Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) wrote an article that explains why he felt compelled to vote against the House Republicans’ common sense ‘No Budget, No Pay Act’.

The bill simply stated that – until Senate Democrats passed a budget (required by law to be done every year, but not done for the past 3 years) – they wouldn’t get paid.

Rep. King argues the Act contravened the 27th amendment of the Constitution: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened”.

He thinks the ‘intervening election’ requirement is the deal-breaker.

With all due respect to Representative King, it might behoove him to note that the amendment doesn’t read “…varying the compensation for the NON-services…”

We’re not legal scholars at BlueCollar, but it’s our opinion that, until congressional members actually perform ‘the Service’ deserving of compensation, logically, those Democrat Senators aren’t protected by the Constitution they’ve trampled…

…unless of course, there’s some hidden amendment we’re not aware of that states trampling the Constitution is what their ‘Service’ now entails…?

Common sense dictates not doing their sworn job (in this case, not passing a lawfully required budget) can be defined as ‘non-service’…wouldn’t that justify non-payment?

But Democrat Senators can relax…our decision isn’t legally binding…

(Besides, what self-respecting American would want to withhold something you Congressional types believe you’re entitled to…?)

Set aside all the arguments against women serving in forward combat situations.

And, with apologies to Rush Limbaugh, it ain’t about what the ‘Femi-Nazis’ want…

There’s one HUGE reason why Left-wing Libs like Obama want to push this issue.

It would justify revoking the law exempting women from signing up for the draft as soon as they turn 18 (which is what every American male is now required to do)…

…giving Democrats an annual, comprehensive list of all 18-year old American females ready to vote for their issues.

Or are we just being too cynical…?

An apartment complex in Salem VA notified a military vet to get that potted American flag off his patio, for the sake of ‘keeping (it’s) community one of the best in Salem’.

The letter advises they only allow patio furniture, 3 working bikes, and plants on patios.

In a healthy spirit of cooperation, BlueCollar recommends removing that potted flag…

…then install it (with 2 of its brothers) on each of the 3 ‘working bicycle’ handlebars.

Believe it or not, the Department of Homeland Security recommends bringing scissors to a gunfight…

The (older) DHS handbook and a just-released DHS video offer ‘tips’ on “how to survive an attack by a…shooter” with a list ranging from throwing items…to scissor-wielding.

“The DHS materials never recommend using a concealed firearm…” as a defense.

(Why would they? It’s the ‘gun violence’ causing the problem…not the assailant, right?)

Evidently, in the DHS world, using a gun to protect against a gun-toting assailant would be the equivalence of ‘two wrongs not making it right’.

Scissors.

Anyone remember the collective media fireworks over ‘duct tape’ a few years back?

Where’s Dan Rather when you really need him?

Only in America can clowns of this magnitude get elected to high office!

No sooner does the announcement come that the economy shrank in the 4th quarter of 2012 to a -.1%, than Senate Majority Liar Leader Harry Reid comes out spinning a story of continued economic recovery…(but even if it’s not, then Republicans are to blame).

No, wait, Reid says, “we are in a recovery…growth went down in the 4th quarter due to reduced government spending…”, even though compared to 4th quarter 2011 spending by the government was up $31 billion. (And compared to the previous 3rd quarter 2012, government spending was up $98 billion in the 4th quarter!)

Only in Harry Reid’s world can “growth went down” be defined as a “recovery”…

…and an increase of $98,000,000,000 in spending is considered a reduction.

But there are bigger idiots out there…the voters in a state willing to keep Reid in office…

Normally, one would have to hold a Job Fair to find fools of this caliber.

Nevada used an election.

Just what an ‘Al Franken Senate’ needs…

Geraldo Rivera.

Re, our ‘A sad example..’ Benghazi blog, Connie A. channels Hillary Clinton, asking ‘what difference does it make’ who controlled Congress in the last 2 years of the Bush administration? Really, Connie?

It was your Secretary of State who brought it up in a thinly veiled attempt to tarnish the Bush administration with funding denials, rather than a Democrat-controlled Congress.

(And if memory serves me, wasn’t there a ‘Senator Clinton’ in that Democrat-controlled Congress back then who should have known what was going on? Anyone, anyone?)

While we’re at it, you may want to check out this Politico article of Oct 14, which revealed the fact the State Department (up to the Benghazi terror attacks) had been sitting on over $2 billion because they didn’t want to spend money on security as it would have undermined Obama’s pre-election mantra that al Qaeda died with Usama!

Your media sycophants are too in-the-bag to ask Clinton the questions that need to be asked, but rest assured, when it comes to money, she controlled Department spending.

She was in the Democrat Congress which denied the funding then, tries to gift-wrap George W. Bush with her duplicity now…and just before the fatal Benghazi attack she refused to spend over $2 billion in State Dept. security funding, to help Barack Obama perpetrate his ‘Mission Accomplished – Usama & al Qaeda are dead’ lie.

She denied security funding in Congress..withheld security funding as Secretary…

…and 4 Americans are dead because of it. The arrogance is stunning!

In the old days she would have been tarred and feathered…this wasn’t simply incompetence – it was WILLFUL incompetence!

And, THAT’S what difference it makes, Connie.

Want to know why the Right is losing one argument after another, even though time-and-time-again their facts and logic are irrefutable? Consider this…

Breitbart.com Headline: “Clinton Blames Bush For Lack of Funds to Secure Benghazi”

During a Fox-Greta Van Susteren interview, the article’s first line stated “..outgoing Secretary of State Clinton continued the theme that, during the Bush Administration, requests for monies from Congress to secure…consulates were rejected.”

Falling for the bait, the Breitbart journalist goes on the defensive in the article, citing a Deputy Assistant Secretary’s testimony in October stating money wasn’t the issue, and that Republican lawmakers had pointed out the State Department had spent millions on non-security issues over the past few years.

But the Breitbart journalist (Dr. Susan Berry) misses a HUGE point…

During the Bush Administration’s last 2 years, the Congress which ‘rejected requests for monies’ from the State Department…was DEMOCRAT-controlled!

Think that might be an important point? Why doesn’t Breitbart think so?

We’ve written earlier BCP blogs discussing the critical issue of challenging the premise of arguments put out by the opposition party, yet even an admirable organization like the Breitbart news group commits a major sin of omission.

Clinton’s clever positioning of ‘the Bush Administration’ before mentioning ‘Congress’ implies a GOP-controlled funding mechanism, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Congress controls the money; Democrats controlled Congress. Yet, goes unmentioned.

Citing a low-level flunky’s testimony and poor Department spending priorities is weak stuff, compared to a pivotal fact that the Congress controlling State Department funding was being run by Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate.

When strong arguments can be made, seizing the narrative is critical!

(We never thought it would be necessary to remind Breitbart of that fact.)

Charlie C. rightly points out that America’s immigration system wasn’t broken until our “politicians screwed things up”, but please note it’s only part of this story…

As with gun control, girls at the front line in combat, gay marriage, etc, the real danger lies in the 1 crucial factor that dominates EVERY Democrat platform issue…

…when the PROBLEM is more exploitable than the solution.

We know the problems this country faces, we know most of the solutions are nothing more than common sense…and if we know it…the politicians know it as well.

Why, then, you may ask, do these problems never get solved?

Because it serves a better purpose for Democrats to keep them alive as problems…

If Liberal minorities, women, gays, youth, and illegal immigrants ever learn their issues are purposely exploited by Democrats rather than solved, the blowback will be huge.

(Unfortunately, that reality is carefully hidden by a duplicitous media.)

So, start your own grassroot campaign – the next time your Liberal friend brings up an issue, ask if they really believe college-educated politicians can’t solve that problem.

Then ask them which party benefits when a problem is solved…

…and which party benefits when it’s exploited.

Why now? Why push gun control, women in combat, amnesty for illegals?

Record numbers of Americans are out of work. The economy’s in the toilet. Food stamp enrollment has mushroomed. The national debt has grown $5 trillion+ in 4 years…

…but Democrats and media flunkies shed croc tears over a green card for Gilberto?

Why are they screaming for Kathy to be put on the front lines in Kandahar…all the while wailing that Charlene shouldn’t have a gun to protect her and the kids in Chicago?

Why? Because the Democrats and their media water-carriers have a new motto…

“Never let an opportunity to create a crisis go to waste…”

So, don’t let those crocodile tears fool you…they’re only meant to hide what’s really going on…

…and who’s really causing each crisis…