Pelosi wants to cut the Repubs of at the knee's

[chefdennis]

So we have a 2 party system why? So much for working together as osamaba sayes he will do.........

Pelosi Erases Gingrich's Long-Standing Fairness Rules

by Connie Hair
01/05/2009

Pelosi Reverses House Fairness Rules - HUMAN EVENTS

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes -- which may be voted on today -- will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.

After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.

Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.


Below is the text of the letter on which the House Republican leadership has signed off.

January 5, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.

President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.

As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.

The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.

This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.

Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.

Sincerely,

(A copy of the letter with signatures will be available on HUMAN EVENTS later today.)

 

[chefdennis]

A friend of mine who is a bit, well i'll say well versed in this type of garbage had this reply. I 'd take credit for it, bit he said it sooo much better then i can.

This was expected and the tyranny of the Marxist Left will suffer no other allegiances or challenges to their permanent supremacy of power that they are just now beginning to solidify.

Think Nazis folks (National Socialists).

Think Mussolini's blackshirts.

Think Soviet union.

Combine all three and you have a better idea of what Pelosi/Reid and the One are implementing here.

They will NEVER AGAIN allow any opposition to their ideology have a seat in Congress or the White House.

The Socialist coup has been completed.

Now the solidification of permanent power is underway.

And you voted for it America.


This move by Pelosi simply illustrates the FACT - that there is no longer a political or peaceful means to oppose the tyranny of this government.

Liberty and death, or slavery and servitude folks.

Make your choice. It's the only liberty you now have left.

 

[Turtle]

You know what the difference is between Gingrich's rules and in Pelosi re-writing them? Nothing. In the House, a simple majority rules, and whoever has the majority can write the rules in any way they see fit. Gingrich and the Republicans did it, but that certainly wasn't the first time that it happened. Pelosi and the Democrats will do it again, and it won't be the last time that the House Rules are rewritten. Last time the Democrats did it, it cost them dearly, and is what put Gingrich in the position to rewrite them again.

Now after bailouts galore, two failed wars and a whole host of other problems that fell under the watch of the Republicans, the Democrats are now once again in the position of having the majority. And if history is any indicator at all, they will, absolutely, abuse that power, and it will eventually cost them dearly. Then the rules will be rewritten all over again. And so it goes.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Turtle.......two failed wars? Is that Bosnia and Somolia?

Iraq looks pretty good but Aphghanistan we'll lose just as the Russians did.

 

[layoutshooter]

What two wars? No military experiance again. Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, all of it is a part of WW4. Just a Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia etc were theater of operations of the 3rd WW. Make no mistake, this IS a global conflict. I would much rather fight it on thier shores than ours. But, what do I know. I just rant and rave. I am old and out of touch. Gee, maybe I should have been a "Stay Wasted College Geek". Then I would know something too. Then I could be President and pick idiots to protect the country too. Layoutshooter

 

[Tennesseahawk]

To give Obama a little credit, here are a few other presidents who've had no foreign relations experience before taking office: W, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Kennedy, Truman, FDR.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I can't remember any of the candidates that had the total package...

 

[Tennesseahawk]

The only ones who do were vice presidents. Even then, they screw up too (LBJ).

 

[dodgeboy]

But, what do I know. I just rant and rave. I am old and out of touch.

Correction sir. You are an old retired coot! Carry on chaps. lol

 

[dodgeboy]

To post in response to the great turtle's post. "Absolute power absolutely corrupts!" Make no mistake about it. The Dems will dig their own grave if they over-step their constitutional limitations! The American people are changing corrupt policitians across political lines these days more often than an expediter gets his oil changed at Wally-World. The current political climate in DC. reminds me of what happens when things go to sheet in the expediting world. It would appear that our politicians are playing musical chairs "much in the same way that some of us on the road play musical carriers!" But the only problem for them is "the American people" are the ones who are in control of the music! Oop's it looks like somebodys going to lose a senate seat real soon!! Just order youselves up a nice large pepperoni pizza, then proceed to bash you some retired drivers because freight has slowed some, and just sit back and enjoy the political fiasco of 09; because It's going to be one superb dog and pony show, and I wouldn't miss it for anything in the whole wide world.

 

[layoutshooter]

If you read that list of Presidents with no experiance it makes the point, they were all major screw ups. Obama has a chance to be a horrible as Carter was. His intelligence service picks prove that. Like I said in another post, I gave Carter a "F" on forgien policy, military affairs and intelligence issues. Obama is stating off with a "F-" Picking Leon Penneatta is proof positive that Obama 'taint got a clue. Whoever is handling Obama is pushing this country in a VERY dangerous direction. The C.I.A. and the intell services in general should not be political footballs. They are far too important. Remember one thing, while being VERY expensive, properlly run intell services can prevent war. Fighting a war is always more expensive that avoiding them. Carter and Clinton did not believe this and it is the very reason we are in the mess we are today. While it is the Presidents right to pick a new head for C.I.A., it is his responsibility to pick someone who is qualified. This pick is not even close to being qualified, proof in my mind that Obama is not qualified either. Layoutshooter

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Dodge... yes, the election will correct the reign of the Dems; but by then the damage will have been done.

Layout... how would you rate Reagan - who also had no foreign policy experience? Like I said, only VPs will go in with any experience in that area. Personally, I think Obama is willing to learn from the mistakes of the past, and he won't be nearly as bad as Carter. He's smart enough to know that lowering taxes on businesses and individuals (his NEW policy) will bolster the economy, even if he plans on raising taxes to kill that golden goose later.

 

[layoutshooter]

Reagan got my second highest mark for Presidents in my life time, a "C+" Dwight D. I gave a "B-" Reagan was able to pull it off because he was a manager and not a ruler. He knew how to pick smart people and then had the sense to let them do thier jobs and listen to them. You have more faith in Obama than I do. I believe he is a shill for somebody, that he is a bought and paid for polititition. His pick for the head of C.I.A. proves that the Dumbecrats have learned nothing since Carter or Clinton. They are at best a bunch of stary eyed dreamers that believe in the Coca-Cola theroy of global affairs. (I'd like the give the world a Coke etc etc) At worst they are trying to insure that we are no longer a world power. They are doing everything in thier power to castrate this country. They lust only for thier own power and the good of the nation is not a priority for them. I don't understand what everyone see's in this "Man" that they elected. He has no real world experiance in anything. A professional student. No real work backround, no business backround and a very sick view of this nation and it's attributes. He hangs around with Marxist traitors (William Ayers) and that alone would dis-qualify him from getting a Top Secret Security Clearence if he went to get one without being elected. He is a serious threat to the Nations Security. Frankly, I would not want him for dog catcher let alone trust my life to him. I truely hope that I am wrong, time will tell, but I was a very good analyst in my day, the vast majority of my calls back then were correct and I had way less to go on than I do for this call. Layoutshooter

 

[chefdennis]

Layout wrote:

I believe he is a shill for somebody, that he is a bought and paid for polititition.

Layout, as far as I am concerned, you are "RIGHT ON" with that statement. He is bought and paid for and is nothing but a socilist that is simply here as a "pawn to be used as instructed".

Take a look at this and WATCH THE VIDEO:

Wednesday, January 07, 2009
WorldNetDaily

Kissinger: Obama primed to create 'New World Order'

Policy guru says global upheaval presents 'great opportunity'

Posted: January 06, 2009
9:07 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
Kissinger: Obama primed to create 'New World Order'

According to Henry Kissinger, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former secretary of state under President Nixon, conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of "a New World Order."

Kissinger has long been an integral figure in U.S. foreign policy, holding positions in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. Author of over a dozen books on foreign policy, Kissinger was also named by President Bush as the chairman of the Sept. 11 investigatory commission.

Kissinger made the remark in an interview with CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" hosts Mark Haines and Erin Burnett at the New York Stock Exchange, after Burnett asked him what international conflict would define the Obama administration's foreign policy.

Read "Hope of the Wicked," where author Ted Flynn reveals the greatest deception in modern history – corporations, foundations and governments converging to bring about a New World Order.

"The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously," Kissinger responded. "You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can't really say there is one problem, that it's the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It's a great opportunity, it isn't just a crisis."

Kissinger's comments are captured at roughly the two-minute mark of the following video:

WATCH THIS VIDEO COMPLETELY:

YouTube - New Kissinger NWO : New World Order & Obama Worship

The phrase 'new world order' traces back at least as far as 1940, when author H.G. Wells used it as the title of a book about a socialist, unified, one-world government. The phrase has also been linked to American presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, whose work on establishing the League of Nations pioneered the concept of international government bodies, and to the first President Bush, who used it in a 1989 speech.

"A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment," said Bush before a joint session of Congress. "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: A new era … in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony."

The phrase "New World Order" causes alarm for many Americans, particularly those concerned about an international governing body trumping U.S. sovereignty or those that interpret biblical prophecy to foretell the establishment of a one-world government as key to the rise of the Antichrist. Conspiracy theorists, too, have latched on to the phrase, concerned that powerful financial or government figures are secretly plotting to rule the world.

Kissinger's ties to government and international powers – as well as his use of the phrase – have made him suspect in the eyes of many who are wary of what "new world order" might actually mean.

"There is a need for a new world order," Kissinger told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose last year, "I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system."

As WND reported, Kissinger was also part of last year's super-secret Bilderberg Group, an organization of powerful international elites, including government, business, academic and journalistic representatives, that has convened annually since 1954.

According to sources that have penetrated the high-security meetings, the Bilderberg meetings emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.

CNBC's Haines concluded the Kissinger interview by asking, "Are you confident about the people President-elect Obama has chosen to surround him?"

Kissinger replied, "He has appointed an extraordinarily able group of people in both the international and financial fields."

*Added by Chef Dennis from another article on this topic that I will post as soon as i confirm it.

* Kissinger is also part of the Bilderberg Group which allegedly emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.

 

[chefdennis]

Ok this is the other article, it is from a blog, but it seems to be just the bloggers take on the above article in fact it makes reference to that articles author. I didn't include the viedo beacuse the link is above.

I am simply adding it because I referenced this article with my addiontion about kissenger.

Oh and one other thing, if you are a christain, and anyine else for that matter, the blog reference is a pretty good place to visit...

Kissinger: Barack Obama Primed To Create ‘New World Order’ End Times Prophetic, Prophecy, Visions, Dreams, Revelation, Christian Blog

Henry Kissinger says:

“The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously… … “You have India, Pakistan; you have the jihadist movement. So he can’t really say there is one problem, that it’s the most important one. But he can give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”

Drew Zahn, reports here -

“… According to Henry Kissinger, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former secretary of state under President Nixon, conflicts across the globe and an international respect for Barack Obama have created the perfect setting for establishment of “a New World Order.”

{In 1989 President Bush said …]

“A new partnership of nations has begun, and we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment,” said Bush before a joint session of Congress. “Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: A new era … in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.”

“There is a need for a new world order,” Kissinger told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose last year, “I think that at the end of this administration, with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order – because people looking in the abyss, even in the Islamic world, have to conclude that at some point, ordered expectations must return under a different system.”

Kissinger is also part of the Bilderberg Group which allegedly emphasize a globalist agenda and promote the idea that the notion of national sovereignty is antiquated and regressive.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I agree with everything you said. However, if Obama lowers corporate tax rates for a year or two, at least we can ride the wave for that long. Granted, libs can't stand watching the market succeed. And that's why the cuts won't be a long term thing, IMO.

 

[BillChaffey]

I thought "Hulk Hogan" & "Razor Ramone" were the New World Order. As far as qualifications, George Bush the first couldnt find his way out of a closet with 4 doors, and he was CIA Director.

 

[layoutshooter]

Bush 1 had a few short comings but at least he did no gut our ability to defend ourselfs. He should not have raised taxes and should have gone into Bagdad during the first Gulf War. That is what happens when you listen to Global oppinion and cease to do what's best for this country. He was way to socialist as well, just as his son is. Most or all of our polititions are socialists. We have not had a true conseritive (for lack of a better term) as President in my lifetime. Now we have gone far beyond socialist and straight in to a pure Marxist. Layoutshooter

 

[dodgeboy]

Bush 1 had a few short comings but at least he did no gut our ability to defend ourselfs. He

Layoutshooter

Bush Sr. was the one who began to cut our military budget. He thought that having a large standing man army was not economically feasable. So he cut military funding, closed bases, and promoted the National Guard. Why would you house and feed soldiers when there is no actual conflict going on? You don't! You create a large reserve of National Guardsman who can be called up at a moments notice and use them only when you need them. That's why the clinton administration presided over a huge projected budget surplus because he continued to down on government spending. As i've said many times before "Bill Clinton was the best republican president we ever had!" He even cut the welfare roles while he was in office; imagine that! Clinton just continued with some of the changes that were started by Bush Sr.

 

[layoutshooter]

Dodgeboy, you are correct, up to a point. Bush 1 did start a draw down of military forces. There were base closings but they were obsolete bases that really no longer had a use. He, like many others, believed that we would be better served with a smaller standing force and beefed up reserves and National Guard. His cuts were not very deep and included plans to greatly increase the resorces available to the intell services. He believed, as do I, that intelligence is the key to protecting the nation. With good intell wars can be prevented. As expensive as the intell services are they are cheaper than fighting a war. Clinton on the other hand was an idiot. The first programs he cancelled were the counter-terrorism sites, the one I worked at was included on that round of cuts. He believed that the intellegence services were a waste of money. He really believed that with the Cold War (WW3) over the world was safe. What ever small stuff could be dealt with using deplomacy. Another program that he cut was the launch of a intell satillite. It was a 15 BILLION dollar bird that was already built. The ground sites, computers, software and personnel were already in place. He thought that the hold thing was a waste and would not spend the 10 Million on a launch vehical. I was involed with the design of that bird and the ground processing equipment. That bird would have freed up older birds to increase our counter-terrorism capabilities. That bird and all the equipment just rotted away. The loss was over 30 Billion and the return on that loss was 9/11. Yea, he was a good one alright. I hold Clinton 100% responsible for what happened on 9/11. There many other policy move by that jerk that further hammpered our capabilities. Obama is starting off the same way. He too will cause deaths as Slick Willy did. It is a real shame that the people are told such lies by our news media and polititions. They are perfectly happy to accept the loss of life to retain thier power. You, and most American's, don't really want to know the truth about what happened and how bad things can really be. If we did as a Nation, we would fire EVERY exsisting elected member of our government, both Dumbecrat and Rebumlican, and start over. I fear it is too late. Layoutshooter,