Our Constitution says only the Congress has power to declare war. (ArtI, sec8, ss11)
Congress gave up that power with the AUMF, by giving it to the Executive branch.
So it seems pretty bizarre that a Congress that gives power to the Executive branch will then object to its use by the Executive branch, and fuels opposition of Trump nominees.
Just sayin’…
Investor’s Business Daily article: “The latest monthly Treasury report on taxes and spending shows that gross tax receipts in February were $1.4 billion higher than the year before. Weren’t the Republican tax cuts supposed to explode the deficit?”
Individual worker income is higher.
More people are finding jobs.
More jobs mean more income taxes are collected, more products are being sold to the consumers with more discretionary income, more product needs to be manufactured to satisfy that consumption, which means more raw materials are being purchased.
Free enterprise capitalism is a great engine for economic growth.
A Drudge byline “Rise of the conservative Democrat”…
…feeds through to a Washington Post article that headlines: “Pennsylvania vote shows that Trumpism has its limits — even in Trump country”
But the liberal journalist writing this article with glee that Trump may have been, well, trumped in a district the President won handily in 2016 ignores one very big fact…
…that Democrat candidate ran on Trump’s agenda.
That fact should send a big signal to Republicans, who need to develop some strong messaging to counter-act the ‘faux conservative’ strategy Democrats may invoke.
We noted in an earlier post that talk is cheap…regardless of how a Democrat promises to work with the President on simpatico issues, their voting record proves the lie.
Once in Congress, regardless of promises, they vote in lock-step with Democrat cohort.
Republicans should ask the question…
…will you vote for the LIE – or vote for the GUY who will actually support the agenda?
Because, guess what Pennsylvania? Those once-shuttered mines and steel mills that re-opened due to Trump’s agenda would’ve never opened if Democrats were elected.
And, (it bears repeating) REGARDLESS of promises.
While we’re on the subject, it might be worth noting that the re-drawing of voting districts in Pennsylvania is not Constitutional…because it was done by the court, not legislature.
(The supreme court’s weighted ‘D’, but Republicans won the state electorally in 2016.)
The (weighted Democrat) state supreme court jumped on the term “fair and equal” in its state constitution, and re-drew districts because of what wasn’t fair and equal in the last election cycle…according to their standards…of proportional representation.
But that standard applied across all state districts doesn’t reflect voter preference, if 1 or 2 districts are overly weighted, and remaining districts are closely won by opposition.
It’s much the same argument against the electoral process used by Democrats, only applied on a state level, but it does not adequately reflect overall voter preferences.
A great example demonstrating this is discussed in an article at NRO…a state with five districts of 100,000 per district, where one party wins 1 district by 80,000 votes, but lose the other 4 by 49,000 votes in each. Proportionally, that party won 276,000 votes state-wide (55%), so by judiciary reasoning there should be 55% representation by that party.
But four districts went for the other party by a 51% majority, which would mean in such a statewide government that 80% of representatives should be from that party. Thus, the proportional representation flaw is exposed…but Democrats will keep trying.
That said, constitutionally, supreme courts don’t have power to re-draw districts.
PERIOD.
FULL.STOP.
The special election in Pennsylvania is still too close to call, but campaign promises made during that election indicate a developing strategy may be used by Democrats.
Their candidate agreed with President Trump on several key issues, thus by implication planting thoughts he’d part with Democrats to support such votes when in Congress.
While it sounds good on paper, constituents would be well advised to look at the voting record of Democrats in Congress…they join lock-step against the GOP continually.
Case in point – the tax cuts passed late last year, with NOT ONE Democrat vote.
Despite the fact nearly every working American will see benefits of tax cuts, knowing that Democrats stood shoulder-to-shoulder against them should give pause to anyone who votes ‘D’ simply because that candidate agrees with some part of Trump’s agenda.
Pre-election promises don’t matter…post-election deeds do matter, and Democrats have demonstrated they plan to oppose Republicans…in solidarity…on every issue.
Republican candidates would be well advised to remind voters of this, every day.
Republican tax cuts and President Trump’s de-regulations will benefit the economy as a whole over the next several months. Politicking Democrats jumping on that band-wagon should be shoved off quickly, by reminding voters…
…EMPTY promises mean nothing.
Democrats agonizing over the final House Intel committee report finding no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion wring their hands over the GOP decision to end the debacle.
Do they really want that committee to stay open and follow the only evidence there is that proves there was Russian collusion – but only by Democrats…not Republicans?
Are they that stupid?
Looks like the Democrats’ favorite flunky, Mueller, may be setting up a snare to trap the Trump campaign team (and its leader?) with a ‘conspiracy to commit fraud’ against the U.S. government “…even if the conspiracy is not linked to a criminal act.“
While Democrats are gleefully rubbing hands, they might want to consider how such a charge could be used against one of their own – with actual evidence involved.
Let’s face it: “…impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of a government…” is what politicians do – if you consider the endless broken campaign promises and election-tampering they’re famous for, every election cycle.
And no one does it better than a Clinton.
Hey, Hillary – how could this affect you?
CBS president David Rhodes (yeah, the brother of Obama flunky Ben Rhodes, who bragged about creating an ‘echo chamber’ to get Iran their nuke deal) is aflutter over all of the reporting left to do so CBS can air their ’60 Minutes’ interview with a porn star.
(‘Cuz the porn star claims to have had a long-ago relationship with citizen Trump!)
Forget that there’s scads of reporting NOT BEING DONE on the Democrat collusion-with-Russia story, or about the House Democrat national security breach and scandal brewing over the unqualified Pakistani IT aides allowed to run riot through Congress.
And, by all means…ignore the Obama-era legacy of leniency that enabled the Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz to brutally gun down dozens of school-kids, killing 17.
(Yeah, yeah…gotta concentrate on that pornstar story. Hey, it can hurt Trump!)
This is mainstream journalism today.
Hopefully, honest Americans won’t put up with it too much longer.
House Democrats have a HUGE scandal on their hands…and a federal judge may be covering for them…at least, until after the upcoming November midterm elections.
Some 40+ Democrat members of the House of Representatives hired an unqualified group of Pakistanis to run their information technology, giving (as it turns out) illegal access to in many cases very highly classified congressional information.
The aides weren’t properly vetted, would never have qualified for security clearances, have since been exposed (some arrested), and Imran Awan is scheduled for a trial that inexplicably never seems to materialize…in the ‘land of the right-to-a-speedy-trial’.
Turns out the (Bill Clinton-appointed) judge delaying proceedings may be trying to keep all of the scandal this story represents under wraps until after the November elections.
California’s attorney general Xavier Becerra was leading the House Democratic Caucus at the time – it was his server Awan used to stash illegally accessed information. Up for election in California in November, he doesn’t want a bad national security scandal.
For that matter, quite a few House Democrats would be hurt by a trial that exposes the very real story of how seriously they jeopardized our national security, allowing massive data breaches that could even have been done remotely while they were in Pakistan.
Shouldn’t the media be all over this huge scandal?
National security continues to poll as a strong issue among American voters. How long will it take before Republicans start using campaign platforms to expose this failure?
Her contention being that wives were compelled to vote Republican by husbands.
Evidently Hilllary’s under the impression that American women are so stupid they didn’t realize they could vote however they wanted behind the polling place curtains.
(Either that, or she thinks we’re too stupid to realize her comments are illogical.)