” Call it the Donald Sterling effect. A little over three weeks after the NBA banned Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for racist comments, 50 members of the U.S. Senate signed a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, urging the league’s leaders to press the Redskins to change their name.
“ The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter, which was obtained by the New York Times and circulated by Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) states. (It can be seen here.) “We urge the NFL to formally support a name change for the Washington football team.”
Cantwell told the Times that “we are going to find out if the NFL can act against this kind of discrimination as quickly as the NBA did.”
Harry Reid, the Democratic senator from Nevada and the Senate majority leader, has long advocated for a name change and cited the NBA’s action on May 1. “How long will the NFL continue to do nothing — zero — as one of its teams bears a name that inflicts so much pain on Native Americans?” Reid asked (via the Post’s Ed O’Keefe).”
This is just the latest example of the Statist party attempting to force a “solution” on a non-existent problem :
” What gets far less attention, though, is this:
There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.”
Whatever happened to private property rights ? Is there any aspect of society beyond the purview of the swine in Congress ?
This sort of meddling into the affairs of the private sector is a standard method of distraction used regularly by the powers that be , especially in election years , in a concerted effort to prevent the voters from voicing their objections to the real issues facing our corrupt government … Obamacare , Benghazi , illegal immigration , jobs , debt , and the list goes on and on .
Read more of this latest attempt to legislate/mandate morality at , where else , the Washington Post
” Like everyone else, Gavin McInnes has weighed in on Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s observations on “the Negro”. Mr McInnes concludes:
This isn’t about some old guy’s views on slavery. It’s about government control. We’re not saying Bundy is the messiah and we accept him as our personal savior. We’re saying the government is wrong.
Let’s stipulate that Cliven Bundy is a racist. Let’s also assume, if only to save time, that he’s Islamophobic, homophobic and transphobic. So what? Does that make criticizing the Bureau of Land Management “racist” or “homophobic”?
During my battles with Canada’s “human rights” commissions, defenders of the racket liked to point out that the people it targeted were generally pretty unsavory. And I’d respond that the reason the standard representation of justice in statuary is a blindfolded lady is because justice is supposed to be blind: If you run a red light and hit a pedestrian, it makes no difference whether the pedestrian you hit is Nelson Mandela or Cliven Bundy. Or at least it shouldn’t: one of the basic building blocks of civilized society is equality before the law.
Likewise, if what the Bureau of Land Management is doing is wrong, the fact that Cliven Bundy is a racist sexist homophobe whateverphobe doesn’t make it right – any more than at Ruby Ridge FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shooting Vicki Weaver in the back of the headas she was cradling her ten-month-old baby and running away from him is made right by the fact that she allegedly had “white supremacist” sympathies. As I wrote last week, I’ve little doubt that, in the era before cellphone video, the bureaucratic enforcers would have been happy to off Bundy and then come up with a reason why it doesn’t matter. At Waco, there were supposedly children being abused. So Generalissimo Janet Reno killed them all, and now they’re not being abused. In that sense, Mr Bundy is a lucky man: He got to live, and to trash his own reputation rather than having the feds do it for him.”
” As a number of Senate Republicans take a stand against Barack Obama’s nomination of far left judges, the chamber’s top Democrat wants to find a way to stop them. In an announcement Thursday, Majority Leader Harry Reid voiced his support of a rule change that would curtail the practice of filibustering.
For the minority party, filibusters are one of a handful of tactics available to make its position heard. Reid, on the other hand, said that such allowances have resulted in a “broken” Senate.
“It’s time to change the Senate before the institution becomes obsolete,” Reid said, noting that the chamber has “wasted hours and wasted days between filibusters.”
To think it was only one administration ago that the alleged “pederast” of the Senate was singing a different tune . Give a listen to Dingy’s explanation of why the filibuster rule is was an essential part of our republican , not democratic , form of government .
” Unfortunately, the Nevada senator seems to miss the point that debate on a particular issue is actually a congressional responsibility, not something that needs to be eradicated. Of course, leftist legislators rely on ramrodding laws and nominations that could not stand Republican scrutiny.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who many conservatives feel has been too moderate in his response to Reid regarding other issues, was emphatically opposed to his current proposal.”
Perhaps “Dingy Harry” could use a history lesson on the importance of the filibuster …
” While several leftist groups have joined in the push for this so-called “nuclear option,” McConnell explained that such support could backfire “a lot sooner than you think.”
Mr Reid needs to be reminded that the purpose of the filibuster is to prevent the tyranny of the majority that our forefathers were rightfully so concerned about , to allow the minority to be heard and that it is one of the very features of government that make ours a republic and not a simple democracy(mob rule) . He would also do well to recognize that he won’t be Senate Majority Leader forever , perhaps not past 2014 as a matter of fact and thus he should very carefully consider the precedent he is threatening to set . We all know what they say : ” payback is a b**ch” .
” Though Republicans are currently the minority party in the Senate, Democrat support of the unpopular ObamaCare law has caused the approval rates of many legislators to plummet. Should the GOP regain power of the chamber after next year’s midterm elections, that party would benefit from Reid’s rule change.
Predictions of a Republican-led Senate are certainly encouraging to millions of Americans fed up with the current direction of the nation; however, the fight to end Reid’s proposal has far more immediate implications.”
Why don’t we let Senator Reid himself explain to us the filibuster , it’s long history , it’s essential nature to the American form of governance and also regale us with a conversation that took place over two hundred years ago between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on just why the filibuster is an absolute necessity for the protection of the republic .
The following is a speech delivered by Harry on the floor of the Senate and recorded into the record on May 18th , 2005 : We’ll let Mr Reid do the rest of the talking :
” Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a “procedural gimmick.”
The Websters dictionary defines “gimmick” as – – “an ingenious new scheme or angle.” No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new.
The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.” It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.
The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.
Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times.
Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes – even to stall executive nominees.
The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.
In establishing each House of Congress, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules.”
In crafting the rules of the Senate, Senators established the right to extended debate – and they formalized it with Rule XXII almost 100 years ago. This rule codified the practice that Senators could debate extensively.
Under Rule XXII, debate may be cut off under limited circumstances.
– 67 votes to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule.
– 60 votes to end a filibuster against any other legislative business.
A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington describes the United States Senate and our Founders Fathers vision of it.
Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?
Washington responded with a question of his own, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?”
“To cool it,” Jefferson replied.
To which Washington said; “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”
And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail.
It also separates us from the House of Representatives – where the majority rules.
And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.
Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties.
In fact, my colleague from Georgia – Senator Isakson – recently shared a conversation he had with an official from the Iraqi government.
The Senator had asked this official if he was worried that the majority in Iraq would overrun the minority. But the official replied… “no….we have the secret weapon called the ‘filibuster.’”
In recalling that conversation, Senator Isakson remarked: “If there were ever a reason for optimism… it is one of [the Iraqi] minority leaders, proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government, as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority.”
And he was right.
I spoke yesterday about Senator Holt and his 1939 filibuster to protect workers’ wages and hours.
There are also recent examples of the filibuster achieving good.
In 1985, Senators from rural states used the filibuster to force Congress to address a major crisis in which thousands of farmers were on the brink of bankruptcy.
In 1995, the filibuster was used by Senators to protect the rights of workers to a fair wage and a safe workplace.
Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes.
Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against Civil Right legislation. But Civil Rights legislation passed – – Civil Rights advocates met the burden.
And it is noteworthy that today the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the Nuclear Option.
For further analysis, let’s look at Robert Caro, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner.
At a meeting I attended with other Senators, he spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important.
He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay – as public protest far outweighs any Senator’s appetite to filibuster.
But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation …prevents a Senator from ramming it through…and gives the American people enough time join the opposition.
Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House.
In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.
Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate.
If Republicans rollback our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees…the President’s nominees in general…and legislation like Social Security privatization.
Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches – the Congress and the Judiciary.
Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by this White House and Republicans in Washington.
From Dick Cheney’s fight to slam the doors of the White House on the American people…
To the President’s refusal to cooperate with the 9-11 Commission…
To Senate Republicans attempt to destroy the last check in Washington on Republican power…
To the House Majority’s quest to silence the minority in the House…
Republicans have sought to destroy the balance of power in our government by grabbing power for the presidency, silencing the minority and weakening our democracy.
America does not work the way the radical right-wing dictates to President Bush and the Republican Senate Leaders. And Mr. President, that is not how the United States Senate works either.
For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”
It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.
Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.
They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington.
They want to do away with the filibuster.
They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.
I doubt that’s true. ”
We would say those were words to live by Mr Majority Leader , but then again everything from the democrats comes with an expiration date doesn’t it sir ? Even principles .
What a difference an administration makes . To think that eight short years ago the filibuster was , according to the senator from Nevada , “part of the fabric of this institution” and that “the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check” and anyone brazen enough to attempt to eliminate the people’s tool were on a “quest for absolute power” to this :
” Without the option of a filibuster, Republican senators have precious few options through which to protect America’s courts.”
They’ve done it . As we were putting this piece together the scalawags from the democratic caucus in the Senate broke the rules to change the rules and thereby have eliminated the one tool that a David representing the minority could use to great effect against the Goliath tyranny of the majority . Democrats … Party of the people ? Defender of the little guy ? Balderdash ! Oh yes , did we mention …. SQUIRREL !
Does anyone have any idea why the appointment of judicial nominees is of such importance now , just as we are gearing up for the holiday recesses ? One word comes to our mind , well two actually , one (squirrel) that is what Mr Reid and Co are shouting today and the second word is Obamacare , the one word Mr Reid would love to knock off of the airwaves and out of people’s minds.
Good luck with that Senator , although we think you have made a grave miscalculation . The people will never be able to forget about the S**t sandwich you and your cronies forced down their throats and now you’ve treated them to the ultimate display of hubris and hypocrisy with your invocation of your so-called “nuclear option” and along the way revealed yourself and your colleagues for the unprincipled mountebanks that you are .
” The Washington Post mistook one prostitute for another Monday in a report that initially seemed to debunk a November 2012 Daily Caller exposé of New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez.
While the Post said it had an affidavit from a woman in the Dominican Republic admitting she fabricated claims Menendez paid her for sex, that woman was not one of the two prostitutes TheDC interviewed for a Nov. 1 report.
” Paula Broadwell hit the big 4-0 on Friday, the same day President Obama accepted her lover’s resignation. She is a soldier herself, a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army Reserves, promoted in August of 2012. A glance at her resume leads you to think of her as intelligent, with degrees from West Point and Harvard, she even worked with the FBI at one point, albeit with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, but my mercy the irony. She has two children ages six and four.
So where are the pundits calling her a fool? Where is the criticism? Where is the same public humiliation, on the same level that has been meted out against General Petraeus? I can not help but observe one simple fact, when it comes to affairs society seems to criticize the men who have them, way more then the women they have them with. Is it because women are considered delicate? Do we consider the sexual appetites of males to be overwhelming, thus women are excused? Basically he made her do it. I think this logic is anti-women. I’m not saying that to be controversial, or even chauvinistic, I truly believe that women are capable of doing anything and even more then men. That would include weathering the brunt of criticism of an affair. “
Beyond The Sexcapades There Is Something Deadly Serious Going On.
” Now Mrs. Broadwell’s father has stepped from his home in Bismarck, North Dakota, and informed the New York Daily Newsthat his daughter is the target of “character assassination.” This I cannot conceive, but I agree with him as he went on to say, “This is about something else entirely, and the truth will come out.” He added, “There’s a lot more here than meets the eye.” Ben Stein says the eye should be on Attorney General Eric Holder. Yes, perhaps, but I would keep an eye on Benghazi, and forget not Mrs. Broadwell’s revelations about Libyans being held prisoner in Benghazi by our CIA.”
YouViewed/Editorial 