Thursday, December 18, 2014

After Obama Cuba announcement Major League Baseball notified its 30 teams that it remains illegal to scout or sign players in Cuba, that embargo remains in effect, can only be removed with Congressional consent-NY Times-Schmidt

.
12/17/14, "Once again, Cuba, with its history of the sport, beckons to baseball," NY Times, Michael S. Schmidt

"At a dinner in one of Fidel Castro’s palaces in 1999, Castro and several of Major League Baseball’s senior executives discussed one of the few bonds between Cuba and the United States: baseball.

The executives, including baseball’s commissioner, Bud Selig, were there for an exhibition game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Cuban national team, as part of an effort by President Bill Clinton to thaw relations.

As the dinner stretched into the early hours of the morning, Castro regaled Selig with tales from the history of Cuban baseball and fantasized about what would happen if the United States and Cuba ever normalized ties. Castro told one of the executives, Sandy Alderson, who had overseen preparations for the trip, that he was open to the idea of major league teams having academies in Cuba similar to the ones in the Dominican Republic, where teenage players honed their skills in the hopes of making it to the majors. Fifteen years after that dinner, the vision of an active relationship between Cuba and Major League Baseball became a little more real Wednesday after President Barack Obama’s announcement that he planned to restore full diplomatic relations with the island nation.

In one of Obama’s most significant foreign policy initiatives, he said he would open an embassy in Havana for the first time in more than a half century and said the United States would ease restrictions on travel and banking.

When Castro took power in 1959, Cuba’s pool of talented baseball players - one of the largest outside the United States - became off-limits to major league teams, except for the stream of players who defected. The 19 Cuban-born players who were major leaguers in all or part of the 2014 season - like Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder Yasiel Puig - made up the highest number since 1967, when there were 30. But scouts and general managers have said it would be far higher if teams could send representatives to Cuba and sign players, and then develop them.

Significant foreign policy announcements from Washington do not usually prompt the baseball commissioner’s office or the players union to respond. But after Obama addressed the nation Wednesday, both released terse statements saying they were monitoring the situation.

Baseball officials, team executives, scouts, agents and fans began to speculate about how soon major league teams might be able to sign players in Cuba. Some even wondered whether Major League Baseball might be tempted to relocate a team like the Tampa Bay Rays, which has a feeble fan base, to Havana, where it would most likely be a sensation. Others questioned how rich the Cuban talent pool really was.

At one point Wednesday, Major League Baseball became so concerned about the reaction to Obama’s announcement that it sent a directive to its 30 teams pointing out that it remained illegal to scout players in Cuba or to sign them, because the U.S. embargo of the island remained in effect. Obama cannot lift the embargo on his own, and a Congress that will be fully controlled by Republicans starting in January is unlikely to go along with the idea, at least any time soon.

Some baseball officials thought that the changes in travel restrictions that would now take effect could at least ease the chaotic process that started in the 1990s, when the island’s top players would escape, often in boats in the middle of the night, defect to the United States and sign as free agents with major league teams.

With 11 million people, Cuba would not just be a talent source for Major League Baseball if a working relationship was established; it would also be an ideal market. Baseball has expanded its efforts in the past decade in Asia and Australia as it seeks new revenue, and Cuba would be a welcome addition to the list.

As recently as 2007, Major League Baseball was quietly putting together plans for what to do if the United States changed its relationship with Cuba. Baseball officials, working with academics and business executives and with players born in Cuba, were determining how they could take advantage of the island’s interest in the game and its talent pool if the opportunity arose. Still, while the best Cuban players are among the most talented in the world, it is not completely clear how well-developed Cuban youth leagues are and what shape the island’s fields and equipment are in.

U.S. scouts have had a chance to watch Cuban players in recent years at the World Baseball Classic, in which teams from around the world square off in a March tournament. And, of course, they have watched defectors like Puig, Yoenis Cespedes, Jose Abreu and Aroldis Chapman succeed on the major league level - and sign increasingly lucrative contracts.

Peter C. Bjarkman, a Cuban baseball historian, noted that the Cuban government had recently adopted a policy that allowed players to join teams in Mexico and Japan. But major league clubs in the United States are a different matter.

“The Cubans want their players to now have more experience and to play professionally overseas and earn some money,” Bjarkman said. “But there is a condition: They want those players to play in the Cuban league in the winter. Otherwise they will be throwing up their hands.”

Major league teams, however, would probably not agree to allow Cuban players to spend entire winters playing baseball back home, reasoning that the injury risk would be too great.

“This is an issue that’s going to be debated in Cuba now,” Bjarkman said. “They want to utilize baseball resources to bring more money into the country, but they don’t want to sell their league to North America.”

Cubans have played in the majors as far back as the early 1900s. The Brooklyn Dodgers occasionally had spring training on the island in the 1930 and 1940s, and there was minor league baseball, too. From 1954 to 1960, the Havana Sugar Kings, a farm team of the Cincinnati Reds, played in the Class AAA International League.

Roberto González EchevarrĂ­a, a professor of literature at Yale and the author of “The Pride of Havana: a History of Cuban Baseball,” noted the Cuban government had often disparaged Major League Baseball, although that could become a thing of the past.

Still, he emphasized that one of Cuba’s biggest fears was a basic one - that if Major League Baseball was allowed into the island, with all its resources, it would eventually take over the sport, as it essentially did in the Dominican Republic.

“How that can be controlled if Cuba becomes freer is very difficult to say,” he said." via Free Rep.







.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Only ten Republican Senators voted against confirmation of Samantha Power to UN Ambassador on 8/1/13

.
8/2/13, "Just 10 GOPs Vote Against Samantha Power’s Confirmation," PJ Media, Bridget Johnson. "The Obama confidante’s nomination sailed through" just before Senators left for five-week August recess. "Voting against Power were Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), David Vitter (R-La.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.)."...

------------------------------------

12/22/14, "In the Land of the Possible. Samantha Power has the President’s ear. To what end?" The New Yorker, Evan Osnos

"In July 17, 2013, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met to consider the nomination of Samantha Power to be America’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations. She was an unusual choice. Although she had been a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and served on the National Security Council as the senior director for multilateral affairs and human rights, she had never been a diplomat. At forty-two, she would be the youngest-ever American Ambassador to the U.N."...

(parag. 12): "To survive the questioning, Power had set aside the ferocity and independence that made her name. David Rieff, a frequent critic of Power’s humanitarian prescriptions, later derided her performance as that of an “apparatchik whose willingness to pander to her interrogators seemed to know no bounds. 

When I asked Power about her performance, she smiled and said, “My thing in confirmation was, I can’t say anything that is not true.” If she received an awkward question, “I need to find something that is responsive, and that may just take it in a slightly different direction, but feels deeply true to me. That was what I felt I was able to do.” On August 1st, the Senate approved her nomination, by a vote of eighty-seven to ten."...

(parags. 3-5): "In a 2002 interview on “Conversations with History,” a television series filmed in Berkeley, Power described a hypothetical need for a “mammoth protection force” to police a peace accord between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But after she began working as an adviser on Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign, in 2007, his critics quoted that interview in accusing him of harboring hostility toward Israel, and Power disavowed her comments. In a departure for a journalist, she quietly asked the host of the interview to remove the video from the Web, though portions of it still circulate online. To repair the damage, she subsequently approached Shmuley Boteach, a celebrity rabbi who ran for Congress in New Jersey, Abraham Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, and other prominent defenders of Israel, who endorsed her U.N. nomination. She knew that during her confirmation hearing her record, her vision of America’s role in the world, and her transformation from an activist to a political figure would receive intense scrutiny. Tom Nides, a former Deputy Secretary of State, told her that her chance of being confirmed was twenty per cent, at best.

When Power visited Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, he consulted a page of notes marked with a highlighter. She recalled, “Everything I’d ever written had just been pulled out and reduced, basically, to the things in my search that were the most cringe-worthy, things that you’d just say out of the corner of your mouth in a church basement somewhere, or whatever—they’re not your considered view.”

But Power’s ideas defy the usual partisan distinctions, and she cultivated some unlikely alliances on Capitol Hill. Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, where Power spent much of her childhood, shared her belief that, after President Bashar al-Assad of Syria deployed chemical weapons, Obama should have attacked the regime for crossing his “red line.” Chambliss told me, “We had some frank discussions about that. She said, ‘Hey, I’m working for the President—just remember that.’ And I said, ‘Yeah, I know, and here’s what I hope you’ll convey to the President.’ ” Chambliss added, “She has ideas that don’t always coincide with mine from a national-security perspective, but we’re pretty darn close.” He agreed to introduce her at her hearing.  

(She now sends him notes on his birthday.)"...

====================

Comment: "Character" may be revealed by what a person does when he thinks no one is looking. In Ms. Power's case, a person's real views are revealed by what they say in a Church basement.



US peace partner Afghan Taliban kill 10 in Kabul Bank suicide attack. 2014 deadliest of 13 yr. Afghanistan war, 4000+ Afghan soldiers and police have died-AFP

.
12/17/14, "Taliban Suicide Attack on Afghan Bank Kills 10," AFP via Jakarta Globe, Kandahar, Afghanistan

"Taliban militants detonated a suicide bomb and stormed a bank in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday, killing five police and five civilians as the country endures a rise in violence as US-led NATO troops pull out.

The attackers forced their way inside after a bomb exploded at the entrance of the Kabul Bank branch in Lashkar Gah, the capital of the insurgency-racked province of Helmand.

“The blast at the gate was a suicide attacker blowing himself up to open the way for others to enter the building,” Omar Zhwak, provincial spokesman for Helmand, told AFP.

“Ten people including five security forces were killed, and 14 people were wounded. There were three attackers inside the building and all were killed.

“It was the government employees’ payday and they had all come to get their salaries.”

A second remote-controlled bomb was triggered as ambulances arrived to take victims to hospital and wounded a further two civilians, Zhwak said.

Farid Ahmad Obaidi, Helmand’s police spokesman, confirmed the incident, which comes as Afghanistan police and army take over security duties nationwide as US-led NATO forces pull out.
.
A Taliban spokesman claimed responsibility for the attack on the Kabul Bank branch, an institution that nearly collapsed in 2010 in a $900 million fraud case that underlined the endemic corruption in the country.

On Dec.  31, the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan will end after 13 years of fighting the Taliban.

It will be replaced by a 12,500-strong support mission to advise and assist the Afghan security forces.

The recent spate of deadly attacks have targeted army buses, mine clearance teams and foreign compounds in Kabul."

=============================

12/17/14, "Afghan spy chief laments intelligence vacuum as foreign troops leave," Reuters, via UK Daily Mail

"This year has been the deadliest of the 13-year war. More than 4,000 Afghan soldiers and police have died, a record high since the U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban regime in 2001."...

===================

Ed. note: The white bars you see here were placed there by hackers.





.
Taliban suicide attack on Afghan bank kills 10
Taliban suicide attack on Afghan bank kills 10
Taliban suicide attack on Afghan bank kills 10

Obama tells federal court it "lacks authority to review" his decisions after it ruled parts of his amnesty order unconstitutional. Obama atty says amnesty was needed because border enforcement is too expensive-Washington Times

.
12/16/14, "Amnesty fight: Obama admin tells courts they’re powerless to stop executive order," Washington Times, Stephen Dinan

"The administration warned a federal judge Monday to stay out of the debate over President Obama’s deportation amnesty, saying decisions about whom to deport fall squarely within the executive’s job description, “which this court lacks authority to review.

In its first extended legal filing in one of the court challenges to the new amnesty, the Justice Department says courts have long held that an agency’s decision whether or not to prosecute someone or to enforce the law is entitled to “absolute discretion.”

“Federal courts sit to decide cases and controversies, not to resolve disagreements about policy or politics,” said Joyce R. Branda, the acting assistant attorney general who took the lead on filing the brief.

Ms. Branda said the administration had to impose the new deportation amnesty because immigration enforcement has become too costly in recent years, outpacing the amount of money Congress provides
,
so picking and choosing which illegal immigrants to deport

is the best use of taxpayers’ money.

Administration lawyers said the new policy is designed to carry out, not to thwart, what they believed was Congress’s intent that the Homeland Security Department only go after recent border crossers and more serious criminals in the interior of the U.S.

And Ms. Branda also said the policy could be “revoked at any time,” arguing that uncertainty also means the program is beyond the court’s scope.

The filing came in a case filed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Maricopa County, in Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio argues the president’s amnesty will lead to more illegal immigrants in the future, which means his department will have to deal with more crime and a higher workload. That higher workload, he argues, is an injury that gives him standing to sue.

But the Justice Department said it was speculative to believe the policy would lead to more illegal immigration. Homeland Security has announced it will pull resources from the interior, where they were going after illegal immigrants, and send them to the border, where they may be able to aid the fight against new illegal border crossers.

The case is being heard in federal district court in Washington, D.C. A hearing on Sheriff Arpaio’s request for a preliminary injunction takes place next week.

Another case, filed by Texas and 19 other states, is pending in federal district court in Texas.

In Monday’s filing, administration lawyers bristled at the term “amnesty,” arguing that because officials will have to approve every case, it’s not a blanket forgiveness. They also argued the amnesty “does not grant legal status to any alien.”

The administration considers them “lawfully present, and eligible for work permits, but says that doesn’t equate with “lawful status.”" via Free Rep. 

================================
=================================

12/16/14, "Federal judge rules Obama amnesty order unconstitutional power grab," Washington Times, Stephen Dinan

"Ruling doesn’t immediately overturn policy."

"A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers.
 
The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy.
.
Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress.

President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.

Immigrant rights advocates said the ruling was a shocking overstep of the court’s authority. Indeed, the Obama administration has argued in federal court in Washington that judges have no power to review the president’s decision-making....

Mr. Obama’s policy would allow up to 5 million illegal immigrants to apply for “deferred action,” a proactive notice that they won’t be deported, and would grant work permits to allow them to compete for jobs legally.

To qualify, illegal immigrants would need to show they were brought to the U.S. as children, or to show that they have children who are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents of the country.

The White House defends the policy as a reasonable use of Mr. Obama’s powers to set priorities for enforcing laws, and to stop the breakup of families because of deportation.

It now faces multiple legal challenges in federal court in southern Texas and one in Washington, D.C. The D.C. challenge, filed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is moving quickly. The judge has scheduled a hearing on a preliminary injunction next week.

The Obama administration filed a brief late Monday in the D.C. case defending the policy.

Joyce R. Branda, the acting assistant attorney general who is leading the case, argued that Congress has provided too little money and the administration can deport fewer than 400,000 immigrants a year out of the total population of more than 11 million."...

========================

Ed. note: The white patch you see above was placed there by my longtime google hackers. 

.

Washington Examiner and Daily Caller do us the great favor of exposing themselves. Republicans openly concede power of the purse for half the entire next session of Congress in which they will hold majorities-Jeffrey Lord

.
"Nobody here in the nation's capital except for the occasional starry-eyed RNC intern believes that Boehner is serious. If he really wanted to fight amnesty, he could have done so in the omnibus spending bill."...

12/16/14, "In Defense of the Senate Revolt," Jeffrey Lord, American Spectator

"Cruz and Lee lead the real conservatives."

"Never has the fundamental flaw of Ratchet Republicanism been more perfectly illustrated than in this Washington Examiner editorial that appeared after Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee led a revolt in the Senate over the weekend. The editorial, headlined, "Senate Republicans need to decide whether they're led by McConnell or Cruz," said:
Every army has disagreements among its leaders, but they must agree on tactics to effect their strategy. Every football team must agree on the next play if it is to work. In the Senate, caucus leaders are chosen precisely to make such decisions. The weekend's events demonstrate that some Republicans are not playing on the same team. This was not a simple, common occurrence of senatorial independence, but rather open defiance of caucus strategy — a decision by junior officers that their own tactical decisions take precedence over those of generals who were chosen for the job.
When this happens, games and battles are lost. Before Republicans take the majority in the Senate next month, they should make up their minds about who is in charge. Otherwise, they face the prospect of losing again and again.
Say what? Losing again and again? One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the thought that after decades of establishment “victory” the country is $18 trillion in debt and the government more bloated than ever. Now Republicans have, over the last few days, openly allied themselves with President Obama and conceded the power of the purse for half of the entire next session of Congress in which they will hold majorities.

This is a pluperfect example of what we have already discussed in this space more than once. That would be what Margaret Thatcher called the “socialist ratchet." As she wrote of her own Conservative Party:

I could not help noticing a curious discrepancy in the behavior of my colleagues. What they said and what they did seemed to exist in two separate compartments. It was not that they consciously deceived anyone; they were in fact conspicuously honorable. But the language of free enterprise, anti-socialism and the national interest sprang readily to their lips, while they conducted government business on very different assumptions about the role of the state at home….Their rhetoric was prompted by general ideas they thought desirable, such as freedom; their actions were confined by general ideas they thought inevitable…
Almost all the policies hawked by ‘practical’ men on ‘pragmatic’ grounds turned out in the end to be highly impractical. Yet this fact never seemed to dent their enthusiasm…
In fact, this is exactly what was on display with House and Senate Republicans this last week.

Over at the Daily Caller, columnist Matt Lewis hails the Examiner, citing one of my columns in which I discussed the "ruling class” Republicans’ attack on Delaware conservative Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell. Now writes Lewis of Ted Cruz, who might be described as Margaret Thatcher in pants:

The impulse to applaud a politician who embraces the cult of action is understandable, but should we make a hero of the guy who wants to win the football game so much he accidentally scores a touchdown for the opposing team?…
I’m interested in the way politicians can frame obvious losses as victories, and the way their fans now live in a sort of alternative universe — a state of willing denial — where the very facts are in dispute. This works, partly because of an infrastructure. While many of Cruz and Lee’s boosters are grassroots conservatives who are fed up with Washington, others are professional conservatives who exploit this “game” for profit (or simply because it’s part of their branding shtick).
Got it. We're professional conservatives who are in this for the money. But all those K Street Republicans who have their hooks into Thad Cochran's career as Senate Appropriations Big Guy? Naaaah. No profit motive there.

And the business of how Cruz “accidentally scores a touchdown for the opposing team”? This is what establishment Republicans do every day, all day. It is precisely why Ronald Reagan called them “fraternal order” Republicans. 

Yet Lewis goes on to complain:

In any event, the larger problem is that if conservatives are afraid to say “the emperor has no clothes,” then we will continue rewarding the wrong things, which means conservatives will continue losing. Is it wise to look the other way? It doesn’t do much good to pretend that the touchdown counts for your team when it was scored in the wrong end zone, but what if even after watching the game film, we still decline to tell our star player he cost us the game?
This raises a question: Who cares more about something, the guy who ignores its faults or the guy who wants to address them? An animal lover will get his dog to the vet the minute he turns away from his kibble. The car lover won’t ignore that pinging sound because he loves his Ford Mustang too much to say something about it. The coach or sports commentator who ignores the botched play makes it more likely the offending player will do it again. Yet, in the conservative movement, blind loyalty seems to be demanded. It’s ironically a form of protectionism. Of escapism.
For now, the choice is to either speak out and be beaten down, or to remain silent. Of course, as was the case with the O’Donnell criticism, intellectually honest commentary tends to look much better in hindsight. But at the time, daring to question even a given strategy or tactics employed by the conservative darling of the moment is fraught with danger.
Kudos to the Examiner for a profile in courage. Kids, don’t try this at home.
Well, I’m all too happy to say “the emperor has no clothes.  

Which is to say that there are far too many members of the GOP in the House and Senate who have sold their souls to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to out-and-out crony capitalists and corporatists. To think that there’s no coincidence between the GOP Senate and House caving on amnesty and the Chamber’s support for amnesty is frankly preposterous.

Critics of Cruz and Lee complain that the pair's move has given Harry Reid an opening to push through a slate of up to 23 of Obama's appointees. Lee answered that point specifically on Fox this morning by saying in response to questions from Bill Hemmer: 

Lee: That’s not true, that’s not true. Look this is an outgoing Democratic Senate Majority Leader. It would have been political malpractice for him to adjourn for the year without getting these things through.
Hemmer: That includes the Surgeon General?
Lee: Correct. 
The GOP complaint about Harry Reid is that he regularly manipulates Senate rules. He is, after all, the Senate Majority Leader who triggered the so-called “nuclear option” that forbade filibusters for most presidential nominees. So why exactly, in the waning days of his power as majority leader, would Reid not do everything in his power to confirm every last Obama nominee?

This is typical timid acquiescence to the socialist ratchet. Find an excuse…any excuse…and give up

The goal here is to win the day for limited governmentand that goal will never be achieved when your own side is deliberately sabotaging the team. Hence the need for conservative Senate candidates — Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle or Ted Cruz over David Dewhurst or Rand Paul over Trey Grayson or Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist. Yes, sometimes there will be losses. But make no mistake, better a loss to a liberal than a win with a faux conservative.

Barely a month after the November elections — elections in which every GOP candidate campaigned on repealing Obamacare the Republican leaders of the House and the Senate fully funded the law for the entire first half of the next Congress. Senators like — to pick one — Pat Toomey of my own Pennsylvania put out statements like this one, made November 20th, on amnesty. (Hat tip: Brent Bozell, For America, and Heritage Action.) 
I strongly oppose the President’s latest overreach of his legal authority and his decision to dictate sweeping immigration policy changes without legislation. America’s immigration system is badly broken and cries out for reform, including stronger border security and adequate opportunities for legal immigration. Regrettably, President Obama’s unilateral and legally unauthorized actions will do nothing to fix our broken system, and could encourage even more illegal immigration.”
But Saturday night there was Pat Toomey on the floor of the U.S. Senate, reported by Breitbart to be “whipping” his colleagues to support the CRomnibus, which funds amnesty and funds Obamacare.

There is no excuse for this kind of thing, which has gone on long enough. This is why Reagan told Los Angeles Republicans, “We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and seek our support. Turning the party over to the moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”

Reagan got exactly the reaction from the establishment that Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are getting now. His challenge of Gerald Ford was greeted with exactly the same reaction. Four years after Ford lost to Jimmy Carter the ex-president and was busy telling the New York Times that Reagan was too “extreme” to get elected. That November Reagan carried 44 states and clobbered Carter. The more things change, the more they stay the same."

=====================
=====================

Added: Regarding "nominees" cry of Daily Caller and Wash. Examiner:  "All Obama nominees are objectionable...yet the Senate eventually caves to Obama on more or less all of them. Any Senate that can confirm a full-on racist, pro-terrorist, America-hating, kooky, in-your-face Marxist like Tom Perez as labor secretary is going to give its blessing to just about anyone Obama sends over."

12/16/14, "Ted Cruz was right, again," American Thinker, Matthew Vadum

"The usual suspects are attacking Ted Cruz for doing his job.

Republicans and a chorus of conservative commentators are dumping on the sole conservative Republican senator from Texas because–the horror!–he dared to force his Senate colleagues to publicly take sides on President Obama's shameful extralegal unilateral immigration amnesty.

Apologists for Republican cowardice claim to be upset with Cruz because, as they claim, his parliamentary maneuvers to stymie the amnesty somehow allowed some objectionable Obama nominees to move forward in the confirmation process.

Of course, they're lying. All Obama nominees are objectionable–remember, our president is a red diaper baby–yet the Senate eventually caves to Obama on more or less all of them. Any Senate that can confirm a full-on racist, pro-terrorist, America-hating, kooky, in-your-face Marxist like Tom Perez as labor secretary is going to give its blessing to just about anyone Obama sends over.  Who really cares if a few bureaucrats who will be approved anyway by the incoming Republican Senate in the new year get to work a few weeks or months early? 
 
What really infuriates namby-pamby Republican senators is that Cruz forced them to take a public stand on the president's unilateral amnesty.  They know that the Republican Party base is mad as hell over the amnesty, and they don't feel the need to answer to mere hoi polloi Bought off by the crony capitalist lobby, they support amnesty but don't want to face the electoral consequences for their betrayal of the American people. Just as Democrats don't want to get rid of poverty, Republicans in leadership don't want to stop the amnesty (or get rid of Obamacare, for that matter). They need villains against which to rail.

The country just went through congressional elections that gave lawmakers an undeniable, thunderous mandate to oppose Obama's radical left-wing juggernaut, and in particular, his odious immigration amnesty that will benefit 5 million or more illegal alien lawbreakers. On Nov. 4, the GOP flipped control of the 100-seat U.S. Senate, with a new total of 54 seats. The House GOP increased its majority, totaling at least 246 out of 435 seats.  Republicans will be calling the shots in the new Congress that will be seated in January.

Yet when Cruz gave Republican senators, who campaigned against the immigration amnesty, an opportunity to do something about it, 20 Republican senators gave American voters the one-finger salute.

While Congress was considering a spending bill to keep the government funded through the end of the federal fiscal year on Sept. 30, 2015, Cruz objected, raising a constitutional point of order against the $1-trillion-plus monstrosity that, if it had been sustained, would have returned the fiscal legislation to the House to remove amnesty funding.

There was never, after all, a reason to rush an all-encompassing bill funding the federal government before appropriations ran out on Dec. 11. Instead of giving Obama virtually everything he wanted despite his party's historic drubbing at the polls last month, lawmakers could easily have drafted a stopgap spending bill to carry them over to January, when Republicans will control both chambers of Congress and have greater bargaining power in negotiations with the president.

But they didn't. After hours and days of arm-twisting, they rammed an abominable spending bill through Congress that funds Obama's Democrat voter-importation program.

It was an easy vote. A gimme. 

But to their everlasting shame, 20 Republicans voted to reject Cruz's point of order, waive the Constitution, and green-light Obama's amnesty....


(Hey, master strategist Ann Coulter: do you still believe that McConnell is opposed to amnesty? Just nine months ago you viciously attacked conservatives for questioning McConnell's bona fides on the issue.  You wrote that the senator "may be the only thing standing between us and a scheme to import 30 million new Democratic voters.")

In the end, the bill funds all of the federal government through the fiscal year-end except for the Department of Homeland Security, which enforces immigration laws. DHS funding runs out Feb. 27, 2015.

The idea, according to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), is to revisit the amnesty issue next year when Republicans are in a stronger position. "Without a threat of a government shutdown," Boehner said, "this sets up a direct challenge to the president's unilateral actions on immigration when we have new majorities in both chambers of Congress." 

Nobody here in the nation's capital except for the occasional starry-eyed RNC intern believes that Boehner is serious. If he really wanted to fight amnesty, he could have done so in the omnibus spending bill.

Cruz said as much on the Senate floor Friday.

"I would note that a whole lot of citizens across this country feel a little bit like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the football, wherein fight after fight, leadership in Congress says 'we'll fight next time,'" Cruz said.  "Not this time, no, no, no."

"There comes a point when Charlie Brown has kicked the football and fallen on his rear end one too many times," he said. "When our leaders say as a commitment we will fight and we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty, I take them at their word, but I am confident the American people will hold them to their word."

Just about nobody in the conservative punditry seems to be getting the story right. They are regurgitating an easily digested talking point generated by Democrats and the Senate's RINO establishment. If it hadn't been for Cruz, a slew of Obama nominees would still be sucking their thumbs in a state of constitutional limbo, they'd have us believe.

And as usual, they're wrong about Cruz.

Rick Moran of PJ Media went on and on in a column about Cruz, sprinkling it with ugly personal insults. Cruz is a "demagogue" who suffers from a "narcissistic compulsion to make everything about him." He "lacks the judgment and temperament necessary to hold the highest office in the land." Moran sneers that "[h]is is simple, nihilistic obstructionism."

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline also doesn't get it but is much more polite.  "Cruz and (Utah Sen. Mike) Lee accomplished nothing in terms of the spending bill or the executive amnesty," he wrote.  "Ted Cruz's heart is in the right place, but once again, his judgment must be questioned."

Former Bush 43 speechwriter and anti-conservative Michael Gerson, a man whose rhetorical expertise helped to fuel an orgy of federal overreach, overspending, and fiscal irresponsibility that laid the groundwork for the Obama presidency, smeared Cruz and his supporters on Face the Nation.

Cruz's "wing of the party is writing the book on how to lose friends and alienate people. This is – they got a vote eventually, 22 people supporting it. They're really undermining their own cause.  And you can question the reason whether that's fundraising or foolishness."

George Will, an increasingly tedious defender of the GOP establishment, trashed Cruz on Fox News Sunday. "Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz together at last. No one knows what they were trying to accomplish, but that doesn't seem to matter to them."

Say what you will about Warren, Democratic senator from Massachusetts, but she knew exactly what she was doing and was abundantly transparent about it. Warren was livid about provisions slipped into the bill repealing Wall Street regulations. 

She urged lawmakers to oppose a "deal negotiated behind closed doors that slips in a provision that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system." 

That's Warren's privilege, whether Will likes it or not.

In any event, Cruz was right about amnesty, just as he was right about last year's government shutdown. The last shutdown, which the GOP establishment blamed Cruz for, was a resounding success that helped to make last month's electoral bloodbath possible.

Elected Republicans won't acknowledge that the last shutdown in October 2013 was an unmitigated public relations success for Republicans, even though it might not have felt that way at the time. Setting aside the relentless media propaganda that falsely painted the shutdown as a massive Democratic tactical victory, the episode sent the unmistakable message that GOPers were champions of freedom of choice in health care.

The shutdown caused GOP public approval numbers to surge, helped to revive the fight against Obamacare as millions of Americans were having their health insurance policies abruptly canceled, and helped to set the stage for the Republicans’ historic trouncing of the Democrats in congressional elections.

The shutdown was a wonderful civics lesson, an extended, cost-free infomercial for the GOP that reminded Americans that Republicans were on their side on an issue that mattered to them. In other words, it derailed what had seemed like an unstoppable leftist narrative that the always unpopular Obamacare was a done deal and that resistance to it was futile.
 
Sens. Cruz and Mike Lee of Utah vow to continue the fight against the Obama amnesty in the new year.  Let's hope it's not too late." via Free Rep.

=================================

"They’re so disdainful of what Mr. Cruz and Mike Lee did over the weekend, because it exposed our GOP emperors have no clothes."...
 
12/15/14, "For conservatives, it’s all about 2016, and that starts in 2015," Washington Times, Steve Deace 


"Republicans won big in the 2014 midterm election, but it already looks as if conservatives still lost.


Just look at what’s transpired the past few weeks: 

- The GOP establishment moved quickly to retain all their leadership positions before the new Congress is convened in January, thus shutting conservatives completely out of the mix.

- That same GOP leadership has already funded every Obama scam they promised the American people during the campaign they would stop, scheming alongside a president they keep describing as “lawless” to pass the so-called “Cromnibus.” "...

==================================== 

For Daily Caller's information, the GOP E didn't reach out to stray journalists for the millions it needed. What it cost the Establishment to beat us in the 2014 Mississippi GOP primary:


 












Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran campaign spending chart, OpenSecrets.org:

======================================

6/30/14, "The Ruling Class Went Down to Mississippi," Angelo M. Codevilla

Dr. Codevilla on the 2014 GOP Mississippi primary


------------------------------------------------------



 









Image: Ted Cruz, "Screen shot, 12/15/14, 6:49pm," from American Spectator

=================================
==============================

12/16/14, "What Really Happened This Weekend," "Why I tried to block Obama’s amnesty." Politico, By SEN. TED CRUZ

===============================
==============================

Comment: Senators Cruz and Lee have both been law clerks to Supreme Court Justices, Cruz to Rehnquist and Lee to Alito among other accomplishments prior to the Senate. Lee has been a Senator for 4 years, Cruz for 2. It's unlikely their Constitutional point of order was undertaken without serious foundation. Why doesn't the media write about how John Boehner and the GOP E have attempted to nullify part of the Constitution by denying its existence? Numerous GOP E have falsely claimed publicly and to other members that the House doesn't have unilateral power of the purse. They claim all House defunding has to be approved by the Senate and White House which of course is false.




.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Squirrels causing global warming in Arctic, digging burrows warms soil, releases CO2, AGU presentation-BBC

.
12/16/14, "Arctic ground squirrels unlock permafrost carbon," BBC, Rebecca Morelle

"Arctic ground squirrels could play a greater role in climate change than was previously thought. Scientists have found that the animals are hastening the release of greenhouse gases from the permafrost - a vast, frozen store of carbon.

The researchers say it suggests the impact of wildlife on this area has been underplayed.

The findings are being presented at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

Dr Sue Natali, from Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, US, said: "We know wildlife impacts vegetation, and we know vegetation impacts thaw and soil carbon. 

"It certainly has a bigger impact than we've considered and it's something we will be considering more and more going into the future."

The Arctic permafrost where deep layers of soil remain frozen all year round, covers nearly a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere and contains a great deal of carbon.

Dr Natali explained: "Carbon has been accumulating in permafrost for tens of thousands of years. 

The temperature is very cold, the soils are saturated, so that when plants and animals die, rather than decompose, the carbon has been slowly, slowly building up

"Right now the carbon storage is about 1,500 petagrams (1,500 billion tonnes). To put that in perspective, that's about twice as much as is contained in the atmosphere."

The fear is that as the planet warms, the permafrost will thaw, releasing even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and causing temperatures to rise further still.

However, Dr Natali said that until now there had been little research into the effect that animals could have on this system.

To investigate, Dr Natali and Nigel Golden, from the University of Wisconsin, looked at ground squirrels: small, fluffy rodents that are found across the Arctic.

As part of the Polaris Project, they travelled to Siberia to study the squirrels' underground burrows.

Mr Golden said: "They are soil engineers. They break down the soil when they are digging their burrows, they mix the top layer with the bottom layer, they are bringing oxygen to the soil and they are fertilizing the soil with their urine and their faeces."

The team found that this activity meant that their burrows were warmer than the surrounding ground. Mr Golden said: "We saw an increase in soil temperature in the soils where the arctic ground squirrels were occupying. 

"This is a major component. As that permafrost begins to warm, now microbes can have access to these previously frozen carbons that were in the soil. "And because they mix the soil layers, they are being exposed to warmer temperatures."

The team also found that the nitrogen that squirrels were adding to the ground through their waste was having an impact. 

While this fertilizer can counteract greenhouse gas loss by causing plants to grow (which then soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), it can also feed microbes in the soil, accelerating the amount of carbon dioxide and methane-both greenhouse gases - that are being released.

Dr Natali said: "If ground squirrels are adding nitrogen to an area - and that area doesn't have plants because they dug them up - this may result in increased loss of carbon from the system."

She concluded that squirrels were playing "a far more important role in this permafrost carbon cycle than we thought".

The team now wants to return to the area to quantify how much carbon is being unlocked by the squirrels - and to assess how other wildlife is affecting the area.

The researchers also want to assess how the thawing permafrost will impact on the squirrel populations themselves."

Image: Arctic ground squirrel, Thinkstock, via BBC




.

Ted Cruz was right again. GOP E could easily have passed stop gap bill, didn't want to, and ended up being exposed to the American people they betrayed. 'We'll get 'em next.time,' yep. As to Obama nominees, GOP E is normally eager to approve them, even vicious, racist Labor. Sec. Perez-American Thinker, Vadum

.
12/16/14, "Ted Cruz was right, again," American Thinker, Matthew Vadum

"The usual suspects are attacking Ted Cruz for doing his job.

Republicans and a chorus of conservative commentators are dumping on the sole conservative Republican senator from Texas because–the horror!–he dared to force his Senate colleagues to publicly take sides on President Obama's shameful extralegal unilateral immigration amnesty.

Apologists for Republican cowardice claim to be upset with Cruz because, as they claim, his parliamentary maneuvers to stymie the amnesty somehow allowed some objectionable Obama nominees to move forward in the confirmation process.

Of course, they're lying. All Obama nominees are objectionable–remember, our president is a red diaper baby–yet the Senate eventually caves to Obama on more or less all of them. Any Senate that can confirm a full-on racist, pro-terrorist, America-hating, kooky, in-your-face Marxist like Tom Perez as labor secretary is going to give its blessing to just about anyone Obama sends over.  Who really cares if a few bureaucrats who will be approved anyway by the incoming Republican Senate in the new year get to work a few weeks or months early? 
 
What really infuriates namby-pamby Republican senators is that Cruz forced them to take a public stand on the president's unilateral amnesty.  They know that the Republican Party base is mad as hell over the amnesty, and they don't feel the need to answer to mere hoi polloi Bought off by the crony capitalist lobby, they support amnesty but don't want to face the electoral consequences for their betrayal of the American people. Just as Democrats don't want to get rid of poverty, Republicans in leadership don't want to stop the amnesty (or get rid of Obamacare, for that matter). They need villains against which to rail.

The country just went through congressional elections that gave lawmakers an undeniable, thunderous mandate to oppose Obama's radical left-wing juggernaut, and in particular, his odious immigration amnesty that will benefit 5 million or more illegal alien lawbreakers. On Nov. 4, the GOP flipped control of the 100-seat U.S. Senate, with a new total of 54 seats. The House GOP increased its majority, totaling at least 246 out of 435 seats.  Republicans will be calling the shots in the new Congress that will be seated in January.

Yet when Cruz gave Republican senators, who campaigned against the immigration amnesty, an opportunity to do something about it, 20 Republican senators gave American voters the one-finger salute.

While Congress was considering a spending bill to keep the government funded through the end of the federal fiscal year on Sept. 30, 2015, Cruz objected, raising a constitutional point of order against the $1-trillion-plus monstrosity that, if it had been sustained, would have returned the fiscal legislation to the House to remove amnesty funding.

There was never, after all, a reason to rush an all-encompassing bill funding the federal government before appropriations ran out on Dec. 11. Instead of giving Obama virtually everything he wanted despite his party's historic drubbing at the polls last month, lawmakers could easily have drafted a stopgap spending bill to carry them over to January, when Republicans will control both chambers of Congress and have greater bargaining power in negotiations with the president.

But they didn't. After hours and days of arm-twisting, they rammed an abominable spending bill through Congress that funds Obama's Democrat voter-importation program.

It was an easy vote. A gimme. 

But to their everlasting shame, 20 Republicans voted to reject Cruz's point of order, waive the Constitution, and green-light Obama's amnesty. 

These quislings are Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Dan Coats (Ind.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Me.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Dean Heller (Nev.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), John McCain (Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Pat Toomey (Penn.), and Roger Wicker (Miss.).

(Hey, master strategist Ann Coulter: do you still believe that McConnell is opposed to amnesty? Just nine months ago you viciously attacked conservatives for questioning McConnell's bona fides on the issue.  You wrote that the senator "may be the only thing standing between us and a scheme to import 30 million new Democratic voters.")

In the end, the bill funds all of the federal government through the fiscal year-end except for the Department of Homeland Security, which enforces immigration laws. DHS funding runs out Feb. 27, 2015.

The idea, according to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), is to revisit the amnesty issue next year when Republicans are in a stronger position. "Without a threat of a government shutdown," Boehner said, "this sets up a direct challenge to the president's unilateral actions on immigration when we have new majorities in both chambers of Congress." 

Nobody here in the nation's capital except for the occasional starry-eyed RNC intern believes that Boehner is serious. If he really wanted to fight amnesty, he could have done so in the omnibus spending bill.

Cruz said as much on the Senate floor Friday.

"I would note that a whole lot of citizens across this country feel a little bit like Charlie Brown with Lucy and the football, wherein fight after fight, leadership in Congress says 'we'll fight next time,'" Cruz said.  "Not this time, no, no, no."

"There comes a point when Charlie Brown has kicked the football and fallen on his rear end one too many times," he said. "When our leaders say as a commitment we will fight and we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty, I take them at their word, but I am confident the American people will hold them to their word."

Just about nobody in the conservative punditry seems to be getting the story right. They are regurgitating an easily digested talking point generated by Democrats and the Senate's RINO establishment. If it hadn't been for Cruz, a slew of Obama nominees would still be sucking their thumbs in a state of constitutional limbo, they'd have us believe.

And as usual, they're wrong about Cruz.

Rick Moran of PJ Media went on and on in a column about Cruz, sprinkling it with ugly personal insults. Cruz is a "demagogue" who suffers from a "narcissistic compulsion to make everything about him." He "lacks the judgment and temperament necessary to hold the highest office in the land." Moran sneers that "[h]is is simple, nihilistic obstructionism."

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline also doesn't get it but is much more polite.  "Cruz and (Utah Sen. Mike) Lee accomplished nothing in terms of the spending bill or the executive amnesty," he wrote.  "Ted Cruz's heart is in the right place, but once again, his judgment must be questioned."

Former Bush 43 speechwriter and anti-conservative Michael Gerson, a man whose rhetorical expertise helped to fuel an orgy of federal overreach, overspending, and fiscal irresponsibility that laid the groundwork for the Obama presidency, smeared Cruz and his supporters on Face the Nation.

Cruz's "wing of the party is writing the book on how to lose friends and alienate people. This is – they got a vote eventually, 22 people supporting it. They're really undermining their own cause.  And you can question the reason whether that's fundraising or foolishness."

George Will, an increasingly tedious defender of the GOP establishment, trashed Cruz on Fox News Sunday. "Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz together at last. No one knows what they were trying to accomplish, but that doesn't seem to matter to them."

Say what you will about Warren, Democratic senator from Massachusetts, but she knew exactly what she was doing and was abundantly transparent about it. Warren was livid about provisions slipped into the bill repealing Wall Street regulations. 

She urged lawmakers to oppose a "deal negotiated behind closed doors that slips in a provision that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system." 

That's Warren's privilege, whether Will likes it or not.

In any event, Cruz was right about amnesty, just as he was right about last year's government shutdown. The last shutdown, which the GOP establishment blamed Cruz for, was a resounding success that helped to make last month's electoral bloodbath possible.

Elected Republicans won't acknowledge that the last shutdown in October 2013 was an unmitigated public relations success for Republicans, even though it might not have felt that way at the time. Setting aside the relentless media propaganda that falsely painted the shutdown as a massive Democratic tactical victory, the episode sent the unmistakable message that GOPers were champions of freedom of choice in health care.

The shutdown caused GOP public approval numbers to surge, helped to revive the fight against Obamacare as millions of Americans were having their health insurance policies abruptly canceled, and helped to set the stage for the Republicans’ historic trouncing of the Democrats in congressional elections.

The shutdown was a wonderful civics lesson, an extended, cost-free infomercial for the GOP that reminded Americans that Republicans were on their side on an issue that mattered to them. In other words, it derailed what had seemed like an unstoppable leftist narrative that the always unpopular Obamacare was a done deal and that resistance to it was futile.
 
Sens. Cruz and Mike Lee of Utah vow to continue the fight against the Obama amnesty in the new year.  Let's hope it's not too late." via Free Rep.

=================================

Comment: Senators Cruz and Lee have both been law clerks to Supreme Court Justices, Cruz to Rehnquist and Lee to Alito among other accomplishments prior to the Senate. Lee has been a Senator for 4 years, Cruz for 2. It's unlikely their Constitutional point of order was undertaken without serious foundation. Why doesn't the media write about how John Boehner and the GOP E have attempted to nullify part of the Constitution by denying its existence? Numerous GOP E have falsely claimed publicly and to other members that the House doesn't have unilateral power of the purse. They claim all House defunding has to be approved by the Senate and White House. This is quite false.




.

Over the weekend GOP Emperors were found to have no clothes, and that made them mad-Steve Deace

.
"They’re so disdainful of what Mr. Cruz and Mike Lee did over the weekend, because it exposed our GOP emperors have no clothes."...
 
12/15/14, "For conservatives, it’s all about 2016, and that starts in 2015," Washington Times, Steve Deace






"Republicans won big in the 2014 midterm election, but it already looks as if conservatives still lost.

Just look at what’s transpired the past few weeks: 

- The GOP establishment moved quickly to retain all their leadership positions before the new Congress is convened in January, thus shutting conservatives completely out of the mix.

- That same GOP leadership has already funded every Obama scam they promised the American people during the campaign they would stop, scheming alongside a president they keep describing as “lawless” to pass the so-called “Cromnibus.” 

- Only 21 Republicans in the U.S. Senate went on the record that Mr. Obama’s executive amnesty is unconstitutional (none of them were in GOP Senate leadership), and nine of those 21 then turned right around and voted to fund something they just voted as unconstitutional. 

All of this renders the expensive escapade known as the 2014 election utterly meaningless if you’re an American patriot. That is unless you prefer your Marxist Progressivism to come from an elephant instead of a donkey. 

Oh, I know some of you won’t want to admit this to yourselves. I can’t say I blame you, because this admission is about as much fun as being a pro-life group applying for your 501(c)3 status with Mr. Obama’s IRS. 

But we can’t just ignore reality. 

A reality that says Republican leadership has backed down from every showdown they were supposed to have with Mr. Obama. A reality that says Republican leadership whined harder to the mainstream media about Ted Cruz making them vote on Mr. Obama’s lawlessness than they’ve ever actually fought it. A reality that says if they weren’t going to defund Mr. Obama’s amnesty now before that train leaves the station, they’ll never have the cojones to do it later...once Social Security cards start getting issued. A reality that says they never intended to keep their promise to stop Mr. Obama’s amnesty, because GOP leadership is in favor of it.

Every member of GOP leadership on Capitol Hill is pro-amnesty, and Mr. Obama doing this by executive fiat gives them the best of both worlds. They get to deliver amnesty for their corporatist sugar daddies, while pretending to fight it in front of the base because it’s got Mr. Obama’s hand prints all over it.

That’s why they’re so disdainful of what Mr. Cruz and Mike Lee did over the weekend, because it exposed our GOP emperors have no clothes.

Oh sure, nine months from now they’ll put us through a defund dog-and-pony show in an attempt to patronize us. But since they go into every alleged battle with Mr. Obama pre-emptively forsaking any leverage they might have, the French fight with more conviction than GOP leadership does.

I will never again attempt to fire up my audience for GOP leadership’s shadow-boxing. I hope the rest of my brethren feel the same. Our message to the GOP should be clear. Until it proves it’s willing to substantively fight Mr. Obama, don’t send us your emails, don’t ask us for money, and don’t waste your time wasting ours.

By the way, filing a lawsuit against our Marxist-in-Chief doesn’t count, either. Does Republican leadership really expect a federal judge to take their alleged opposition to Mr. Obama seriously when they keep funding everything they claim is unconstitutional? GOP congressional leadership is essentially codifying Mr. Obama's lawlessness as lawful by granting it constitutionally-mandated appropriations process. They’re also guilty of being lawless if Mr. Obama is.

Besides, even if a federal judge (or the Supreme Court) ruled in favor of the GOP, the judiciary branch has no means to provide relief. For all the remedies for a lawless executive branch are already in the jurisdiction of GOP leadership, which controls the legislative branch (defund, impeachment, etc.). All a federal court can do is the political equivalent of writing Barack Hussein Obama’s name on the board.

Instead of urging Charlie Brown to try once again to kick Lucy’s football, I’m going to urge my audience to bypass Congress next year the same way they’ve already bypassed us. Time is the one thing they’re not making more of these days, and we can’t afford to waste it on the next Boehner-McConnell Milli Vanilli impression.

Therefore, next year I’m going to do my part to do whatever I can to help my fellow conservatives focus all of our efforts on coalescing behind a true conservative champion for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. And since my base of operations is the first in the nation caucus state of Iowa, I can do quite a lot.

That is the real fight, and it’s a fight we can win. If someone wants to help Nancy Boehner find her manly parts, or keep calling the 202 area code to get the Surrender Caucus to delay the inevitable one more day—more power to you....

The only way to beat these vermin is to topple them, and the only way to topple them is to get someone elected president who will empower conservative principles, solutions, and infrastructure. Someone who actually wants to undo Obamaism, not just manage the decay.

We can’t beat the current corrupt system on its home turf in Washington, D.C. But together we can beat it when they come to our house in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina come 2016.

However, it will take time to find the right champion to rally behind and lay the foundation for such an important task. That should be conservatives’ focus next year. Let the parasite class in Washington feast on itself." via Free Rep.

Image: Ted Cruz, file from Washington Times

========================

Comment: None of this would be happening if "Tea Party Senator" Rand Paul, author of, "The Tea Party Goes to Washington," hadn't flipped for the Establishment shortly after he got to the Beltway, followed by his endorsement of Sen. Mitch McConnell for re-election. Sen. Rand Paul spat on and stabbed in the back the volunteers in Kentucky who worked so hard to elect him Senator AGAINST A McCONNELL BACKED OPPONENT. They elected him in 2010 because they knew this country desperately needed to be rid of the GOP Establishment starting with Mitch McConnell, and they thought Rand Paul was on their side. But Sen. Paul wouldn't be backing a Tea Party candidate one election cycle later. He'd be backing the worst of the Establishment. 

"Mitch McConnell backed Charlie Crist against Marco Rubio.

Mitch McConnell backed Trey Grayson against Rand Paul.

Mitch McConnell backed Bob Bennett against Mike Lee.

Mitch McConnell backed David Dewhurst against Ted Cruz.

Mitch McConnell backed Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey."...

3/12/14, "Judgment and Leadership," Erick Erickson, RedState