This Kind Of Logic Makes My Head Hurt

On Friday, CNS News posted an article about a recent statement by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The article reports:

Using money earmarked for construction projects to build a wall to secure the border “is bad for security of our border” and is “undermining our national security,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday.

President Donald Trump’s decision to reallocate $3.6 billion to fund border wall construction is an “assault on Congress’s power of the purse,” Pelosi said in opening remarks at her weekly press conference:

“The President’s decision to cancel $3.6 billion for military construction initiatives makes us less safe by undermining our national security and the quality and life and the morale of our troops. And it dishonors the Constitution of the United States as the President negates the Constitution’s most fundamental principle, the principle of checks and balances, the separation of powers and his assault on the Congress’s power of the purse.

“The decision is bad for security of our border, for the security of our nation and the well‑being of our children.

How is securing our border bad for the security of our border?

It’s always about the children. What about the children who are in overcrowded classrooms due to the influx of illegal immigrants? What about the children who have contracted diseases because illegal immigrants rarely have the vaccines that American children have? What about the children whose parents are working for lower wages because illegal aliens will work for less?

The Democrat party has lost its way on national security. They are simply ignoring the negative impact of illegal immigration in order to promote a political agenda.

North Carolina Has A Budget

The North Carolina House has overridden Governor Cooper’s veto of the state budget. As expected, the Democrats are protesting. Below is the statement issued by Speaker of the House Tim Moore:

Raleigh, N.C. – The Office of House Speaker Tim Moore released a factual recap on Thursday of how the budget veto override unfolded this week to debunk outrageously false claims that House Republicans misled their Democratic colleagues about a no-vote session on Wednesday morning.

  • The budget veto override was taken during a House floor session with a properly noticed calendar following two public announcements votes would be taken on Wednesday.
  • There was never any of the customary public communication of a no-vote session by the Speaker’s office, which makes all such announcements to members of the House when a no-vote session is planned. 
  • House Republicans never planned to attempt a veto override on Wednesday, nor were they aware House Democrats were falsely told by their own leadership of a no-vote session.
  • House Republicans had only 55 members in session on Wednesday morning – not even enough to hold a majority on the floor with all members present. 
  • By their numbers alone, it is obvious House Republicans never planned to override the veto Wednesday.   
  • Contrary to false claims that House Democrats in North Carolina were attending 9/11 commemoration ceremonies on Wednesday morning, four extremely credible, separate accounts factually demonstrate this is an outright lie. 
  • The editor of the News & Observer’s ‘Insider’ Colin Campbell tweeted the following: “So much misinformation going around the #ncga today: -Only one Democratic House member has been confirmed as attending a 9/11 event during the veto override vote.”
  • Governor Roy Cooper said in a noon press conference (4:45 mark) Wednesday that he did not see and was not aware of any House Democrats at a ceremony he attended, directly contradicting a false narrative spun by national media outlets like the Washington Post.  
  • As widely reported, House Rep. Deb. Butler (D-New Hanover) said on the floor (5:20 mark) that Democrats were downstairs drawing maps during the veto override. 
  • House Minority Leader Darren Jackson confirmed in his press conference that in-fact Democrats had a redistricting committee meeting planned that morning.
  • The North Carolina House held its commemoration session for 9/11 first responders and victims in its afternoon session on Wednesday.
  • The narrative that the budget veto override vote on Wednesday had anything to do with 9/11 ceremonies is a provably false fabrication debunked by extremely credible sources – the House Democrats themselves – and any reproduction of this narrative is simply spreading a lie. 
  • Democrats meeting privately about ongoing redistricting in the General Assembly – particularly with all of their members of the House Redistricting Committee together – is a potential violation of a three-judge panel’s order that redistricting committee efforts take place in public view. 
  • The Governor falsely alleged in his press conference that Republicans “orchestrated” the veto override and Democrats “were lied to.”  This is a complete and total fabrication that he must retract immediately and cease misleading North Carolinians about the circumstances.   
  • House Republican members and staff had no idea that House Democrats were told by their leadership Wednesday was a no-vote session
  • This was a mistake by the House Democratic leadership that they took responsibility for it in their press conference Wednesday morning
  • The Speaker frequently announces no-vote legislative sessions for members’ planning purposes, often at least once or twice a week. 
  • The announcement is made by the Speaker from the floor of the House, by email from the Speaker’s office to all members, or both
  • The announcement is often shared on social media to make the broader General Assembly community aware of a no-vote legislative session. 
  • None of the customary public announcements were ever made of a no-vote session Wednesday by the Speaker’s office. 
  • To assume a no-vote session based on private oral conversations about specific bills is an erroneous presumption by House Democrats’ leadership that ignores the consistent procedures of the House for notifying members of a no-vote session. 
  • The Speaker’s office relies on public announcements of no-vote sessions from the floor of the House and by direct communication to all members to avoid exactly this type of confusion. 
  • In three terms as the presiding officer, Speaker Moore has never, and would never, announce a no-vote session then hold votes that session. 
  • Speaker Moore is serving his ninth term in the state House, as is House Rules Committee Chairman David Lewis.  They have a combined 36 years of experience serving in the North Carolina General Assembly.
  • Both leaders have far too much respect for the North Carolina House and their colleagues to announce no recorded votes, then hold a vote. 
  • In Tuesday afternoon’s no-vote legislative session at 4:30 p.m. on September 10, 2019, North Carolina House Republicans likely had the votes on the floor to override the Governor’s budget veto. 
  • Chairman Lewis was presiding at the time but did not take a vote, because Speaker Moore had announced in that morning’s session that Tuesday afternoon would be a no-vote session. 
  • House Republican leadership always honors announcements of no-vote sessions and this week was no different
  • In Tuesday afternoon’s session, Chairman Lewis announced publicly the intention to take recorded votes the following day on two appropriations bills that were directed to Wednesday’s calendar “without objection.”
  • When adding both bills to the calendar on Tuesday, Chairman Lewis explicitly announced that there would be recorded votes on Wednesday (5:20 mark of the session’s House audio archive.)
  • Shortly after Chairman Lewis announced intention to take recorded votes on the two budget bills the following day, he announced a start time of 8:30 a.m. for Wednesday. 
  • The Speaker of the House, present members of the House, and staff, were all planning to hold recorded votes on bills on the published calendar for Wednesday’s morning session
  • All were completely unaware that House Democrats were told by their leadership of a no-vote session
  • The consideration of the veto override was properly noticed and published on the House calendar, as it has been for nearly 2 months.   
  • The House clerks and staff conducted standard preparation for a voting session.
  • House Republicans clearly, by their numbers, had no plans to attempt a veto override on Wednesday:
  • Republicans did not have enough votes to maintain a majority on the floor if all members were voting and present, with just 55 members.
  • The Republican caucus had 10 of its members missing from its 65-member majority. 
  • Republicans were missing the House Majority Leader and Rules Chairman from the floor on Wednesday
  • This is an obvious demonstration Republicans never planned to attempt an override and had no awareness Democrats did not plan to attend the voting session
  • Any suggestion that Republicans planned the veto override on Wednesday – which is demonstrably false – is an outright lie.
  • The House Republican caucus was genuinely confused and surprised when the Democrats did not arrive for the 8:30 am voting session. 
  • The Speaker confirmed with the clerks and his staff that no announcement had been made of a no-vote session following the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance
  • Members and staff briefly discussed whether to hold the veto override with the votes appearing secured on the floor during a voting session   
  • The veto override was never planned, discussed, or considered, by House leaders or staff until Wednesday morning’s session when Democrats did not arrive
  • House Republicans were completely transparent about what happened.  They held a public press conference, answered questions from the media, and Speaker Moore joined Capital Tonight on Spectrum News the day of the vote after speaking with reporters throughout the day. 
  • The Speaker has said repeatedly he would hold the veto override when the votes were secured on the floor of the House in a voting session.
  • He did so, advancing a historic school construction initiative in education communities across the state, more than $100 million in disaster relief funds, and another round of tax relief for North Carolina families. 

These are the facts and the Office of the Speaker appreciates your time reviewing this memo that dispels false claims that House Democrats were misled on Wednesday, or that they were attending 9/11 ceremonies during the veto override vote, or that House Republicans planned to attempt the veto override on Wednesday.

Unfortunately, very little of this information will find its way into the mainstream media. Fortunately, the Senate is also expected to override the veto and pass the budget.

There Is Something Upside Down About The Charges Made Here

CNS News posted an article today about  a recent comment by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The article reports what Speaker Pelosi said in a statement issued Sunday:

“Trump must take down his disrespectful and dangerous video” of Rep. Omar’s comment.”

This is the full statement:

“Following the President’s tweet, I spoke with the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that Capitol Police are conducting a security assessment to safeguard Congresswoman Omar, her family and her staff. They will continue to monitor and address the threats she faces.

“The President’s words weigh a ton, and his hateful and inflammatory rhetoric creates real danger. President Trump must take down his disrespectful and dangerous video.”

So what is this disrespectful and dangerous video? It is simply a video of Congresswoman Omar stating that “CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) was founded after 9/11 because they realized that some people did something.”

So wait a minute. I am missing something here. First of all, CAIR was founded in 1994–not after 9/11. Second of all, how is showing a video of a person making a speech disrespectful and dangerous? The Congresswoman has stood by her words–she has not apologized for them or backed down in any way. Why is the video disrespectful and dangerous when it simply shows Congresswoman Omar making a speech? If the video is not edited in any way (no one is arguing that it was altered), whose speech is dangerous–the one saying the words or the one reporting the words? Is the problem with the speaker or the one reporting the speech?

Will Someone Please Tell Nancy Pelosi That She Is Not The President

The Daily Caller posted an article today about Speaker Pelosi’s reaction to the possibility that President Trump may declare a national emergency to build a border wall.

The article reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned President Donald Trump on Thursday that a future Democratic president could declare a national emergency to achieve an agenda, such as gun control policy.

Responding to the president’s announcement that he will declare a national emergency related to the U.S. southern border, Pelosi maintained that “Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well. So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

The Constitution charges the President with the responsibility of defending our borders. The Constitution also enshrines the rights of American citizens to bear arms. What the President is doing is constitutional. What Speaker Pelosi is threatening is not constitutional. It’s that simple.

The article quotes Speaker Pelosi:

Speaker Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference, “You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President?”

Is the prospect of caravans of thousands of immigrants crossing our border illegally a national emergency? What else would you call it? I wonder if the Democrats are happy with their choice of Speaker of the House.

When You Are Convinced You Know It All

Power can do strange things to people. Some people handle it well, and some people are so impressed that they have some power that they decide they are all-powerful. Nancy Pelosi is a good example of the latter.

The Daily Caller posted an article yesterday about one of Speaker of the House Pelosi’s recent statements.

The article reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Wednesday night she “doesn’t care” if the Secret Service said it was prepared to appropriately secure the State of the Union address despite the partial government shutdown.

Instead, she stood firm in her resolve to delay the January 29 event until the government completely re-opens.

In a letter to President Trump, Pelosi claimed the lack of funds to Homeland Security posed a risk to the White House and the Congress during the event, but the Department of Homeland Security Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen released a statement refuting that.

So Speaker Pelosi knows more about security than the Department of Homeland Security?

The article concludes:

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise called Democrats’ security concerns nonsense, telling reporters on Wednesday, “There are no security concerns that have been raised and that has nothing to do with that. Ironically, it seems like she’s only concerned about security when it’s a State of the Union that will expose what this fight is all about.”

It may be that the Democrat focus groups are starting to indicate that the shutdown isn’t going exactly the way the Democrats thought it would. Meanwhile there is another caravan headed our way. I wonder what the impact of that will be on public opinion.

Speaker Pelosi Has Jumped The Shark

CNS News posted an article today about a bill proposed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. In an effort to continue to harass the President, Speaker Pelosi has introduced legislation that would require all candidates for president and vice-president to release their tax returns. There would be no requirement for candidates for Congress to release their tax returns.

The article reports:

The provision is part of H.R. 1—the “For the People Act”—which Pelosi introduced Friday.

A summary of the bill says that it includes a section titled “Presidential Tax Transparency.” This section, says the summary: “Requires sitting presidents and vice presidents, as well as candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, to release their tax returns.”

In 2017, when members of Congress were calling on President Donald Trump to release his tax returns, Roll Call asked all 535 members of the House and Senate to release theirs. As Roll Call reported at the time, 6 members did release their tax returns as requested by the publication. Another 6 had already released theirs elsewhere. Another 45 members, Roll Call reported, had previously and partially released their tax returns. But 473 members had not released their tax returns and did not respond to Roll Call’s request that they do so.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi was one of the members, Roll Call reported, who had not released her tax returns.

At an April 2017 press briefing promoting similar legislation that would have required the president—but not members of Congress—to release their tax returns, Pelosi said that president’s do not have a “right to privacy” when it comes to their tax returns.

I don’t mean to be picky here, but if Congress is willing to pass a law that states that candidates for president and vice-president have to release their tax returns, then Congress should have to release theirs.

I have a feeling that for the next two years the House of Representatives is going to spend more time working on laws to make life difficult for President Trump than it is making laws that will be helpful to Americans. That is truly sad.

Promises Made, Promises Broken

During the mid-term election campaign, a number of Democrats stated that it was time for new leadership in the Democrat party and that they would not support Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Well, guess what–yesterday The Western Journal posted an article with the following headline, “Democrats Nominate Nancy Pelosi for House Speaker.”

The article reports:

Nancy Pelosi has been nominated by House Democrats to lead them in the new Congress, but she still faces a showdown vote for House speaker when lawmakers convene in January.

Pelosi ran unopposed as the nominee for speaker in a closed-door Democratic caucus election Wednesday despite unrest from those clamoring for new leadership.

The California Democrat faces tougher math in January, when she’ll need 218 votes, the majority of the full House, to be elected speaker. House Democrats are taking control with at least a 233-vote majority, but some Democrats have pledged that they won’t back Pelosi for speaker.

Anyone ready to take bets? Actually Nancy Pelosi as speaker would be a good thing for Republicans–she is growing old and sometimes here statements indicate that. It truly is time for new leadership in both parties.

Looking Forward And Protecting Your Gains

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about some of Representative Nancy Pelosi’s plans should she become Speaker of the House. Say what you will about the lady, she wants to protect the Democrat party from themselves.

The article reports:

Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in the midst of fending off a coup to derail her return to the House speakership, is proposing a series of rules changes that could kneecap liberals from pursuing a bold agenda in the new Congress.

Among the many proposed rules changes the incoming majority plans to make in a draft document obtained by the Washington Post, is one backed by Pelosi and Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, that would “[r]equire a three-fifths supermajority to raise individual income taxes on the lowest-earning 80% of taxpayers.”

The proposed changes also hint at restoring some sort of “reasonable rule” aimed at making sure legislation is paid for, though there isn’t much elaboration.

Below is a chart from Pew Research Center illustrating who pays taxes. The chart is from 2016:

Raising taxes on the lowest 80 percent of taxpayers would theoretically even the tax burden, but it would be another blow against the Middle Class. Keep in mind that one of the signs of a country with a healthy economy is a thriving Middle Class. I would like to see all Americans pay some income tax–everyone needs ‘skin in the game’, but simply raising taxes on the lower 80 percent of Americans makes no sense–it will only slow down the economy and not raise revenue.

The article concludes:

Now, I suppose Democrats technically would have some wiggle room if the new rule were adopted. Because the proposed rule specifies “income taxes” it leaves an opening to raise money in other ways — payroll taxes, VAT taxes, and so on. But politically, that’s really a nonstarter. If Democrats make the 80 percent pledge and end up raising taxes on the middle class, Republicans will be able to effectively campaign against it as a broken promise, and any Democratic candidate trying to claim, “Well, we said income tax, but not payroll tax,” will be scorched.

I mean, I didn’t expect Pelosi to suddenly go full speed ahead with the Sanders agenda, but I also wouldn’t have predicted that she would have cut liberals down right out of the gate.

Representative Pelosi is attempting to protect her party’s chances in the 2020 presidential election. As much as I don’t wish her success, her fellow party members would do well to pay attention to what she is doing–she is trying to protect the future of the party. Older Americans are the majority of the voting population, and generally speaking, they do not support socialism–they have seen too much.

The Race Begins

Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line today about Nancy Pelosi’s quest to become Speaker of the House again. Although many Democrats ran on the promise that they would not vote for Ms. Pelosi, there seemed to be a lack of opponents.

The article reports:

Yesterday, in a post about the opposition to Nancy Pelosi’s bid to become House Speaker, I noted that, thus far, no one has stepped forward to run against Pelosi. You can’t beat somebody with nobody.

I added that if somebody emerges to oppose Pelosi, it had better be a woman. Otherwise, Pelosi and her backers are sure to play the gender card, and the new House members who are resisting the former Speaker, many of whom are females who themselves played that card during the election, will probably cave.

Now, a potential opponent has emerged — Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio. Not only is Fudge a woman, she’s African-American.

Fudge hasn’t formally entered the race, but she’s already playing the race card. She told the Washington Post, “if we’re going to have a diverse party, it ought to look like the party.” Try parsing that gibberish.

We know what she’s getting at, though: “Support for me because I’m Black.”

The article goes on to anticipate Ms.Pelosi’s response to her opponent.

The article concludes:

I’m not sure how seriously to take a potential bid by Fudge for the Speakership. Pelosi has some support withing the congressional black caucus and Fudge’s opposition, for whatever reason, to pro-gay rights legislation might be a deal-breaker for many of those insurgent Democratic members.

In any event, Pelosi’s struggle within her caucus, and the fact that it’s being played out so blatently in identity politics terms, is a sign of trouble for Democrats down the road. As Steve likes to say, “pass the popcorn.”

Stay tuned.