Most Respected Country in the World’”
OH. MY. GAWD!!! I’d be rolling on the floor laughing if this weren’t so serious and pitiful.
Obama, the petty, petulant, divisive, race baiting, lying, thin skinned, blame shifting, credit grabbing Narcissist-in-Chief is full on delusional, unable to tell the difference between a blatant lie and the truth. Or he just believes the majority of the citizenry and world are so delusional they might actually believe his lies – or some combination thereof. But then he did manage to get elected – twice, even after an utterly dismal first term performance and with a horrible history of radical friends and associations, so perhaps a far larger segment of the citizenry really is a bit off their rockers too.
Yea, right and he’s a uniter not a divider with the most open and transparent administration of all time. PLEASE!!!