Dem Representative Moves to Block Obama’s Congressional Pay Increase

Comments Off on Dem Representative Moves to Block Obama’s Congressional Pay Increase

A Democratic member of Congress is moving to block President Barack Obama’s congressional pay increase. The move, led by John Barrow of Georgia, is to prevent the pay increase that Obama issued through an executive order from going into effect.

“At a time when American families face real hardship, it would be irresponsible to allow Congressional pay to increase,” says Barrow in a statement. “Too many families face uncertainty in the New Year for Congress to get a bonus. Folks expect us to be looking out for them, not ourselves, and we should be working to lower taxes, cut spending, and get our nation’s debt under control. Congress should get to work, and I urge the House leadership to do anything and everything possible to stop this pay increase for Members of Congress right away.”

Barrow’s office explains: “The Executive Order called for a pay increase for Members of Congress and other elected officials of 0.5 percent after March 27, 2013. During tonight’s votes, Congressman Barrow will urge his colleagues to sign his letter to House Leadership urging them to bring legislation to the floor to block the pay increase.”

 

Here’s the letter Barrow is circulating to send to House leadership:

Dear Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, Leader Pelosi, Whip Hoyer,

We oppose the pay increase for Members of Congress granted by Executive Order on December 27, 2012. The Executive Order would raise our salaries by $900 per year, beginning March 27, 2013.

We believe that it is inappropriate for Members of Congress to receive a pay increase of any size while American families and taxpayers continue to face tough economic times.

We urge you to bring legislation to the floor to stop this pay adjustment as soon as possible.

Weekly Standard

Diane Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 – She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in

Comments Off on Diane Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 – She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in

Folks, here they come, to heck with the 2nd amendment, it’s in the way as far as they are concerned…

Despite what Feinstein claims, the Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice brief done in 1999, midway through the period of the original assault weapons ban found, “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control studied multiple gun control laws including the AWB and found, “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” Likewise, a National Research Council panel in 2004 performed a critical review on firearms, and noted that the ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence”.

The reason the AWB had little, if any effect on gun violence was revealed in a 2004 National Institute of Justice report which found that rifles were rarely used in gun crimes. This finding is verified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports database which shows that of the 8,583 murders committed using firearms in 2011; only 323 were committed using rifles of any kind, including the small fraction referred to as “assault weapons”. To put this into context, the same 2011 data show that over twice as many murders, 723 in all, were committed using bare hands and feet.

Feinstein tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to disarm the American people.

On Thursday, Feinstein will introduced her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if they’re sex offenders.

Feinstein’s bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan.

It is a gun confiscation bill.

Somebody should ask her what she’s proposing to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. Including those coming in from across the border. This sceme is meant to disarm us law abiding citizen’s and will do nothing to address the problem

I have news for Ms. Feinstein ….a 51% vote in the Senate won’t ban the 2nd amendment……you MUST add an amendment to the Constitution and have 3/4 of the States to ratifiy that amendment.

Joe Biden shows the length Democrats will go to steal our guns. In 2008 during the election, he told voters Obama wouldn’t take his shotgun or his Beretta. The Beretta is a semi-automatic pistol. But in 1989, Biden introduced his own version of the assault weapons ban.

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

Comments Off on Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

This is from the Opinion page of the New York Times of course, can you believe anyone could be so stupid and uninformed.

Article I, Section 7 states that all revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on any other bills.

Revenue bills were only to originate in the House because members of the House of Representatives are the only federal officials elected directly by the people. Senators, up until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were chosen by the state legislatures. And the president was chosen by the Electoral College. At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 it was felt that, in order for the new federal government to have sufficient legitimacy to gain popular support, it was imperative that at least part of the government would always have a popular mandate.

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

Continue reading, if you can stomach it @ NYT

Peter Morici: Obama Has “Put A Pistol To The Head Of The Middle Class”

Comments Off on Peter Morici: Obama Has “Put A Pistol To The Head Of The Middle Class”

Leading Economist Peter Morici had this to say about Obama’s fiscal cliff negotiating tactics:

“The president by being so persistent that it’s my way or the highway, no spending cuts, taxes on folks over $250,000 or nothing, has basically put a pistol to the head of the middle class. It’s threatened them with financial extortion if he doesn’t get his way.”