IT'S TIME FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO GET SOME BALLS, AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!  

IT'S TIME FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO GET SOME BALLS, AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND, BUT WILL MITCH MCCONNELL, LIKE HARRY REID DID TO PASS OBAMACARE, HAVE THE BALLS TO USE THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION’ TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN?

Harry Reid tabled some 360 passed legislation from the House of Representatives that dealt with every unconstitutional Executive Orders and Presidential Memorandums that Obama blamed the ‘Do nothing Congress’ for and forcing his hand and actions to get things done! Did the ‘Paid to

Report’ Media tell you that Harry Reid’s right to hold back passed house legislation to make it appear that the ‘do nothing Congress, was doing nothing was the excuse that Obama needed to use his ‘Pen and Phone’ to bypass the Constitution and the ‘Will’ of the American people, ‘NO!’

SO HOW DID OBAMACARE BECOME A LAW?

If you recall, the Democrats in the House could pass their version of a Healthcare law. Because all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They took out essentially all the wording of it, and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. It gets better. The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare.

After the bill passed the Senate, the Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that, if the House made any changes

to the bill, the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the corrected bill, since they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare. So, they made a deal with the Democrat‐controlled House of Representatives: The House would pass the Senate bill without any changes, IF the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010.

It made a bunch of detail changes, and added some things. So, the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. So now PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House. Confused yet?

Now, remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy. To pass the Reconciliation Act, therefore, the Democrats in the Senate DECIDED TO CHANGE THE RULES!

They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule”—this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill now. This rule was only used for budget item approval, so that budget items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60. This rule was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare.

Too bad… they used it anyway. So, then both “Acts” passed both

houses of Congress and were then signed by President Obama.

EVERYTHING DONE BY DEMOCRATS WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. TO QUOTE DEMOCRAT REP. ALCEE HASTINGS OF THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE DURING THE BILL PROCESS: “WE’RE MAKING UP THE RULES AS WE GO ALONG” THEY CERTAINLY COULDN’T HAVE MADE THIS LAW WITHOUT IT.

HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?

I’VE BEEN ASKING MYSELF, NOW THAT THE ELECTION IS OVER, WILL MITCH MCCONNELL TAKE A PAGE OUT OF HARRY REIDS PLAYBOOK, AND USE THE NUCLEAR OPTION TO GET VOTER ID PASSED?

I don’t know about you, but when Obama got on Public TV and asked those some 13 million unvetted illegal refugees and immigrants to go out and vote during this past election cycle with no repercussions, and then claim that the ‘Electoral College’ was fixed because Hillary won the

popular vote! Now you must know it’s time to pass a comprehensive voter ID Law, and with the GOP owning the majorities in both the House and Senate, you know that using the ‘Nuclear Option,’ like Harry Reid did, maybe the last chance America will be able to determine its own future!

Click here>  OBAMA TELLING ILLEGALS VOTERS TO VOTE!!

WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WENT WITH THE ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE’ INSTEAD OF THE ‘POPULAR VOTE TO DECIDE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the

advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less than 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously, this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes count more than those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore, it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe

for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.

While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constitutional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the constitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems, unfortunately the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change.

ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN, AND FOR MITCH MCONNELL, AT LEAST FOR THIS ONE TIME, LUCK WAS ON HIS SIDE!

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can do a victory lap now for his success in keeping President Barack Obama from shifting the ideological balance of the Supreme Court.

Democrats, meanwhile, must ask whether Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, a 63-year-old moderate, was a mistake. Some progressives hoped for a younger candidate, with a more diverse background, might have better excited liberals.

It was McConnell who seized the moment after the death of Scalia last February to announce

there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election. "The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country," he said at the time.

There's no way of knowing if McConnell was certain a Republican would win. But it was worth a shot for the veteran senator. He held to his promise and denied Obama's pick, federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, a hearing or vote. And now, he has likely ensured a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for years to come.

JUDGE GARLAND AND THE LEFT’S DISDAIN FOR THE TRUTH!

By their own accounts, the liberal media lied in describing Garland as a centrist.

And the more research one does, the bigger this lie appears.

The mainstream media — that is, the liberal media — share all the views and characteristics of the left. Among these is the left’s view of truth. There are honest individuals with left-wing views, and dishonest individuals on the right. But truth is not a leftist

value. Everything the left believes in is more important than truth: social justice, economic equality, reducing carbon emissions, expanding the power of the state, battling sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and above these, destroying its conservative opposition.

The media’s coverage of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court should serve as one of the most blatant examples of both the left-wing orientation of the news media and their willingness to play with truth.

On March 16, the day after Garland’s nomination, every major mainstream news outlet, both print and electronic, depicted the judge as a centrist.

The first sentence of The New York Times front page read: “WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland to be the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appellate judge.”

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times front-page headline said: “Obama’s choice of popular centrist Merrick Garland for Supreme Court puts GOP to the test.”

Another headline, seen in the Washington Post, read: “Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot.” That same day, the Post published a second

article mentioning how “Garland’s deep resume and centrist reputation appear to have positioned him well to earn the president’s nod.”

Two days later, the Los Angeles Times featured a news analysis on its front page, in which a reporter wrote that Garland may be “the most moderate Supreme Court nominee anyone could expect from a Democratic president.” The reporter also calls Garland “a superbly qualified judge with a cautious, centrist record.”

There is no truth to any of these reports — something easily proved by both Judge Garland’s decisions and, amazingly, by the newspapers’ reports themselves.

Take the Los Angeles Times’ front-page “news analysis,” for example. After describing the judge as a moderate and centrist, the LA Times reporter writes:

“If the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, is replaced by a moderate-to-liberal Justice Garland, the court

would tip to the left on several key issues, like abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, gun control, campaign spending, immigration and environmental protection.”

In other words, the very same author who describes Garland as a centrist believes that Garland votes left on essentially every major issue confronting the nation and the Supreme Court.

Additionally, that very same day The New York Times headlined that Garland is a centrist, it published an article on the nomination noting that “If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.”

In reviewing Garland’s decisions, this Times piece placed Judge Garland to the left of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, way to

the left of Justice Stephen Breyer and minimally to the right of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg.

By their own accounts, the liberal media lied in describing Garland as a centrist.

And the more research one does, the bigger this lie appears.

In a column in The Wall Street Journal, Juanita Duggan, President and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, wrote that Garland is so anti-small business and so pro-big labor, that “This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year-history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee.”

What worries the NFIB, she explains, is that “in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board).”

Elsewhere in the Journal, the editorial board wrote that they can’t think of a single issue on which Garland would vote differently from the four liberal Justices that already sit on the bench.

Tom Goldstein wrote in the SCOTUSblog that Garland favors deferring to the decision-makers in agencies. “In a dozen close

cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.”

Another source reads that “Judge Garland would be a reliable fifth vote on these legal issues.”

Those are all the fundamental issues that divide the left from the right.

So, the entire left is lying about Judge Garland, who, for the record, seems like a truly decent man who possesses a first-class mind. They do so because getting a fifth left-wing vote and weakening the Republicans is far more important than truth.

And believe it or not, there is an even worse lesson here, namely the media’s effectiveness in saturating society with its mendacious version of reality. Unless an American makes the effort to

study the issue — and most do not — they take the news media’s version as truth. The terrible lesson, which has been affirmed time and time again since the 1960s, is that a free society can experience brainwashing as effectively as a totalitarian state.

With the current threat of Facebook's feckless ability to be bipartisan feel free to befriend me at 'Jonathan E P Moore' to get direct and instant access, or follow 'While You Were Sleeping' at www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com
Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.