What a Nutbag!

Obama applauds Reid for filibuster overhaul, critics warn move will 'damage' Senate

   President Obama, openly expressing his frustration with Senate Republicans, applauded Majority Leader Harry Reid's success Thursday at invoking the so-called "nuclear option" as Democrats voted to strip the minority party of its primary power to block nominations -- the filibuster. 
Obama, even invoking former President Bush, said it's critical to "change the way that Washington is doing business."
But Republicans and even some Democrats warned that the Senate may have just opened a Pandora's box -- and with little debate, approved a change that could haunt the chamber for years to come.
"This was nothing more than a power grab," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.
In a rapid-fire set of developments on Thursday, the Senate narrowly approved a rule change that would limit the ability of the minority party to block key presidential appointments. Instead of needing 60 votes to break a filibuster, Democrats will now need only 51.
Speaking Thursday from the White House briefing room, Obama said the change was needed to deal with Republicans' "unprecedented pattern of obstruction." He cited the record of George W. Bush, claiming his predecessor had an easier time getting nominees confirmed.
Obama cited, among other stand-offs, the bid by Republicans to filibuster his nomination of Chuck Hagel, a former GOP senator, for Defense secretary.
"For the sake of future generations, we can't let it become normal," he said.
Republicans, though, argued that while it took Bush an average of 211 days to get a nominee confirmed, it's taken Obama 228 days -- just 17 days more. Judicial nomination statistics show that Obama has a confirmation percentage of 76 percent -- though majority leaders have had to try to break a filibuster far more in the last five years than in recent decades.
Following the vote Thursday, even some Democrats emerged as tough critics of the decision.
While Republicans were furious that their ability to hold up appointments had been scrambled, moderate Democrats were concerned more about how Reid was able to pull off the maneuver.
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., one of three Democrats who opposed the move, said it could "permanently damage" the Senate.
"This institution was designed to protect -- not stamp out -- the voices of the minority," he said.
Reid used what is known in Senate slang as the "nuclear option." To change Senate rules of this kind, it typically takes 67 votes. But Reid used a highly controversial shortcut and did it with just 51 votes.
Retiring Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a prominent and influential moderate, put out a 2,300-word statement explaining in great detail why Reid's action Thursday could cause lasting damage.
"Changing the rules, in violation of the rules, by a simple majority vote is not a one-time action," he warned. "If a Senate majority demonstrates it can make such a change once, there are no rules that bind a majority, and all future majorities will feel free to exercise the same power, not just on judges and executive appointments but on legislation."
Levin argued that the move opened the floodgates for the majority to change important rules on a whim going forward.
"Today, we once again are moving down a destructive path," he said. "Pursuing the nuclear option in this manner removes an important check on majority overreach which is central to our system of government."
Levin made clear that he thinks Republicans were acting irresponsibly by blocking Obama's judicial nominees, and supports getting those nominees an up-or-down vote.
But he said there were other ways for Reid to achieve that, including by forcing GOP foes to stage an old-fashioned filibuster on the floor.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the other Democrat to oppose the rule change.
The filibuster, for better or worse, has been a defining feature of the Senate for decades. While this makes the Senate one of the slowest-moving legislative bodies in the world, it also prevents legislation and appointments from moving too fast.  
The vote on Thursday vastly reduces the power of the minority to stall nominations and makes it easier for federal judges to get lifetime appointments. The move would not affect Supreme Court nominees.
The late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., presented a powerful case against changing the rules back in 2010, when he said doing so would "destroy the uniqueness of this institution."
"In the hands of a tyrannical majority and leadership, that kind of emasculation of the cloture rule would mean that minority rights would cease to exist in the U.S. Senate," he said. Bailey Comment: "This is just another step towards Obama Dictatorship".

The University of Colorado

The University of Colorado, which has a reputation for liberal politics, has banned discrimination based on political affiliation -- giving greater protection to students and faculty who speak their minds while on campus.
The policy is believed to be a first for any public college or university, and could help protect campus conservatives who might fear retribution for expressing their views in the classroom, or in written assignments.
While the measure was sponsored by two Republicans, the change was unanimously passed by the entire Board of Regents.
Regent Sue Sharkey, who spent months working on the policy change, points out: "This just wasn't a Republican or conservative initiative. Rather, we as a board came together as Democrats and Republicans to be unified."
Sharkey says it covers students and faculty, "to ensure... we were honoring their First Amendment rights and they could speak out on their political views and not feel they would be discriminated against based on that."
She recounted hearing stories from members of the campus community who told her about feeling diminished or silenced, unable to comfortably express their views.
The regents have also passed a resolution to conduct a campus survey. The study is expected to take the temperature of the campus climate.
Sharkey explains it "will really take a look at discrimination and how pervasive is it. And rather than having just anecdotal stories from students or faculty, we really want to find out how broad this is."
The school is also home to the Ward Churchill scandal.
Churchill is a former professor who was fired after a protracted legal battle. He infamously referred to victims of the 9/11 attacks as "little Eichmanns" – a reference to the Nazi leader.
Attorney David Lane represented him. Asked for reaction to the anti-discrimination policy change, Lane does not mince words: "Well, I wonder where they were when Ward Churchill needed that protection, frankly.
“It's called the First Amendment ... but I fully support the concept that people should not lose their jobs, their government jobs on a government campus, like the University of Colorado, based on their ideas or their speech. I'm all in favor of that,” he said.
Now if someone feels discriminated against for their political views or affiliation, he or she will be able to file a complaint with the office of non-discrimination and have it investigated.

How low can it go? ObamaCare poll numbers drop -- again

President Obama is struggling to stop the steady slide in public support for his health care law, as yet another poll shows public approval of the law -- and his job performance -- hitting a new low.
The survey from CBS News depicts a startling drop in support for the Affordable Care Act. Approval dropped to 31 percent, down 12 points since October.
According to the poll, the president's approval rating also slipped to 37 percent, from 46 percent just last month.
Both figures represent the lowest of Obama's presidency in CBS polling.
While Republicans are united in their opposition to the health care law, the latest numbers reflect new skepticism among Democrats and independents.
Obama has been facing criticism from his own party for both the failures of HealthCare.gov as well as cancellation notices that have gone out to those on the individual market whose policies did not make the cut under ObamaCare's new standards. The president last week gave insurance companies a one-year extension, allowing them to re-offer those out-of-compliance plans.
But it's unclear how many insurance commissioners and companies will consent, given the difficulties of making the sudden switch after years of planning. The president plans to meet with insurance commissioners on Wednesday afternoon.
The CBS News poll followed a Washington Post-ABC poll that showed Obama's job approval rating at a meager 42 percent -- and his disapproval rating at 55 percent, the worst of his five years in office.
That figure matches the disapproval rating he received in a recent Fox News poll.
Among women, who were some of the president's core supporters during the 2012 campaign, the president is also losing traction. The Washington Post-ABC poll showed just 44 percent of women approve of the job he's doing, while 52 percent disapprove.
Amid the downturn in the numbers, Obama has tried to rally his base -- and his base has tried to rally for him. An email from MoveOn.org went out on Wednesday warning the ObamaCare problems have triggered a "Washington feeding frenzy."
"President Obama is doing all he can to save Obamacare, but he can't do it alone. He needs us to join him and fight back," the email said, appealing for money.
Speaking Wednesday at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council meeting in Washington, Obama noted that nobody in Washington is doing particularly well in the polls right now. Congress is more unpopular than the president, according to most polls.
But Obama stressed that the administration must fix the health care website, and acknowledged some concern over signing up enough people to make the new marketplaces work.
"It's something that we have to pay attention to," Obama said.
The CBS poll of 1,010 adults was conducted Nov. 15-18, and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. Bailey Comment: " Wow! And believe it or not most of these polls come from the far left media "!

Air Force drops 'So Help Me God' from oaths

The Air Force Academy has admitted they removed the phrase “so help me God” from three oaths in the 2012 edition of their official cadet handbook, Fox News has learned.
The revelation came after more than two dozen members of Congress sent a letter to Academy Supt. Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson demanding that she explain why the phrase was removed.
The lawmakers contend the 2012 edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook excludes the phrase ‘so help me God’ in the Cadet’s Oath of allegiance, the Oath of Office for Officers and the Oath of Enlistment.

Air Force Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal told me the omission was a simple mistake.

“The Constitution does not require that this phrase be scrubbed from the oath,” read the letter drafted by Rep. Jim Bridenstein (R-Okla.) and signed by 28 lawmakers. “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion’ however, the inclusion of the phrase ‘so help me God’ in an oath of service does not rise to this level.”
Bridenstein said “editing the oath for all Academy students is extreme and unnecessary, and does a disservice to the countless individuals who wish to include the phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and country.”
Air Force Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal told me the omission was a simple mistake.
“It was an editorial oversight,” he said. “We learned within the last few weeks there was a problem.”
Vidal said there was no reasoning behind the omission and there was no forethought.
“Whoever was doing the editing didn’t catch it,” he said.
He said next year’s edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook will be revised and will include the phrase “so help me God.”
Last month, the Air Force Academy was embroiled in another controversy involving “so help me God” after they decided to make it an optional part of the Honor Oath. The revision was made following a complained from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
The lawmakers directed Johnson to provide information on why changes were made to the Honor Oath and why a poster bearing the words “so help me God” was removed from the Academy.
MRFF President Mikey Weinstein had filed a complaint about the poster. Approximately 68 minutes after he complained, Johnson ordered the art work removed. That decision did not set well with lawmakers.
“We ask that you restore the poster bearing the oath in full to its original location as an honorable reflection of the oath of service,” the lawmakers wrote.
After the Honor Oath was revised, Johnson released a statement affirming the right of Airmen to “freely practice and exercise their religious preference – or not.”
“Here at the Academy, we work to build a culture of dignity and respect,” she stated.
Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said he’s received calls from concerned parents of cadets – lamenting the change in the oaths.
“This phrase is a deeply-rooted American tradition – begun by George Washington as the first president of the United States and now stated by many who take an oath of service to our country,” Crews said. “The removal of this phrase is a disservice to the countless men and women who wish to include this phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and their country.”
And while Crews said he respects the right of cadets not to say the word ‘so help me God’, he pointed out the law requires that the words remain part of the oath.
If that’s the case – why were they removed and who gave the order?
Let’s hope these lawmakers can root out the anti-religious forces that have infiltrated the Air Force Academy. It’s high time someone put a stop to the religious cleansing of the Armed Forces.

Medical Miracle

Pelosi, fellow Democrats jump in to defend president over ObamaCare

California Rep. Nancy Pelosi -- one of President Obama’s most ardent Capitol Hill supporters -- and other Democrats on Sunday defended the president’s handling of ObamaCare amid widespread criticism, particularly his pledge that Americans could keep their health insurance.
“Democrats stand tall in support of the Affordable Care Act,” Pelosi said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
The House minority leader’s comments follow a particularly bruising week for the president and his signature health care law that included the acknowledgement that only 106,000 Americans have so far signed up for ObamaCare, in large part because of the problem-plagued healthcare.gov website.
The report was followed by the president on Thursday qualifying his promise before he signed ObamaCare into law in 2010 that Americans could keep their existing health plans.
“There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate,” he said during a press conference in which he proposed a one-year extension on existing health plans that failed to garner overwhelming support.
Pelosi, the former House speaker, also dismissed questions about fellow Democrats up for reelections in 2014 having to defend ObamaCare to voters back home.
“I don't think you can tell what will happen next year,” she told NBC, adding Democrats nevertheless won’t run from the issue.
Pelosi suggested Republicans will have to answer for their part in the partial government shutdown that she says hurt the economy.
She also downplayed 39 House Democrats voting Friday on a bill to allow insurance companies to continue offering plans that don’t comply with ObamaCare, saying a similar number of them voted on legislation to delay the law’s employer mandate.
New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte said later in the show that ObamaCare is rife with problems, even by the president’s own admission, regardless of what Pelosi might say.
“No matter how Speaker Pelosi tries to spin this, [ObamaCare] is a mess,” she said.
South Carolina Democratic Rep. James Clyburn told CNN's "State of the Union" that most party members who voted in support of the House Republican bill Friday did so to "insulate themselves against sound bites."  
Many of them are in competitive races next year and don’t want GOP challengers to have campaign ads portraying them as unwilling to fix the ObamaCare problem, Clyburn appeared to suggest.
New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told ABC’s “This Week” that Obama can regain the public’s trust.
“Of course he can,” she said.
Gillibrand also said she didn’t feel misled by the president but allowed, “He should have just been more specific.”

2014?