#IRS scandal: Democrats make clear where they stand on the 1st Amendment

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a resolution condemning the Internal Revenue Service for trampling the Constitutional rights of Americans. (For example) It didn’t get very far:

Today, Senate Democrats placed a hold on Sen. Rand Paul’s recent resolution that condemns the targeting of Tea Party groups by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and calls for an investigation into this practice.

“This resolution is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal. It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. The First Amendment cannot and should not be renegotiated depending on which party holds power,” Sen. Paul said. ”Each senator took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet Senate Democrats chose to block my resolution and thus refused to condemn the IRS for trampling on our First Amendment rights. I am incredibly disappointed in Washington’s party politics and I am determined to hold the IRS accountable for these unjust acts.”

I’m not sure why anyone would find this surprising: as the party of arrogant, unrestrained government, the leaders of which think the Constitution is obsolete, well, of course they would shoot this resolution down.

It threatens their very reason for existence, after all.

via Stephen Green.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Survey says! Police oppose new #guncontrol regulations

Pretty significant, I’d say, since the cops have to deal regularly with violent criminals and the aftermath of violent crime. If a majority of them say new gun regulations won’t do any good and might do harm, then why pass them? (1)

An authoritative new poll of more than 15,000 cops released on the eve of this week’s Senate anti-gun debate shows that a sweeping majority of officers don’t believe gun control will work or keep them safer, and nearly nine in 10 believe having more armed citizens would curb gun violence.

According to the lengthy survey of law enforcement professionals, one of the largest ever of street cops, 85 percent believe that President Obama’s gun control plan to ban assault weapons, limit the size of ammo magazines and expand background checks won’t improve their safety, with just over 10 percent believing it will have a “positive effect.”

The poll from PoliceOne.com, a site dedicated to police policy and news, also found surprising support for arming citizens. The poll found that 86 percent of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of a shooting. Another 81 percent backed arming teachers, as the National Rifle Association has called for.

I’m willing to bet this doesn’t include LAPD Chief Charlie Beck…

Read the rest for more intriguing results, including broad support for police organizations that have stated they will refuse to enforce new gun control legislation.

PS: This morning a “compromise” bill featuring increased background checks, sponsored by Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Toomey (R-PA) is being introduced. I’m withholding final judgement until more details are known, but my gut feeling is that this is a bill that will fail to prevent more mass shootings, but will further burden our Second and Fourth Amendment rights. In other words, a bill written to be seen to be “doing something, anything.” Very disappointed in Senator Toomey, if this is the case.

Footnote:
(1) But we know why, don’t we? So does Dan Bongino.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

So, one of the schmucks who designed Obamacare warns it’s “too complex.”

Now that he’s retiring and doesn’t have to face the wrath of voters, Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) feels free to speak his mind:

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, one of the towering architects of Obamacare, on Tuesday openly criticized program managers for not moving quickly enough to build the system, warning that if it gets off to a bumpy start it will just get worse.

Decrying the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as way too complex, he warned the acting Medicare director that Obamacare is “so complicated and if it isn’t done right the first time, it will just simply get worse.”

The retiring senator also told Marilyn Tavenner at her Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that Obamacare rivals tax reform in its capacity to confuse Americans.

Gee, ya think???

“This? Confusing?? Surely you jest.”

Though I don’t see what Senator “I designed this monstrosity” is complaining about; people can always get a navigator and a translator.

And don’t you find Rockefeller’s naive faith that there was any chance in Hades that Obamacare’s implementation could ever be “done right” touching and quaint? He helped create it; surely someone can figure out how to make it work!

Why, I bet he believes in the tooth fairy, too.

Memo to those who voted for Obama in 2008 and, especially, 2012: We tried to warn you!

Next time, listen.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Cruz vs. Feinstein, Texas vs. California, Liberty vs. …???

The following fascinating exchange occurred between Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on gun control, presumably including Feinstein’s pet legislation to outlaw scary weapons. First, Ted Cruz:

“The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is,” said Cruz to Feinstein, “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

Notice how Cruz approaches the question of the legislation before them: as a Senator of the United States, whose oath binds him to protect and defend the Constitution. His first concern, therefore, is where it should be — on how the legislation jibes with the Constitution, the rights it enshrines and the limits it imposes on government. Hence the questions about the First and Fourth amendments and the attempt to draw a logical parallel in order to test whether gun control legislation meets constitutional muster.

Call me naive, but isn’t this how the Senate is supposed to operate?

Apparently the whole thing was just too much for Senator Feinstein to bear:

“I’m not a sixth grader,” said Feinstein. “Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

In other words, “Don’t you dare presume to question me, boy!”

Note how Feinstein replies: outrage at supposed disrespect (“I’ve been here for 20 years! I’ve passed bills!”); an emotional appeal (“I’ve seen dead people! Think of the children!”); and confusing the issue through ignorance (cosmetic features do not a “weapon of war” make, no matter how scary looking). But only once does she touch upon the Constitution, referring to Heller, and she never answers Cruz’s questions.

Memo to Senator Feinstein: You may have been in Washington for a lot of years (too many, if you ask me), you may have sat at one of the constitutional seats of power, maybe even read the Constitution, but you clearly don’t “get it,” and I doubt you’ve ever really thought about it. Your smokescreen reply to your colleague from Texas betrayed the emptiness of your position, its lack of any constitutional legitimacy. It was the bluster of an oligarch unaccustomed to being truly challenged. Senator Cruz was doing exactly what he should be doing, and what you should have been doing for those 20 years you’re so proud of.

I may be, like you, a child of the Golden State, but, right now?

I side with the Lone Star.

via The Weekly Standard, which has video

UPDATE/FLASHBACK: Don’t bother Senator Feinstein with facts, either.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

So, I get the impression Michael Rubin isn’t too happy with John McCain…

Background: On “Meet the Press,” Senator McCain (R-AZ) said he would no longer hold up the confirmation of former Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, even though he doesn’t believe Hagel is qualified.

That lead to Rubin’s rant:

What McCain is, in effect, saying is that he has no personal or professional problem with putting an incompetent man in charge not only of America’s defense but also—because of what falls under the Pentagon’s umbrella—most of America’s intelligence assets as well.

McCain prides himself on being a maverick. How sad it is that in the twilight of his great career, McCain now is so willing to knowingly undercut U.S. national security. How reassuring it must be to Kim Jong-un in North Korea, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon, and Ali Khamenei in Iran that McCain is so willing to help install an unqualified Defense Secretary. The only questions now is not whether the will test the United States, but when and how many U.S. serviceman will die because of it.

Ouch! That one will leave a mark on Senator Prickly McCain. 

Senators often fall back on the principle of “comity,” a principle of “getting along for the good of the nation” that includes granting a very broad deference to the President in his cabinet choices. But lately it seems that, particularly under Obama, “getting along” really means “Republicans should shut up and take it.”

Now, I’m all for getting along in a genuine sense: mutual compromise in which majority and minority each give on something, and the legislature and the executive show a willingness to deal. Our form of government needs that. Hence, while I despise John Kerry, he is arguably qualified to serve as Secretary of State, where he or any other SoS would be implementing Obama’s policies. So, I had little problem with the senators who voted to confirm him, even if I wouldn’t have.

But that assumes basic competence, and Senator McCain said flatly that Hagel is unqualified. In that case, voting to confirm him (or, at least, not block him) isn’t “comity,” it’s not courteous deference in the face of policy disagreement. To accede to the appointment of someone unqualified for the office is a dereliction of one’s duty as a senator to advise and consent. Before any obligation to “get along” is one’s duty to one’s constitutional obligations and the welfare of the nation.

As Senator Ted Cruz said,

“Of course comity is important, but comity does not mean avoiding the truth concerning a nominee’s policy record…”

So why, Senator McCain, are you giving consent to Senator Hagel as Defense Secretary when you think he is incompetent?

PS: To those who think not staging a filibuster or not otherwise holding up Hagel’s nomination is somehow different from voting to confirm him, I answer “don’t be naive.” The Democrats have enough votes to carry the nomination, particularly if a national security hawk like McCain will no longer try to block it. In this case, dropping opposition is the same as voting to confirm.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Quote of the Day: Bob #Menendez follies edition

Via Breitbart:

So a United States Senator slated to become Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee strong-arms the U.S. State Department to approve a 20-year, $1 billion federal contract for Dominican port security with a firm owned by a Florida opthamologist / Medicaid fraud with no security background who…

Read the rest for the punchline.

So true. So very maddeningly true.

The #guncontrol crowd’s portrait of a mass killer is all wrong

That’s the gist of a report from the Department of Homeland Security, working with local New Jersey police. The gun-control legislation passed in New York and introduced by Senator Feinstein in Congress, and all the demands of the gun-grabbing crowd, have nothing to do with reality:

This is what a mass killer looks like, according to a Department of Homeland Security analysis. He works alone. He uses a semi-automatic handgun. He’s a he. And he probably didn’t serve in the U.S. military.

That’s the conclusion of a November 28 analysis by the New Jersey branch of the Department of Homeland Security’s partnership with state and local law enforcement. The so-called intelligence “Fusion Center” sifted through data on 29 major mass killings in the U.S. since 1999, starting with the Littleton, Colorado school shooting. Its practical advice is to be more concerned by your co-worker with the bad hygiene who mutters about putting his “things in order” than by the war veteran in the next cubicle.

The basic pattern found by the New Jersey DHS fusion center, and obtained by Public Intelligence (.PDF), is one of a killer who lashes out at his co-workers. Thirteen out of the 29 observed cases “occurred at the workplace and were conducted by either a former employee or relative of an employee,” the November report finds. His “weapon of choice” is a semiautomatic handgun, rather than the rifles that garnered so much attention after Newtown. The infamous Columbine school slaying of 1999 is the only case in which killers worked in teams: they’re almost always solo acts — and one-off affairs. In every single one of them, the killer was male, between the age of 17 and 49.

They also don’t have military training. Veterans are justifiably angered by the Hollywood-driven meme of the unhinged vet who takes out his battlefield stress on his fellow Americans. (Thanks, Rambo.) In only four of the 29 cases did the shooter have any affiliation with the U.S. military, either active or prior at the time of the slaying, and the fusion center doesn’t mention any wartime experience of the killers. Yet the Army still feels the need to email reporters after each shooting to explain that the killer never served.

In other words, “wrong person, wrong weapon.” But that’s immaterial to the gun-control posse, since their objective is really to make it incrementally harder for law-abiding people to obtain weapons, until it reaches the point where no one will bother trying — a de facto ban. That’s why facts and truth don’t matter to them: the strategy is to go for the scariest looking weapons first and play on people’s emotions, as well as tarring (again, law-abiding) people who buy such weapons as themselves objects of fear. The goal is not public safety, but abolition.

Thankfully, this latest federal effort looks to be going nowhere, but the fact-free assault on our natural right to keep and bear arms goes on in the state capitals. We need to carry the fight and the truth there, too.

As Mr. Jefferson said: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

via Ace of Spades, which has a picture you must see.

RELATED: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is rapidly becoming my new hero. Check out this video of him taking the Senate hearing on gun violence to school with facts and truth, all while being polite and respectful to the opposition. This is how you get the message across.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

(Video) #Benghazi: Sen. Rand Paul to Hillary – “I would have relieved you.”

Yes! Exactly!

It’s the eternal way in Washington: “We are all responsible” means “No one is responsible” means “Don’t hold me responsible.”

Especially when the person saying it really is one of those responsible.

I’m liking Rand Paul a lot right now.

via the Washington Free Beacon

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

#GunControl : Seriously, don’t annoy Mary Katharine Ham

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) made that mistake, flip-flopping repeatedly on 2nd Amendment issues (running for office as pro-guns, now talking about what to ban), and Ms. Ham has had quite enough. An excerpt from right after Manchin proudly proclaims he doesn’t have an “assault weapon:”

Well, as long as Sen. Manchin doesn’t have an “assault weapon” why not just ban them? Because “things the junior senator from West Virginia owns” is the historical guideline our Founders used to determine what products a free people would retain access to. Manchin was the governor of the state of West Virginia, but his home state thankfully escaped his reign without major gun control. The state earns an admirable 4 of a possible 100 points from the Brady Campaign on the gun control scale. I guess Manchin’s conscience couldn’t operate fully on the issue of guns until after he’d used the NRA’s endorsement to get elected, found a national tragedy to demagogue, and found out the Beltway had his back.

Sarcasm and scorn. Because calling someone a “hypocritical opportunist” just doesn’t quite cut to the bone.

(Of course, it would help if I spelled her name right the first time… D’oh!)

World’s greatest deliberative body only got three minutes to read fiscal cliff bill

The 154-page fiscal cliff bill, that is:

The U.S. Senate voted 89-8 to approve legislation to avoid the fiscal cliff despite having only 3 minutes to read the 154-page bill and budget score.

Multiple Senate sources have confirmed to CNSNews.com that senators received the bill at approximately 1:36 AM on Jan. 1, 2013 – a mere three minutes before they voted to approve it at 1:39 AM.

The bill is 154-pages and includes several provisions that are unrelated to the fiscal cliff, including repealing a section of ObamaCare, extending the wind-energy tax credit, and a rum tax subsidy deal for Puerto Rican rum makers.

I ask you, is this any way to run a republic?

Oh well, if they could pull this crap for the thousand-or-so pages of  Obamacare, why the heck not for a mere 154 pages? Heck, I’m surprised they even bothered delivering it to the chamber before passing judgment on it.

So much for the pledge to post bills online for 72 hours before voting.

While the failings of Congress are bipartisan, I lay most of the blame for this particular national embarrassment at the feet of Harry Reid and the Democrats. It’s been known for, what, two years that taxes would go up on January 1st? And we all saw the sequester deadline coming up a year ago. The House sent a bill to the Senate last August to at least buy another year to reach a settlement, but Reid, as per usual, refused to allow a vote and forced matters to wait until the last minute when he knew Republicans would be under heavy pressure to accept a bad deal to avert a catastrophe.

In short, and as the Democrats have done for at least the last ten years, Harry Reid deliberately put his party’s fortune ahead of the nation’s well-being.

“Contemptible” doesn’t begin to describe Harry Reid.

via Doug Powers

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Okay, I’m impressed. This is how you demolish the Democrats’ fiscal cliff narrative

I mean, it’s an all too rare occurrence when a news anchor actually challenges the Democrat script, but when it’s done before a cheering audience, that makes it extra special:

“That’s all you want to do. That’s it. It’s your way or the highway. Raise the rates on the rich. No other way. Your way or the highway. That’s it. That’s where we are. Thank you, Senator.”

That’s how CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo finished her interview with Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) last week as the two went back and forth over the fiscal cliff negotiations in Washington DC. It was the first time a Democrat has really been challenged over their lack of leadership in the negotiations.

Conventional wisdom (and therefore the dominant narrative in the media) focuses on Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans being intransigent and not meeting President Obama and the Democrats for a “balanced approach.” Bartiromo exploded that narrative by challenging Cardin on ANY alternative type of revenue stream that doesn’t include raising tax rates. Cardin would not agree to any of them, thus destroying the idea that Democrats are embracing the “balanced approach.”

“So how come you’re not moving forward? What’s the problem? Because the American people are so tired of this, and they are really tired of the lawmakers thinking that the American people are stupid. You can’t keep coming on the show every week saying the same thing: ‘It’s not a balanced approach.’”

“You’re talking about $1.2 trillion in revenue, but you’re not prepared to put anything on the table. People are not stupid!”

You can read the rest and watch the video at Breitbart. In the background you’ll see floor traders cheering Bartiromo on as she dismantles Cardin. Too bad the rest of the MSM won’t take her lead when confronting Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and the rest of that rapacious crew.

By the way, can someone explain to me how this time-serving tool, Cardin, beat Dan Bongino last month?

via RBPundit

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Liberal senators try to avoid consequences of their vote for Obamacare

Question for Senators Franken, Schumer, Kohl, et al.: If the medical device tax in ObamaCare is such a job killer that even you clowns tried to water it down (opponents of Obamacare were against it altogether), why in God’s name did you vote for it? Why didn’t you use the clout just one of you had as senators –all 60 of you were needed for passage– to have it removed and spare the workers of your states the risk of layoff and the consumers the certainty of higher prices? And what about all the other “job-killing taxes” hidden within Obamacare?

Guess the “historic moment” was too good to pass up, eh?

Chumps:

Sixteen Democratic senators who voted for the Affordable Care Act are asking that one of its fundraising mechanisms, a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices scheduled to take effect January 1, be delayed.  Echoing arguments made by Republicans against Obamacare, the Democratic senators say the levy will cost jobs — in a statement Monday, Sen. Al Franken called it a “job-killing tax” — and also impair American competitiveness in the medical device field.

(…)

The senators, who made the request in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are Franken, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Patty Murray, John Kerry, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Robert Casey, Debbie Stabenow, Barbara Mikulski, Kay Hagan, Herb Kohl, Jeanne Shaheen, and Richard Blumenthal.  All voted for Obamacare.

Two other Democrats, senators-elect Joe Donnelly and Elizabeth Warren, also signed the letter.  Donnelly voted for Obamacare as a member of the House.  Warren was not in Congress at the time.

“The medical technology industry directly employs over 400,000 people in the United States and is responsible for a total of two million skilled manufacturing jobs,” the senators wrote in a December 4 letter to Reid.  “We must do all we can to ensure that our country maintains its global leadership position in the medical technology industry and keeps good jobs here at home.”

If I weren’t a softie and sympathetic toward the victims of your stupidity, I’d say I hope the tax stays right where it is and that you then have to answer to angry voters for it.

Sigh. Long ago, legend has it, Pandora unleashed a wealth of ills on the world by opening a box out of curiosity. The same could be said for Obamacare — after all, we had to pass it to find out what was in it. But maybe, again like Pandora’s box, a small bit of hope for the PPACA’s repeal was also released: With all the taxes unleashed and all the regulations engendered by this abomination, maybe people will become so annoyed and angry and frustrated that they’ll demand its repeal.

We can only hope.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

#MOsen The Senate situation post-Akins fiasco – with a glimmer of hope, even there

So, let’s face it. The mess in Missouri is depressing, with Rep. Todd Akin putting his personal desires ahead of the good of the nation and his party. (1) Most observers expect the next Senate to be closely divided, even if the Republicans do gain control, and that was before Mr. Akins turned what had been an almost sure win into, at the outside best, a toss up with his ignorant comments about rape and biology. As Jim Geraghty wrote in this morning’s Jolt:

In a race where a right-leaning ham sandwich could win, Akin leaves us yearning for the common sense, message discipline, and far-sighted vision of a right-leaning ham sandwich.

With the developments in Missouri, the goal of undoing ObamaCare and the other Democratic legislative and fiscal atrocities seemed more like a fading dream.

Or maybe not. In a later article, Geraghty surveys other Senate races and sees signs of… hope for conservatives?

All they have is Nebraska, where State Senator Deb Fischer holds an 18-point lead over Democrat Bob Kerrey in a seat where incumbent Democrat Ben Nelson is retiring, and North Dakota, where Rick Berg is up 9 on in a seat where incumbent Democrat Kent Conrad is retiring…

and Montana, where Rep. Denny Rehberg has a small but consistent lead over incumbent Jon Tester…

and Wisconsin, where Tommy Thompson has an increasing lead over Tammy Baldwin to fill the Senate seat occupied by the retiring Herb Kohl…

…but they have to make up the likely loss in Maine, where either a Democrat or Democrat-leaning Independent are likely to replace Sen. Olympia Snowe… they need to keep Sen. Scott Brown in office in Massachusetts where the latest poll has him… er, only up by 5…

… and they have to hold Indiana in a presidential year, when Rasmussen has Mourdock slightly ahead… and make sure that Sen. Dean Heller keeps his consistent lead in Nevada…

There’s more, so read it all. Aside from the above, Jim also sees decent-to-good prospects in Connecticut, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. And he fails to mention Maryland, where Dan Bongino is very impressive. If we ignore Missouri and assume Democrat-leaning Independent Angus King wins in Maine, but otherwise run the table, the Republicans could net eight or nine seats. (2) That would put us at 55-56, and leave self-serving squishes like Lisa Murkowski helpless to hold the party caucus hostage by threatening to join the Democrats.

I doubt we’ll win that many, though; the odds are awfully high. But 4-6 seems not unreasonable.

So here’s what we do. Unless Akin comes to his senses and seeks a court’s permission to withdraw (Or switches races? See this Daily Caller article for an intriguing possibility), let’s concentrate our efforts on these other, more promising Senate races. While the loss of a sure thing in Missouri is discouraging, we shouldn’t get permanently depressed. Pick a candidate, volunteer, and donate.

All Senate races are national, and too much is at stake.

PS: If I can toss in a longshot, my own state’s Elizabeth Emken has a chance, albeit a small one, of defeating Democratic incumbent Diane Feinstein. I think she fits California well and would make a good senator. Her position papers are solid, and she is gaining in the polls. But California is a tough, expensive market for a Republican: statewide candidates start off in a registration hole (Democrats have about a 20% edge), and the major media markets are expensive. But it can be done! Elizabeth’s donation page is here. If you’re in a safe Republican state, consider sending a donation our way. Who knows, we just might really steal one from under the Democrats in November.

PPS: Looks like ST and I are on the same wavelength.

Footnotes:
(1) No, I don’t think Akin has a serious chance against McCaskill. If he committed this big a faux pas this early, there are surely more coming.
(2) We’d need at least four, if -gulp!- Obama wins reelection.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

They still don’t read the bleeping bills!

You would think after being embarrassed in front of the nation during the ObamaCare debates by the public revelation that many members don’t read the bills they’re voting on, or aren’t given the time to read them, that Congress might actually start taking the time to read at least major legislation.

You would be very, very foolish:

After blasting the Senate last week for passing a 600-page bill no one had time to read, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced legislation that would force the Senate to give its members one day to read bills for every 20 pages they contain.

“For goodness sakes, this is a 600-page bill. I got it this morning,” Paul said Friday, just before the Senate approved a massive bill extending highway funding, federal flood insurance and low student loans rates.

“Not one member of the Senate will read this bill before we vote on it,” he added.
Paul also introduced related legislation Friday, S. 3359, that would prohibit the inclusion of more than one subject in a single bill.

The highway-flood-student loan bill came up just one day before authorization for highway spending was set to expire, and two days before the interest rate on loans was set to double to 6.8 percent. But Paul said that is no excuse for rushing a bill to the floor without giving senators a chance to learn what’s in it.

He also noted that Senate rules require bills to be held for 48 hours before they receive a vote so members can read them, but said the Senate failed to follow even that minimal rule.

“At the very least, we ought to adhere to our own rules,” he said. “Forty-eight hours is still a challenge to find out everything in here.”

And yet these are the people who write our laws and increasingly govern the minutest details of our lives. 

What was it a sage once said about how one learns what’s in a bill? Oh, yeah…

Along with Senator Paul’s suggestion, I’ve thought all bills, save in an emergency or a national security matter, should be posted for three days on the Internet for public comment. Regardless, I find myself siding with Rand Paul more and more. I may not agree with him much on foreign affairs, but on domestic matters, it’s getting to be “not just yes, but hell, yes!”

via Reason, which has video.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Your daily dose of Marco Rubio

If you’re thoroughly disgusted with Congress (and, if you aren’t you haven’t been paying attention), let me recommend a few minutes of listening to Senator Rubio (R-FL) speak. In this case, it’s on the occasion of the Senate’s recess after voting to accept the debt-limit deal. Sit back and take it in; you may want to have a cigarette ready for afterwards.

You know what I like about him? I mean, aside from being an eloquent patriot with a genuine love for his country and holding the right principles? He has a sense of history, both of the nation and of the institution in which he serves, and he honors those histories, feeling a sense of responsibility toward them. This is a senator who realizes his job is a temporary trust, not a lifetime entitlement. And that is all too rare.

So thank you, Charlie Crist, for being such a lousy candidate, and thank you, Florida voters, for making an infinitely better choice.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Rubio: “Save the whole house, or it will all burn down”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) addressed the Senate two days ago on on the question of raising America’s debt limit, making pointed references to the Democrats’ shifting positions and penchant for name-calling at concerned citizens. Senator Kerry (D-MA) thought he’d be smart and take Rubio on with a couple of questions.

Bad move, John:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: When you watch Marco Rubio, you are looking at a future president.

LINKS: via Fausta, Senator Rubio’s editorial from last March on the debt

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Yet another reason I like Marco Rubio

Leadership and clarity. The Senator from Florida gets it: austerity alone isn’t the answer, though spending cuts and future discipline are essential. The federal government must also do those things necessary to create economic growth, which will in turn create jobs and the revenue the government needs to pay down the debt — without raising taxes.

Leadership and clarity, my friends:

I so look forward to voting for Marco Rubio, someday

Whether 2016, 2020, 2024 or beyond, Senator Rubio has “president” written all over him. The following is from remarks he gave in the Senate a couple of days ago in conjunction with Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire.

Rubio rightfully focuses on creating the conditions necessary to job creation as the best and only wise way to raise the revenue the government needs, along with the need to restore sanity to spending. And he righteously calls out the Democrats for offering “ideas” that are obviously bad, just to please their base in a game of cheap politics.

Twenty minutes long, and well worth your time:

Here’s a transcript of the key passage, courtesy of The Weekly Standard:

We don’t need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. That’s what we should be focused on, and that’s what we’re not focused on.

You look at all these taxes being proposed, and here’s what I say. I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue number one in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they’re proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax. How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax I heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires the president talks about? I want to know: How many jobs do they create?

Emphasis added. Yeah, baby! 

RELATED: Previous posts on Marco Rubio.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Gunwalker: ATF head to tell all?

Well, this could get very interesting. Instead of resigning in disgrace and going away quietly so that everything could be swept under the carpet, Acting ATF Director Ken Melson has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a deal between Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA):

The head of the embattled federal agency that combats gun trafficking has agreed to talk with Senate investigators, a potentially important breakthrough as Congress tries to determine whether higher-ups in the Obama administration knew about a controversial sting that let assault weapons flow across the border into Mexico’s drug wars.

The testimony — expected next month from Kenneth Melson, the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — was brokered as part of a deal between Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and the committee’s top Republican, Iowa’s Charles Grassley. Grassley and his fellow Republicans were given full access to ATF documents, Melson, and other key witnesses; and in return, Grassley agreed to release three Obama administration nominees he had been blocking, according to correspondence obtained by Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

So, is Melson the new John Dean, or is this a prelude to being the fall-guy? At Pajamas Media, Bob Owens considers five possibilities:

1. Melson falls on his sword.
2. Melson implicates the head of the DoJ Criminal Division, who signed off on a Gunwalker wiretap.
3. Melson implicates Attorney General Holder, himself.
4. Melson also names Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano.
5. Melson does the “full Dean” and implicates Obama.

For various reasons, Bob considers numbers two and three the most likely, leading to the resignation or even impeachment of the officials involved. Be sure to read the piece to find out why. Going a step further, Howard Nemerov makes a plausible argument that Holder and other officials could be charged as accessories before and after the fact to federal crimes.

Regardless, Melson’s forthcoming testimony promises some summer fireworks.

RELATED: Background on Gunwalker.

UPDATE: Welcome Hot Air readers!.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Rand Paul: good debut

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul made his first speech in the Senate a couple of days ago, and his thoughts on when and where to compromise on an issue were quite well-considered…

…and quite colorful. I wonder if he’ll get thwacked for “violent rhetoric?”

While I doubt I’ll often agree with him on foreign policy*, his stance on reducing the debt and deficit as a matter of principle for the good of the nation, and thus something that cannot be compromised on, is one to cheer**.

If this is any indication, I think it’s going to be fun watching this freshman class of senators and representatives make their mark on Washington. I don’t get the feeling they went there just to be back-benchers.

*Because “big-L” libertarians like Paul tend to be doctrinaire non-interventionists foreign policy, something I consider naive and shortsighted.

**As long as he doesn’t pull a bowie knife.