Black Hole Cartoon

Does House Minority Leader Pelosi really hold all of the cards?

In late 2006, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had a decision to make. Democrats had just captured control of the House in the midterm elections and she would soon become the first female speaker of the House.
One question weighing on Pelosi was whether she would maintain her smaller, hodge-podge office suite overlooking the Library of Congress on the east side of the Capitol -- or move into the more commodious digs featuring a vast panorama of the National Mall and Washington Monument on the west side of the building.
Then-House Speaker Denny Hastert, R-Ill., would soon be out the door.
And though Democrats held the House majority for more than 40 years, for the latter half of the 20th century, Democratic speakers -- including the late Sam Rayburn, Texas; Tip O’Neill, Mass.; and Tom Foley, Wash. -- mostly opted for the diminutive offices.
Out of tradition, Democrats ceded the capacious suites to Republicans despite their minority status. The better offices became the Speaker’s Office when the GOP captured the House in the historic 1994 midterms.
Should Pelosi remain in the smaller offices as homage to fellow Democratic speakers? Or should she upgrade to the new suite?
She consulted with O’Neill’s granddaughter, Catlin O’Neill, who at the time was an aide.
“It was sentimental and Catlin said ‘It’s OK. Move the office. The family wants you in the Speaker’s Office,’” Pelosi recounted to the Washington Post in 2007. And so Pelosi abandoned the Democratic rabbit warren on the west side of the building, matriculating to the anchor property on the Capitol’s East Front.
As strange as it may seem, Pelosi may feel a bit like her Democratic predecessors Rayburn, O’Neill and Foley these days. She now inhabits the cramped quarters now reserved for the minority as House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, enjoys the roomier acreage.
But after recent congressional exercises just to pass a bill to avoid a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, one wonders who really commands the most votes in the House now.
The case-in-point came a week ago Friday, hours before the DHS funding would expire. House Republicans insisted on latching a provision onto the spending plan to block President Obama’s immigration executive action. The gambit couldn’t get through the Senate. After multiple failed procedural votes, senators zapped an amended DHS measure back to the House. The new bill funded DHS through September 30 but dropped the immigration provisions.
House Republicans balked and refused the altered bill. Instead, they voted to form a conference committee to work out differences between the bodies. Meanwhile, DHS funding swung in the balance. The Senate mailed the House a three-week DHS spending bill to avoid a shutdown. Some House conservatives protested because the bill lacked the immigration executive order provisos. And Democrats voted no too, preferring a full-year of funding.
With DHS funding set to expire in just seven hours, House Republicans generated 191 yeas for that bill. But 217 yeas are needed these days for passage. With their majority, Republicans can only lose 28 of their own before turning to Democrats. Only 12 Democrats voted aye.
The bill failed.
Democrats were happy to vote yes on a “clean” DHS bill bereft of the immigration policy riders for the rest of the government’s fiscal year, but not for one that limped along for just a few weeks. Pelosi and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., implored their members to vote nay.
“House Republicans have painted themselves into a corner,” said Pelosi at the time. “I’m just saying to the speaker, get a grip. Get a grip on the responsibility we have.”
The vote infuriated Republicans who voted yes. A senior House GOP leadership source said they knew the vote was “going sideways” ahead of time. The source said rank-and-file members were “super-mad” at those who didn’t take one for the team and vote yea, feeling hung out to dry.
Without Democratic assistance, Republicans were cooked. And DHS was defunded in a matter of hours. With Obama’s blessing, Pelosi offered Democratic votes to Boehner to overcome the impasse.
The minority leader then crafted a “Dear Colleague” letter addressed to House Democrats. Pelosi thanked them for their “cooperation” on the failed DHS vote. But this time asked for yeas on a “seven-day patch.” She told Democrats a yes vote would “assure that we will vote for full funding next week.
An hour later, the House voted on the interim spending bill, approving it 357 to 60. A coalition of 183 Republicans and 174 Democrats voted yes. But Democrats were the key. The Department of Homeland Security was funded for a week.
But that wasn’t much time. And Monday night, it became clear that the Senate couldn’t handle the House’s wish to form a conference committee. The Senate prepped to send the “clean” DHS bill back to the House. And that’s when Boehner moved -- knowing Democrats could bail out recalcitrant Republicans and not shutter DHS.
“Imagine if, God forbid, another terrorist attack hits the United States,” said Boehner to House Republicans at a Tuesday morning conclave, according to a source.
Boehner told Republicans he continued to be “outraged and frustrated” at the president’s immigration maneuvers. But he said the decision to forge ahead and fund DHS was “the right one for this team and the right one for the country.”
Maybe so. Not many of Boehner’s members would buy it. And that’s where Pelosi would swoop in. The GOP wouldn’t secure 191 yeas like they did on the three-week spending bill last week. They’d need Democratic assistance. A source suggested the GOP would cobble together a group of Republicans who were either in the leadership, held committees chairmanships, served on the Appropriations Committee or were moderates. Democrats would take up the slack. In early 2013, the House approved a $50 billion aid bill for victims of Hurricane Sandy 241-180. But only 49 GOPers voted yes. Last February, the House voted to raise the debt limit 221-201. A scant 28 yeas came from Republicans with minority Democrats hauling most of the freight.
The House voted 257-167 to fund DHS, but only 75 Republicans voted yes. Again, it was Democrats who largely advanced the measure despite their minority status.
“Our members had the courage to say, ‘I don’t want the government to be shut down. But I’m not falling for this three-week plan,’” trumpeted Pelosi.
Pelosi persuaded her members to hold out for full-year fiscal funding. After several acrimonious days, the House voted for what Pelosi demanded.
So who is really in charge here? Boehner or Pelosi? Especially since big fights await on the debt limit, funding highway construction programs and avoiding a government shutdown in the fall. Democratic votes will be crucial to assist Republicans. Was Pelosi a “de facto speaker?"
“If there’s ever an oxymoron it is ‘de facto speaker.’ You’re either speaker or you’re not,” insisted Pelosi.
But on DHS funding, it was Pelosi who controlled the game. And because of the disarray on the GOP side of the aisle, the bill only passed when Pelosi offered her members to vote for the plan Democrats wanted.
The debate time allocation on the bill reflected internal House fissures. For the standard hour of debate, Republicans received 20 minutes of time, Democrats 20 minutes and opponents 20 minutes. This mirrors the “coalition” approach which appears to be essential to operate the House these days.
“The problem is, I don’t see a path to victory with what (opponents) are looking at,” chirped Rep. Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican and Boehner ally who managed the spending plan for the GOP. “It will lead to a close-down of the Department of Homeland Security and that is not a victory. That is very dangerous.”
Conservatives weren’t quite done with their machinations even as the final bill came to the floor. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., launched a final dilatory maneuver, objecting to the House setting aside an oral reading of the 96-page Senate amendment which struck the immigration provisions. House procedure dictates that all bills and such amendments are read aloud. It’s a vestige from the days before Xerox when there was often only a sole copy of legislation. The only way lawmakers could learn about a bill was to hear its content read from the dais.
Massie required House Reading Clerk Susan Cole to read the amendment for 20 minutes (she stopped once to sip water) before abandoning his protest and allowing the House to consider the Senate changes.
“It’s time to move forward and stop playing these silly games,” said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa. “It is time for the House to move past the corrosive pattern of self-imposed cliffs and shutdowns and get to the work that the American people expect us to address.”
But Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, railed against the GOP’s gambit.
“Since December, the outcome has been baked into the cake,” said Cruz. “Capitulation was the endpoint.”
Soon Congress must wrestle with the onerous issue of reimbursing physicians who treat Medicare patients. A failure to act could slash doctors’ payments by 25 percent. Lawmakers must adopt a budget. The Highway Trust Fund is bankrupt. They must keep the entire government open come October and also raise the debt limit. Each fight increases in level of difficulty. Perhaps the only way Republicans can move major agenda items is to rely on Democrats. This isn’t new. Boehner has had to rely on Democrats to pass almost every major bill since he assumed the speakership -- ranging from the debt ceiling to avoiding a government shutdown.
Pelosi flexed her muscles on the DHS bill and got her way. There could be a repeat of that phenomenon on big votes this year.
On Friday, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew wrote to Congress, saying the government will technically hit the debt ceiling next week. But the general consensus is that lawmakers might not have to move until autumn. Regardless, Lew beseeched “Congress to raise the debt limit as soon as possible.”
Pelosi quickly dashed off a follow-up statement:
“The treasury secretary’s letter is another reminder of the consequences of Republicans’ culture of crisis. There is no reason that the Republican Congress should not act immediately to take the prospect of a catastrophic default off of the table,” said the California Democrat.
If history is our guide, it’s hard to consider a scenario where Democrats aren’t again asked to carry the water on this issue and other issues, in lieu of the GOP majority.
Pelosi’s is certainly no longer the House speaker or a “de facto” speaker. She operates out of the smaller office suite and doesn’t have the power to bring bills to the floor yet the numbers to pass measures with only Democratic votes. Still, there was a time when Tip O’Neill and Tom Foley toiled in that very office while making sure the House trains ran on time. And it’s a circumstance not unlike the one in which Pelosi finds herself now.

UC Irvine reverses American flag ban

The Star-Spangled Banner will once again wave at the University of California, Irvine, after student government leaders nixed a bid to ban the American flag from a campus lobby.
Members of the executive cabinet of the Associated Students of UC Irvine met Saturday in an emergency session to reverse the flag ban.
CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW TODD FOR CONSERVATIVE NEWS AND CONVERSATION
“Our campus is patriotic and proud,” student government President Reza Zomorrodian told me. “We did something right for our campus.”
Zomorrodian, said he was furious that a handful of student legislators pushed through the ban.
“Our campus stands with the flag,” he said.
On March 3, student legislator Matthew Guevara authored a bill to remove the American flag, along with all other flags, from the lobby of a campus building housing their offices. Click here to read my original column.
Guevara said he wanted to make the university a more “culturally inclusive” place by banning Old Glory.
“Designing a culturally inclusive space aims to remove barriers that create undue effort and separation by planning and designing spaces that enable everyone to participate equally and confidentially,” read the resolution.
The student government’s decision created a firestorm of national outrage from alumni, current students and the university’s administration.
“This misguided decision was not endorsed or supported in any way by the campus leadership, the University of California, or the broader student body,” read a statement posted online by the university. “The views of a handful of students passing a resolution do not represent the opinions of the nearly 30,000 students on this campus, and have no influence on the policies and practices of the university.”
They also tweeted a photograph showing the Stars & Stripes were still posted at the taxpayer-funded university.
As for the student government association’s flag, that will be rehoused on Monday, Zomorrodian said.
Guevara and his band of cohorts could not be reached for comment. They aren’t talking publicly and Zomorrodian said he hasn’t been able to locate them. But when he does - he plans on giving them an earful, he said.
Zomorrodian said he was especially offended that they banned the flag because he is a first generation American.
“That’s why the flag is special to me,” he said. “I was born here. My parents came here as immigrants.”
That makes him proud to be an American, and to stand up for the flag.
“This country has been great to our family,” he said.
The university’s administration should also be commended for their swift condemnation of the flag ban. It’s refreshing to see there are still educators who still love the land of the free, the home of the brave.
If nothing else, this episode has shown the nation that the University of California, Irvine has hundreds, if not thousands, of young men and women who love our nation.
I was especially pleased to hear that a member of the university’s ROTC volunteered to stand guard over Old Glory — just in case someone tried to snatch it in the dark of night.
God bless America, friends.

  Matthew Guevara Idiot of the Year.

Ex-Iranian hostages agree with Bibi: Tehran can't be trusted

American Tied Up and in Blindfold.

They dealt with the Iranian regime first-hand more than three decades ago, when it was founded in an act of war against the U.S., and several survivors of the hostage crisis say the idea of the U.S. negotiating with an unrepentant Tehran makes their blood boil.
For 444 days, the 52 Americans were held prisoner in the U.S. Embassy by the student revolutionaries that would help usher in the hard-line Islamic theocracy that remains in place today. Many of the hostage takers and guards held key roles in the Iranian government then and continue in important positions today.
“I think it’s very naive because the Iranians talk out both sides of their mouth,” said Clair Cortland Barnes, 69, of Leland, N.C, who was a 34-year-old communications officer at the time he was taken hostage. “Their actions betray their conversations. Their conversations say one thing and then they do something else.'
“They have an agenda that is to wipe out Israel and take over America,” he added.

“I think it’s very naive because the Iranians talk out both sides of their mouth.”- Clair Cortland Barnes, former Iranian hostage

The U.S., along with the other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council -- Russia, China, United Kingdom and France -- as well as Germany,  are negotiating a deal that could end international sanctions against Iran in return for assurances it will not pursue nuclear weapons. Iran’s history of disguising its pursuit of nuclear weapons, as well as its rhetoric against the U.S., Israel and the West in general, make any deal that comes from the talks suspect, said hostages.
Barnes' sentiment was shared by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who in a speech to the U.S. Congress that he delivered against the wishes of the Obama administration, characterized Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and said the regime has "proven time and again that it cannot be trusted."
“Iran’s regime poses a great threat not only to Israel, but also to the peace of the entire world,” railed Netanyahu, who also said he does not "believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal.”
David Roeder, a former U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel who was attached to the U.S. Embassy when it was overrun by students seeking to overthrow the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran, said the details of the deal that have so far leaked out -- details the U.S. has not confirmed -- make it sound like Iran is being rewarded for bad behavior.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Kathryn Koob, shown at the time she was freed from the US embassy in Iran and recently, says talks with Iran could be constructive. (AP, Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier)

“It doesn’t seem like this is a good deal for the U.S.,” said Roeder, who is now 72 and retired in North Carolina. "It seems as if we are paying a lot of money and not getting much of a return.”
Roeder and other hostages believe they have a right to legal damages from the Iranian assets that are already being released after being frozen for years following the hostage crisis. The former hostages are represented by attorney Thomas Lankford, of Alexandria, Va.
“Most of them were tortured horribly," Lankford said of the hostages. "Even [though some were] soldiers, no war experience can prepare you for what they endured.”
Lankford said Americans who spent more than a year as captives of a regime that remains in place cannot be expected to trust it in negotiations.
“There’s a large degree of mistrust," Lankford said. "It’s hard for many of them to know what’s in those discussions.”
There is more to earning a place at the negotiating table with the U.S. and world powers than simply paying the hostages a settlement, said Donald Cooke, who was the embassy's vice consul when he was taken hostage. Iran must own up to the criminal violence in which the current regime was forged, he said.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Donald Cooke was vice consul at the embassy when students took over, and like others spent 444 days as a hostage.

“If they want to negotiate, they have to deal with the issue of the hostage taking, which the current government is still responsible for," said Cooke, 61, of Maryland. “The Iranian government has to take responsibility or you can't take them seriously in any negotiations.”
Like several of the former hostages, Cooke said he watched the Israeli prime minister's speech with keen interest.
“Benjamin Netanyahu had a good point when he spoke to Congress," Cooke said. "Any negotiation should not be about technical issues. The negotiation should be about changing behavior, and it is not.”
Former U.S. Marine Rodney “Rocky” Sickmann, 57, of St. Louis, was a 22-year-old guarding the embassy in Tehran when his life was changed forever.
"I truly believe that the war on terrorism started on Nov. 4, 1979, when I was a young Marine standing guard at the embassy," he said. "I was only 30 yards away from that fence when they came over it. They used Iranian women as shields when they broke in because they knew we’d stand down.”
Like other survivors, he believes Iran has never answered for its actions.
“They have never been held accountable for what they’ve done to us," Sickmann told FoxNews.com, recounting how he was tied to a chair for days while held by the Iranians. "How do you trust a government that publicly says Israel needs to be eliminated? Anyone should understand why Israel needs to be concerned."
Not all of the surviving hostages believe participating in talks with Iran is a bad idea. Kathryn Koob, who was 41 at the time of the crisis, and was in Tehran serving as director of the Iran-America society, a nonprofit organization established by the U.S. government to strengthen educational and community ties between the two countries, said talking is better that not talking.
“I am glad to see that that is happening,” said Koob, who lives in Waterloo, Iowa, and was one of just two females held hostage by the Iranians. “I think it’s terribly important to engage with all countries in the world, including Iran.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

David Roeder, a former U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel who was attached to the U.S. embassy, says the U.S. can't trust Iran.

The U.S. has not had formal diplomatic relations with Iran since the crisis, but Koob said the talks, along with a thaw in U.S. relations with Cuba, are a heartening sign.
“Diplomacy does not mean agreement,” Koob said. “I think discussion is better than doing nothing. You can’t accomplish anything by not speaking to a country and pretending they’re not there.”

O'Malley emerges in New Hampshire as potential Clinton rival for 2016 but soft sells potential challenge

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is emerging as a potential challenger to Hillary Clinton for the party’s 2016 presidential nomination but appears unwilling, at least for now, to mount a head-on challenge to the front-running Clinton.
O’Malley on Friday night at a Democratic fundraiser in key voting state New Hampshire declined to discuss two Clinton controversies -- donations to the Clinton Foundation and her use of a private email accounts -- much less use them to his political advantage.
“I like Hillary Clinton. I respect Secretary Clinton. I am not here to talk about Secretary Clinton," O’Malley said when asked after his speech about the foundation accepting large donations from foreign countries in the two years since Clinton left her post as secretary of state.
Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have long been supportive of O’Malley, who reportedly got Hillary Clinton’s blessing to run for the White House as far back as 2013.
O’Malley’s speech Friday at the Merrimack County Democrats fundraiser in Concord, N.H., marks his first visit to the state since the midterm elections. He last visited New Hampshire in October to campaign on behalf of Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan, who won re-election.
Clinton, also a former New York senator, has been the presumptive Democratic 2016 presidential nominee since polling started as far back as 2012, though she has yet to announce whether she is running.
With roughly 44 percent of the potential vote, formidable fundraising might and campaign infrastructure, Clinton has essentially cleared the field of potential primary challengers.
The 67-year-old Clinton has so far in speeches largely focused on wage equality for women and helping the middle and lower classes by increasing pay overall.
When O’Malley was asked Friday night how he would distinguish himself from Clinton, he said, “I don’t know. … I don't know what she's proposing as her candidacy.”
On the issue of Clinton using at least one private email account when secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, O’Malley, a former assistant U.S. attorney, said he wasn’t familiar enough with federal regulations to comment.
But he said that all personal emails for Maryland officials are subject to federal Freedom of Information Act requests.
He also said that openness and transparency is the way of the future and that cities and states have embraced this more than the federal government.
Republicans have sought to take advantage of the back-to-back Clinton controversies, with House Republicans saying they will subpoena the roughly 50,000 pages of emails in question.
And political observers say the controversies could create enough space for another Democrat to mount a strong challenge to Clinton.
On Friday, O'Malley did criticize President Obama and attempted to distinguish himself from the party’s torch-bearer.
He criticized the president for not using executive action to raise the federal overtime pay threshold and said reforming federal laws on immigration is necessary for a thriving economy and national security.
People living “in the shadows of society" create an "underground economy," O’Malley said.

WHERE IS FLIGHT 370? One year after tragedy, officials no closer to finding answers

One year ago today, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared as it made its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
The search for the Boeing 777, with 239 passengers and crew on board, has covered almost 1.8 million square miles of the southern Indian Ocean, and has involved 82 aircraft and 84 ships from 26 countries, CBS News reported Saturday.
The search has yielded no signs of the plane -- no wreckage, no life jackets, no flotation devices, no luggage, no human remains.
In January, Malaysia's civil aviation authority reportedly declared passengers and crew on board deceased and officially classified Flight 370's disappearance as "an accident." The families were offered $50,000 per victim.
While the announcement allowed the airline to settle any legal obligations and speed up payments to the families of the victims, many of the families who lost loved ones are angry.
"Despite this complete lack of wreckage found or physical evidence of a catastrophic event, the Malaysian government has officially declared that the airplane crashed, leaving no survivors, and it has ended the rescue phase of the search effort," a group called Voice370, which speaks on behalf of the victims' families, said in a statement issued to the press on Friday, CBS reported. "We do not accept this finding and we will not give up hope until we have definitive proof of what happened to MH370."
According to CBS, four ships continue to search the South Indian Ocean and have covered nearly 45 percent of the target area to date.

"I still call the phone."- Jacqui Gonzales

The one-year anniversary is a difficult time for many victims' families, including Jacqui Gonzales, whose husband of nearly 30 years, Patrick, worked on Flight 370 as an in-flight supervisor.
"A year of no news, no answers and no Patrick," she told CBS. One year later, Gonzales says she still calls Patrick's cellphone.
"I still call the phone," she said. She doesn't hear his voice, "but the recording of his voice mail. His number is still there."
On Saturday, Malaysia's transport minister, Liow Tiong Lai, told the BBC that search teams would continue to look for Flight 370. Liow said he is confident the plane will be found in the southern Indian Ocean.
Still, according to Liow, if the massive undersea search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 turns up nothing by the end of May, the three countries leading the effort will go "back to the drawing board," Malaysia's transport minister said Saturday.
Liow told a small group of foreign reporters on the eve of the anniversary of the plane's disappearance that he remains cautiously optimistic the Boeing 777 is in the area of the southern Indian Ocean where the search is ongoing.
Australian Transport Minister Warren Truss said last week that if the plane isn't found by May, one option is to expand the hunt beyond the current search zone to a wider surrounding area.
Despite the exhaustive search for the plane, which disappeared last March 8, no trace of the jet has been found. Malaysia's government on Jan. 29 formally declared the incident an accident and said all 239 people on board were presumed dead.
"By the end of May, if we still can't find the plane, then we will have to go back to the drawing board," Liow said.
Ships looking for debris from the plane on the ocean floor off the coast of western Australia have so far scoured 44 percent of the 60,000-square-kilometer (23,166-square-mile) area the search has been focused on, Liow said.
In the latest report he received Friday, he said the search team had identified 10 hard objects that still need to be analyzed.
Such findings, which often include trash and cargo containers from passing ships, have been common during the search, and so far no trace of wreckage has been located.
Liow said that Australia, Malaysia and China would meet next month to discuss the next steps in the search. Most of the plane's passengers were Chinese.