The Ripon Society: Gregory Koger: Preserve The Filibuster- Protect People From Political Parties

Source: The Ripon Society- Gregory Koger.

Source:The New Democrat 

Before I get into the Republican hypocrisy about the Senate filibuster which is as loud as Metallica heavy metal concert unclose with no earplugs and as obvious as the Grand Canyon is big, I just want to get to the constitutional arguments about the Senate filibuster.

Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants all Federal legislative powers with Congress. Under the U.S. Constitution Congress writes their own rules. So the Senate decided to have a filibuster and cloture rule. The House decide to have an almost completely majoritarian framework in how they run their business. Which is both the right of the Senate and House of Representatives to write and enforce their rules the way they decide to. Whatever rules they make for themselves are constitutional. Its the laws that Congress passes together that are subjected to judicial rules by the Federal judiciary.

Now the more fun side of this debate. Where were GOP calls for eliminating the Senate filibuster and calling it unconstitutional the first two years of the Obama Administration when Democrats controlled Congress and even had 3/5 majorities in both the House and Senate? But under then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a few Senate Democrats as well, were still able to block some bills proposed and passed by House Democrats. Like extending Unemployment Insurance and additional stimulus bills to the economy. Senate Republicans were able to do this because they stayed inline and prevented Democrats from getting 3/5 majority vote in the Senate.

Or where was the GOP call to eliminate the filibuster from 2011-15 when there were two divided Congress's because House Republicans won back the House in 2010 and held onto majority in 2012. With Senate Democrats keeping the Senate in 2010 and 2012? Senate Republicans with 47 and then later 45 members, were able to block a whole list of Obama Administration executive and later judicial appointments simply by preventing Senate Democrats from obtaining 60 votes. Which is why then Senate Leader Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster in 2013 on executive and judicial nominees.

There are very good reasons why Congress is more unpopular than traveling salesman, lawyers, trial lawyers and make conmen look like good decent moral people. One of those reasons is hypocrisy.

Members of Congress will say they believe in fiscal responsibility and even fiscal conservatism. Until they become fiscally responsible at least in the sense that they're now in power and in control of the nation's fiscal policy. They run against deficit spending when they're in the opposition, especially when they're in both the opposition and minority, which is where Republicans were in 2010 and 2011. And then whey come back into power which is where Republicans are now, deficits no longer seem to matter to them. Especially if they have political priorities and objectives and things they need to accomplish in order to get reelected in 2018.

Why try to pay for tax relief and tax reform and ask people to pay for those things with few government services, when you can just finance those things on the national credit card and get way with it, if they're successful in passing it this year? Being in the political opposition is easy in the sense that you can complain all you want and not really pay any price for it. But governing is difficult because it means making decisions and risking offending groups that you may need to win reelection. Which is where the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans find themselves now.

Republican complaints about the Senate filibuster today and Congress failing to move on anything because legislation getting blocked in the Senate, well their a couple of problems with that.

One, the House isn't passing much if any legislation right now either. At least legislation that even Senate Republicans want to deal with. So maybe the GOP should look at their colleagues in the House when it comes to gridlock or their own Senate Leadership. But the second reason is more obvious and is nothing more than hypocrisy on a month long sugar high. The GOP was in favor of the filibuster when they were in the opposition, especially the opposition and minority, because they could use it to obstruct the Obama Administration and Congressional Republicans. Now they're against it because they're divided and can't seem to find enough votes to even pass legislation with a simple majority, let alone a super majority. Opposition to the filibuster is nothing more than political hypocrisy at this point and a big example of why Americans hate politics and hate Congress.

Source: Now This World- U.S. Senator Rand Paul

Now This World: Trace Dominguez- U.S. Senator Rand Paul: What Is A Filibuster?

Fix The Debt: 6 Things That Congress Should Do As It Considers The Federal Budget & Government Spending

Source: Fix The Debt-

Source:The New Democrat 

"The Fix the Debt Campaign is bringing together Americans from all walks of life and from across the country to get the national debt under control. Learn more and join us."

What Fix The Debt really only offers here are goals that they would like to see accomplished in the next Federal budget that Congress passes and the President signs. Which may happen as soon as 2050 since Congress no longer passes budgets The the last budget that Congress passed was in 2006. What they do instead is pass some appropriations bills and generally its real just the House that passes any appropriations bills. And September comes along which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone since September is an annual event in America and Congress realizes that the Federal Government funding is about to run out and decides to pass a short-term spending bill keeping the entire government running until the end of the year generally.

It use to be better than this when Congress would pass an omnibus bill generally in December that would fund the entire government until the following September. Omnibus bills are one appropriation bill passed by Congress instead of all 13 bills and passed instead of a budget. They're not as good as a budget that comes with appropriations bills later on, but are certainly better than running a Federal Government with a four-trillion-dollar budget and without around five-million employees three or four months at a time. Better for the workers and better for the economy, because investors don't have to worry about government shutdowns as much and the negative impact they have on the economy.

The only real solution that Fix The Debt offers here and I doubt the author of this article is actually named Fix The Debt, I mean that is no name for a real human being, but no name for the author is given here, but all they talk about is Congress should pass a budget. Pass a budget that puts us on path to reducing the national deb. And then they offer only one real solution in their article which is called PAYGO. Which is a wonky eggheaded term that in American English means pay as you go.

Makes sense right, is you're going to purchase something pay for it instead of running up big credit card bills that you can't pay back or writing checks that bounce like fully pumped basketballs that are slammed on a highway. But Congress doesn't operate in the real world. They operate in the world of political bases and political contributions. And tend to see their number one job is to get reelected. Especially if they're in the leadership of the major party in the House and Senate and don't want to lose their majority during the next election. Or if they're in the leadership in the minority party they tend to see their number one job is to not only get reelected but add to their membership and win back the House or Senate.

So as long as Congress functions on short-term spending bills and the only real deadline they care about are their primary elections and election days, we'll never see any real solutions to addressing the big deficit of six-hundred-billion dollars and the national debt of twenty-trillion-dollars. Because addressing these issues will cost political capital and support. Because it will mean addressing entitlements, the defense budget, the tax code, emergency spending like disaster relief, and our public assistance anti-poverty programs so we have fewer Americans living and working in poverty and more Americans working and paying payroll and Federal income taxes.

But if you're looking for real solutions that might happen at some point in the future, or more realistically could happen in the short-term, I believe PAYGO and disaster relief reform might be the only things that could pass both the House and Senate and get signed by President Trump. Applying PAYGO to disaster relief and the defense budget. No more waiting until the hurricane season in the late summer to realize that we may need a lot of money to pay for that cleanup and help people be able to get back to their lives. With Congress passing a disaster relief package of somewhere around 50-100 billion dollars that of course is put on the national credit card. (Another way of saying national debt)

But instead showing some common sense (almost as rare as July snow in Los Angeles, in Congress) and knowing that August and September are annual events in America and are hurricane season in the Southeast, as well as the Southwest in Texas with all the heat and humidity and that this is a region that will probably get hit by at least one storm and that it could be a major storm and that this region is probably going to need a lost of assistance to handle any recovery that might be needed. And again, to go back to the need for the Federal budget that the Administration and Congress should plan for these events upfront and pay for them upfront.

We need a natural disaster fund in America that should be paid for by the people who receive that assistance when their property is hit by one of these major storms and need financial assistance in order to recover from it. People who live in higher risk areas should pay more for this insurance because they'll get more assistance when they are hit by a storm or some other natural disaster. This would save the Federal Government 20, 50, perhaps even 100 billion dollars or more each year, as well as taxpayers because the Feds would no longer have to borrow to pay for disaster relief and taxpayers would have less interest to pay back on the national debt when they make purchases.

A fully functioning PAYGO that is tied to the entire Federal budget whether its disaster relief, as well as the defense budget and increases to all parts of the Federal budget including invasions, humanitarian relief efforts that are Defense Department are involved in, repairing and building new bases, alone won't fix the deficit and the national debt. We really need a comprehensive approach here that deals with the tax code, entitlements, poverty assistance, as well as defense and disaster relief. But it would be a good step forward and tell the markets and Wall Street that the U.S. Government is finally serious about the national debt and sees it as a national priority and at the very least will stop asking to the problem that it created.
Source:Crash Course

CNN: The Situation Room- Michele Bachmann Debates Bernie Sanders

Source:CNN- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) debating U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) on CNN.

Source:The New Democrat 

"MONEY ECONOMY JOBS POOR POLITICS WASHINGTON INCOME INEQUALITY." 

From CNN

Hell must be going through a deep freeze right now, because I actually agree with Representative Michele Bachmann on something. 

The reason why Scandinavia has almost no poverty there, is because they are deeply rich in natural energy resources like oil and gas. Two energy resources that Senator Bernie Sanders supporters would probably like to ban in America and Scandinavia uses that energy revenue to pay for their social welfare states. And they also have small populations. So they have lots of energy for an area of only 25 million people.

I hate to break it to Senator Sanders and every other American Socialist (in and out of Congress) but that everything that government does, comes with a price for anyone who receives those services, one way or another.

CNN: U.S. Senator Rand Raul- 'The Right to be Left Alone is The Most Precious'

Source:CNN- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) on the Patriot Act.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Sen. Rand Paul spoke out against the Patriot Act on Sunday, hours before it was set to expire." 

From CNN

First of all, the Patriot Act is going to expire at midnight in less than two hours from the time this piece is posted, because of Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and his Neoconservatives in his caucus. They could’ve spent the last two weeks on either the USA Freedom Act that was passed by the House with 388 votes. A huge bipartisan majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House.

CNN: State of the Union: This Election Isn't Over

Source:The New Democrat

The victory for Democrats in 2014 might be at the state level in the governor's and state legislature races. Where they are not only in position to win back governorships, but win them in big states. Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and perhaps Ohio which might be out of reach. But they are polling well in Wisconsin as well. And in Massachusetts and Colorado where they may lose, they currently hold the state legislature's in both states. And in Massachusetts case, they won't lose both the governorship and legislature.

As I blogged last night, the U.S. Senate is still not out of the question, because of Georgia and Kansas where Senate Democrats are favored to pick up, at least according to the polls. Strong Democratic leaning candidates in Michelle Nunn who is a Democrat in Georgia and liberal leaning Independent Greg Orman in Kansas. But for that to mean anything, they have to hold onto North Carolina and New Hampshire where they are currently leading. And perhaps pull out Louisiana where Mary Landrieu is in a dead heat with Republican Representative Bill Cassidy.

On Tuesday night, House Republicans will not only hold their majority, but perhaps add ten seats and even have a bigger majority that they had in 2011-12 after they won back the House. But the question is who will control the Senate in the next Congress with a Republican House that has a solid majority. And perhaps no one will really control the Senate as far as getting anything done with a 50-50 or 51-49 majority. And the 114th Congress is essentially divided as well like the current Congress.

National Journal: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority Status in Flux?

Source:The New Democrat

What if, what if, what if, what question is more fun to ask and even ask yourself than what if? But the reason why it is such a fun question to ask, is because it gives people that chance to imagine and throw out countless hypotheticals and imagine all sorts of interesting things. But to speak about Norm Ornstein's what if, he may be on to something right now because of how partisan and divided America is politically right now. With an unpopular President, but an unpopular Republican opposition that Americans aren't crazy about having complete control of Congress, both the House and Senate.

This is where the centrists, or as I prefer the more independently minded Senators and Senate candidates come into play. Because let's say we do have a 50-50 Senate in the next Congress with Democrats still in control of the Senate because of Vice President Joe Biden, or a 51-49 Senate in the next Congress that goes either way, without either party having enough of a partisan advantage to run the chamber by themselves, that is where the Independents come into play. Especially if they don't caucus with either party, or are not in lockstep with the political or governing agenda that their leadership wants to push.

In a divided Senate like that, that is where the Independents have the power, Assuming the Leader and Minority Leader are actually interested in governing and passing legislation in that Congress. And not simply looking for the next partisan advantage that will give them a clear majority in the next Congress. When the leadership's in both parties aren't interested in governing and simply looking for partisan advantage, as we've seen a lot in the Congress from both parties in both chambers, Independents do not mean a hell of a lot.

Whoever the next Senate Leader and Minority Leader is, they will still set the tone as far as what that Senate can pass in the next Congress. And if you are like me, you are looking for new leadership at the top in both parties without Harry Reid Mitch McConnell leading their respective caucus's. And hopefully new blood will come in and decide to work with the other party. Because whoever will holds the next Senate majority, it will be paper-thin, perhaps 52-48 at best for one side. And if they decide to govern, the Independents will come into power and a lot legislation could get passed. 

Discerning History: 'History of the Filibuster'

Source:Discerning History- talking about the rule that encourages hot air in Congress.

Source:The New Democrat

"Discover the interesting history of the filibuster, from Cato the Younger to Rand Paul, and see why it is an important part of the American system of government. 

UPDATE: On 11/21/2013 the Senate rules were changed to eliminate the requirement of a super majority for cloture on all appointments except to the Supreme Court. The silent filibuster can still be used on bills and Supreme Court appointments. Halligan's nomination was withdrawn in March, 2013. 

CORRECTION: When Senate Rule 22 was originally passed in 1917, a cloture vote required two-thirds of senators. This was only changed to three-fifths in 1975.

If you liked this film, please subscribe, share it with your friends, and check back next Thursday for our next video! 

From Discerning History 

You want to know why there's so much hot air in Washington? For one its in an area that gets about five months of summer. Sometimes more, hot, humid, endless, summers, at times, where people pray for rain. Which only makes the area hotter and more humid. But these summer showers all five- minutes of them do give us some temporary relief. Another reason for hot air is we are the seat of power for not only the United States but North America and the rest of the world.

We are an area of six-million people where people from all over the world come to express their five- minutes worth. And get to tell Congress exactly what they are thinking in order to get their help. And when they talk to senators, senators get to speak until they decide to shut up. Or there are sixty votes to tell Senator Hot Air and their allies, to "shut the hell up!" Or there's a Blizzard in South Florida, you know whatever comes first, it used to be worst.

Up until 1975, it took 67 votes to kill a filibuster, which meant that 34 Senators could defeat 66. If you're a sports fan, that probably makes as much sense as the team with twenty-one points beating the team with forty-two in a football game. 

I don't have a problem with the current sixty vote rule. I do believe in things like minority rights. So there's some type of check and balance in Congress both in the House and Senate. And that the Minority Leader, the Leader of the Minority Caucus and Ranking Members, the Leaders of the minority memberships of committees, should be more than just their caucus's chief spokesperson's. But that they shouldn't be able to rule the Senate like they are in charge.

Two problems with the Senate and there are problems with the House as well, but since this post is about the filibuster, which only happens in the Senate (Thank God!) I'm just going to focus on the Senate. Can you imagine a filibuster in the House, with 435 Representatives being able to talk until they run out of breath, or 261 votes are gathered to get them too, "shut the hell up! "You're not the only one with nonsense to say!" You think there's already too much hot air in Congress now, have a filibuster rule both in the Senate and House.

There would be so much hot air in the House, people could do their sun tanning on the House floor. No more weekend getaways to Florida or Southern California paid for by lobbyists because they could do that on the House floor. But the two main problems with the Senate have to do with two rules, one of them needs to be replaced. The other needs to be thrown away like the piece of trash that it is. The trash is the Motion to Proceed Rule, get this it currently takes 60 votes just to move to a bill in order to debate a bill.

The Motion to Proceed rule makes the the Leader of the Senate as weak as what the Vice President use to be, before the President gave them a real job. The Leader should just be able to call up any bill that they put on the Senate agenda, or 51, instead of 60 votes to move to any bill. Thats passed out of committee or that the Leader and Minority Leader call up together under Emergency Rule. And this way the Senate would look more like a PTA meeting, or the United Nations. Because things would actually get accomplished in the Senate.

The Senate rule that should be replaced is the Cloture Rule better known as the filibuster. You want to keep the filibuster, fine. But limit to only final passage of bills, not motion to proceed or presidential nominations, or on amendments. And make it real, meaning that senators would actually have to filibuster and hold the floor, speak on the floor about the bill at hand and have to speak and hold, until there are 60 votes to cut the senator off, or until the senator yields to floor.

Reforms like this an establishing a real Rules Committee in the Senate and make that bipartisan. And then we would actually see something strange in the Senate, senators working and producing. Instead of just showing up and getting a great tan from all of their own Hot Air.

Chris Brandt: Representative Steve Cohen: 'Schools DEA Official About Marijuana & The Quality of Life'

Source:Chris Brandt- U.S. Representative Steve Cohen (Democrat, Tennessee)

Source:The New Democrat

I agree with Representative Steve Cohen that marijuana prohibition is definitely a joke and overwhelmingly hurts ethnic and racial minorities compared with Anglos and Caucasians.  It is a war on freedom to criminalize what people do to themselves, especially when we are talking about a drug that can't kill you immediately, unlike heroin or cocaine. We are really talking about a drug as it relates to health aspects like alcohol.  It is actually far less dangerous than tobacco, which is legal.

I would have a lot more respect for Republicans and so-called Conservatives today who preach about the value of individual freedom, if they applied that belief to personal freedom, freedom of choice, and civil liberties. Instead of just calling for individual freedom as it relates to economic policy, especially for wealthy people, but not the working class as it relates to the right to organize and other working class issues. And freedom of religion, but really just for Christians, with everyone else being subjected to big government on the grounds of national security.

If people who call themselves Conservatives want my political respect, then they need to support personal freedom as well and civil liberties and apply those beliefs to all Americans and not just Anglo-Saxon Christians. And get behind issues that involve activities where they may not personally approve of, but where there are no victims involved. Like personal personal possession and usage of marijuana. Instead of preaching the value of individual freedom as it relates business's, the wealthy and Christians. But big government authoritarianism for everyone else.
Source:Chris Brandt

C-SPAN: House Judiciary Committee: Attorney General Eric Holder to Representative Louie Gohmert: You Don't Want to go There Buddy

Source:The New Democrat

This video displays what I love about Attorney General Eric Holder and why he's so unpopular with Congressional Republicans.  Representative Louie Gohmert has less brains than a rock sitting on the bottom of a river, as the video amply illustrates. .

He's not mentally qualified to throw pitches to Attorney General Holder or catch his fly balls in batting practice.  Senator Chuck Grassley the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee use to be pretty responsible, but now he's scared as hell of the Tea Party..  The two of them illustrate a major problem of the modern Republican Party. They're overly partisan. 

Eric Holder doesn't take junk (to keep it clean) from anyone and he's not going to sit on his ass and let a third-rate. small town, small time, back-benching Representative who probably couldn't get elected statewide in Texas, push him around.  Generally, witnesses at Congressional hearings in both chambers tend to let the committee member go off even if they know the member is dead wrong or lying. That is not Eric Holder, or anyone who works for him.  It sure as hell is not Secretary of State John Kerry, who's not afraid to fire back at members of Congress.

Eric Holder has been Attorney General of the United States for five-years and has served as Deputy Attorney General of the United States.  He was a long time U.S. Attorney who's presided over the lowest crime rates in the United States in decades. As well as not seeing one foreign terrorist attack in the United States since taking office in 2009, he has served his country well since 1976 and has thirty years of public service experience.

Representative Louie Gohmert is a third or fourth rate, small time. back-benching, Republican (the dumbest of the dumb) Representative who's a member of the House Birther Caucus.  He thinks  that President Barack Obama was born in a foreign country and is an illegal immigrant as well.  He is apparently unaware that Hawaii is part of the United States.  He probably couldn't find Hawaii on a map.  He has no business questioning the Attorney General of the United States.

No Labels: Senator Joe Manchin & Jon Huntsman On The Morning Joe: A Shared Vision For a Stronger America

Source:The New Democrat

This sounds more like an agenda for a third-party, an American Independence Party. A new center-right fiscally conservative socially moderate or federalist party. Where Jon Huntsman would make a great nominee for president. Instead of an agenda for this divided Congress with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Where both chambers are so divided on basically everything. They just passed a budget, but that is part of their job and shouldn’t be congratulated for that.

I like the goals and what No Labels is trying to accomplish here. Of trying to bring pragmatists together to solve the problems of the country from both parties. The problem is right now they only have goals without any real solutions. You want to reform Washington, you have to reform Congress to the point where the majority and minority parties in both chambers are allowed to offer relevant substitutes and amendments to bills that the majority brings up. So both sides in the House and Senate at least have their say and can at least have their ideas voted on to what the House and Senate are debating. To turn Congress into a competition of ideas and not partisan attacks.

The other way you fix Washington in this current ultra partisan political environment is for the American people to step up and give one party enough power to govern and put their agenda through. Then at least we would have a real governing party in this country with the power to govern. Because right now it is just too partisan and we are too divided as a country for Democrats and Republicans to do much work together.

Andrew Kaczynski: 'When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster'

Source:Andrew Kaczynski- U.S. Senate Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) talking about changing the Senate filibuster in 2005.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster" 

From Andrew Kaczynski

Newsflash: there’s bipartisan hypocrisy when it comes to the Senate filibuster. And a big example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten percent approval rating (and the ten percent are probably comatose or living oversees right now) because the upper chamber uses and complains about the filibuster to meet its short-term gains. Instead of what is best for the Senate and the country. 

And Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering presidential nominees before they were against it. And Senate Republicans were against the Senate filibuster before they were in favor of it. 

The Senate filibuster debate is purely about politics and short-term political advantage to gain absolute power to the point that the party in power wouldn’t even have to acknowledge the minority party and even the minority leadership about what bills to proceed to and when to debate them.

C-SPAN: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid- 'Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) talking about the Senate filibuster, in 2005.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Harry Reid: Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees. Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05." 

From Filibuster Flashback

Senate Democrats in favor of the filibuster before they were against it as it relates to presidential nominees. Again just goes to the bipartisan hypocrisy and an example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten-percent approval rating and that might be generous. That ten-percent might be members of the Senate or mental patients. 

But whoever is against  the Senate filibuster (when they're in the majority) is about short-term gain. And even though I’m in favor of Leader Reid using the nuclear option as it relates to presidential nominees because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules as it relates to blocking presidential appointments, the hypocrisy in this debate is as obvious as the Earth is round. 

One thing that is bipartisan in Congress is hypocrisy, as well as long so-called work vacations, getting paid while not working  and perhaps a few other things, but Democrats and Republicans love using tools against the other side. But when those tools are used against them, they call them unfair and that they must be unilaterally changed or outlawed.

Salon: Steve Kornacki: 'Is Rand Paul The Next Robert Taft?'

Source:Washington Monthly- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)

"When Rand Paul was announced as the winner of the Republican presidential straw poll at CPAC over the weekend, there was no chorus of boos from the assembled conservatives, a far cry from the response when his father won the same event a few years ago. Unlike Ron Paul, whose political coalition existed as much outside the Republican Party as in it and whose numerous straw poll victories were the product of organized event-crashing that irritated party regulars, Rand has dedicated himself to becoming a force within the GOP -- and CPAC '13 represents the latest evidence that he's succeeding."

From Salon

The mainstreaming of Rand Paul, interesting title for an article. I saw another article in the magazine The Week with the title: "Does the rising of Rand Paul mean and end to social conservatism?" Which are the two things to focus on as well as laying out what constitutional conservatism actually is and how that differs from religious conservatism and they may sound like the same thing but they are actually different.

If you look at Rand Paul's political background whether you want to call it Conservative or Conservative-Libertarian or just flat Libertarian, he's always been in the mainstream in America as far as someone who believes that big government shouldn't interfere in our economic or personal lives. Meaning that government shouldn't try to control us or run our lives or even try to protect us from ourselves. Not that it shouldn't tax, but not tax us to the point where we lose the freedom to control our own destiny and not be dependent on the state for our economic well-being. 

Conservative-Libertarians like Senator Paul, also believe that government shouldn't interfere into our personal lives as well. And what we do in the privacy of our own homes, what we watch on TV, who we sleep with and marry as adults, how we spend our own money, as long as we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing. There's nothing radical about this and this view of what government shouldn't be doing is a shared viewpoint on both the Right and Left in America which is why it's mainstream. 

Constitutional-Conservatives or Conservative-Libertarians, believe in conserving the U.S. Constitution and all the individual rights that all Americans get from it. As well as conserving our limited government and preventing government (especially the Federal Government) from getting too big. Wheres Christian-Conservatives or Christian-Nationalists, believe in covering their own culture and religious values. Even if that means using big government to try to enforce their values on everyone else. Which is very different from constitutional conservatism or conservative libertarianism and very different from Senator Rand Paul. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Buzz Feed News: 'Which Pundits Stood With Rand Paul?'

Source:Buzz Feed News- Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity on Senator Rand Paul's filibuster. I'm sure that it was a fine editorial that a few people saw. LOL

"Rand Paul's filibuster made for strange bedfellows in the punditocracy. Here's a breakdown ranked from most supportive of Rand to least." 

From Buzz Feed News

Whatever your position is on the Senate filibuster and whatever you think of Senator Rand Paul's thirteen house filibuster on Wednesday and the long speech as far as the content of his speech, you gotta admit at least it was an actual filibuster. 

The filibuster rule and the absolute consent rule in the Senate are two different things, but both can be used by both minority and majority members to block legislation, because they need 60 votes to overturn and the Senate majority party generally doesn't have 60 members, at least since 1979 or so. 

So what Senator Paul did on Wednesday was not just object to the legislation, but actually filibustered it, pretty much all by himself. Just like with the Jeff Smith character (played by Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. 

The Atlantic: Alex Roarty- 'Can This Congress Be Saved?'

Source:The Atlantic- "President Barack Obama is applauded as he gives his State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday Feb. 12, 2013. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)NATIONAL JOURNAL." An inside look at one of the most expensive, inefficient, and overpaid institutions in the world: the United States Congress. But we only have the Americans voters to blame for that.

"Much of America prays Dan Boren is wrong. Parents worried about the threat of gun violence certainly hope he is. So do the roughly 11 million people who immigrated to America illegally and the deficit hawks who demand a grand budget bargain.

These men and women are depending on Washington, Republicans and Democrats, to come together and reach an agreement on the national agenda: gun violence, immigration, and the budget. But Boren, a retired House member from Oklahoma, doubts they'll end up satisfied. It's why he left Capitol Hill last year." 

From The Atlantic

To put it simply: the only way to make the United States Congress work which is still divided between Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats controlling the Senate with a bigger majority in this Congress, with the Republicans controlling the House, but with a smaller majority in this Congress, is going to have to come from the people. And they are finally going to have to not just say they don't like the current leadership and system that they are getting from both parties but actually do something about it. 

And this starts at the state level where the people say they are tired of the gerrymandering from both parties. And want more competitive House elections, so Representatives would actually have to run for reelection and not just win the primary to return to Congress. And that we get back to some type of regular order in Congress.

PBS: U.S. Senator Tim Kaine- 'Introduces The Created Equal Project'

Source:PBS- U.S Senator Tim Kaine (Democrat, Virginia) 

"Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) introduces the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Created Equal Project. The initiative showcases powerful NEH-funded films, including The Abolitionists, Freedom Riders, and The Loving Story — films that provide a deeper understanding of African American history and the American story."

From PBS

I support public broadcasting as far as the programming they put on as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities and so-forth. Again, as far as the programming they deliver and the fact they support our current affairs and history programming, as well as our arts and education. Through non-profits and I realize these budgets are only around ten-billion-dollars, if that.

But in the time of high national debt and budget deficits, this is not something that taxpayers should be forced to spend money on when we have a sluggish economy that didn't grow at all in the last quarter of 2012. With high unemployment, as well as private debt, that instead we would be better off using that money for deficit reduction, or economic development like in the area of infrastructure investment, or energy, or tax cuts for business's that invest, expand and hire in America. Which is what we should be doing with these resources instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for to support our history, culture and current affairs programming, as well as the arts.

C-SPAN: U.S. Senate Historian Donald Ritchie- History of The State of The Union Address

Source: C-SPAN- Name this speech and the year that it was given.

"History of the State of the Union Address - Senate Historian Donald Ritchie." 

From C-SPAN 

"U.S. Senate Historian Donald Ritchie discusses the history of the State of the Union address." 

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senate Historian Donald Ritchie.

From CSPAN

The whole point of the United States State of The Union address is for the President to layout the situation of the country across the board and all sorts of issues,And also for the President to layout where he wants to take the country for that year. And a lot of times it depends on how well the country is doing, how popular the President is, what's the situation with Congress, who controls the House and Senate and by what margins and how popular the Congressional Leadership is that will determine what if anything the President will be able to accomplish that year.

Ronald Reagan came in on a big wave in 1981 and even though Congressional Republicans only controlled the Senate, Republicans were up in 1981. Democrats were down and not very popular and were essentially forced to work with President Reagan and the Republican Senate to avoid losing more power now that they only controlled the House of Representatives. But six years later thanks to Iran Contra and Democrats winning back the Senate in 1986 in the Congressional midterms and adding seats to their House majority, President Reagan lost a lot of his power base.

So State of The Union address's can be very effective or not memorable at all and not important. Depending on the President and where the President stands politically, what he wants to accomplish, how realistic it is. And what's his party's standing in Congress and what position the opposition party is in to either work with the President and his party in Congress or try to derail what the President is trying to accomplish, because they feel no need to work with them or are too far apart.

The Fiscal Times: Edward Morrissey- 'Shame on Congress for Robbing Hurricane Sandy Victims'

Source:The Fiscal Times- Hurricane Sandy survivors.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste.  That quote from Rahm Emanuel came during the dark days of the 2008 financial collapse, when Democrats wanted to make sure that the Congressional intervention of TARP carried with it plenty of “opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” 

From The Fiscal Times

Bad news for people on the Left and people on the Right who believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility, for a couple of reasons.

One, Senator Barbara Mikulski will become the next Chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the next Congress. She is a major porker and one of the members of Congress who have a habit of attaching non-relevant spending to appropriations bills. And I imagine she'll have some non-relevant amendments to the Sandy disaster relief bills.

Two, the other one being that Senator Milkulski's colleagues in Congress will be doing the same thing to the Hurricane Sandy disaster relief bills as well. We are running up run away debt and deficits and Congress is just adding to the problems by borrowing more money from other countries to fund their pet projects. 

Congress is the only reason why even disaster relief bills need to be paid for even if that means coming up with a national fund to finance disaster relief like a so-called trust fund. And getting non relevant amendments off of appropriations bills.

Disaster relief like another else the U.S. Government does including defense and military operations that involve helping our so-called allies and victims of civil war in other countries, should be paid for upfront. 

What Congress (both in the Senate and House does) is say: "We'll pay for this spending down the road. But what we need to do is get this money out the door as fast as possible, instead of arguing for how it should be paid for." But they don't even do that. They borrow the money upfront and then move onto other priorities. Which generally involves more borrowing. And Americans who at least care about our deficit and national debt, are left to wonder why we run up big deficits and add to out national debt every year.

CSPAN: Assistant Leader Mitch McConnell- 'Opposed Filibustering Judicial Nominees: Back in 2005'

Source:Democracy or Hypocrisy- U.S. Senate Assistant Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) in 2005.

"Senator McConnell Opposed Filibustering Judicial Nominees" 

From Democracy Or Hypocrisy

The whole Senate filibuster debate, part of it is definitely about hypocrisy, depending on which party is in charge. 

Senate Republicans the current minority caucus in the Senate, are using to their full advantage with the 47 members a very large Senate minority (soon to be 45 members in the next Congress) the ability to not only block but obstruct legislation. Which is a little different, for the minority party to block legislation, you simply block the final vote on it. Which is very common in the Senate going back to the 1950s or longer but if you obstruct legislation, you try to kill the legislation even before it gets to that point by even blocking it from coming to the floor. 

The motion to proceed rule that prevents the Senate unless there are sixty votes, from even debating legislation. And thats the main problem in the Senate right now, it's not that legislation is not being passed but the simple fact that legislation is not even being debated and considered. And since both sides have a history of hypocrisy on this issue. It's going to take a bipartisan solution to fix the obstructionism in the Senate.

Dustin Hurst: U.S. Senator Denny Rehberg & U.S. Representative Denny Rehberg- 'Spar in Second U.S. Senate Debate'

Source:Dustin Hurst- not often you see two members of Congress debating each other for the same Congressional seat.

"Jon Tester and Denny Rehberg spar in second U.S. Senate debate. Held on the Montana State University-Billings campus Oct. 8, 2012. For more, visit:Watch Dog." 

From Dustin Hurst

This debate looked a little like Representative Dennis Rehberg vs President Obama. Representative Rehberg spent a lot of time during the debate trying to make Senator Tester look like President Obama. "

Senator Tester and President Obama agree on this and that. And Senator Tester made the good point to Representative Rehberg that: "Dennis, you are not running against the President, but you are running against me. This is not the presidential election but the Montana Senatorial election. And we are running against each other to decide who should represent Montana in the U.S. Senate, as well as in Congress as a whole and that if you want to run against the President, you should've ran for President yourself, instead of running for U.S. Senate, which is what you decided to do instead." 

Which tells me that Representative Rehberg believes that he's down in the race and needs to make Senator Tester look worse than he is and compare him with a President, who is probably not very popular in Montana.