Stopping the EPA's aggression

Now that the GOP has taken over the House of Representatives, and will most likely take over the Senate in 2012, they appear to be gearing up to reign in the EPA's aggression by using a rarely used law called the the Congressional Review Act. The CRA was created in 1996 that allows Congress to veto regulatory changes that were created in the Executive branch agencies, such as the EPA.

According to GOP lawmakers, they intend to turn the EPA on its ear to include using the CRA. It allows the GOP to do an end run on democrats, because it allows them to skip Senate filibusters; which means that the GOP doesn't have to negotiate with Harry Reid to bring a vote to the floor to secure a 60 vote majority.

Due to the historic upset in the House, it's likely that some democrat lawmakers may support the GOP's efforts in curtailing the EPA's contentious regulations. With a year to go until the next election cycle, many of these democrats are supporting the effort for fear of losing their seats.

Whatever the case is, it seems that GOP lawmakers are prepared to use whatever means necessary to put the out of control EPA on a short leash.

We'll see.

Related stories: GOP plans strategy to stymie EPA

Et tu, Brute: Karl Rove still ain't gettin' it.

Prior to the Delaware primaries, Karl Rove told Sean Hannity that Christine O'donnell was bad for the GOP and couldn't be guaranteed to win in the general elections and Mike Castle was a shoe in. He further stated that her background was 'sketchy' and had a lot to answer for.

For example, Mr. Rove asks: Why did it take her 12 years to pay off a student loan? Why did the IRS come after her?

News flash, Karl! She is one of millions of Americans that struggle to pay off student loans and you blatantly failed to mention that the IRS admitted they made a mistake. Ergo, she's an average, everyday American that many others can identify with.

Let's not forget that Karl Rove has earned the moniker of "The Architect", but, part of that moniker was that he created the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, which currently has a stranglehold on the entire country and is bankrupting our economy. He was also the "architect", along with Ted Kennedy, of the failed amnesty bill.

The problem with Mr. Rove is that he is part of the power complex that's currently in power now and it's being threatened with extinction. Needless to say that Mike Castle's voting record says it all and for Mr. Rove to work on his campaign and try to convince the 9/12 Project, as well as Christine O'donnell to drop out of the race and support Castle speaks volumes.

Sour grapes, maybe? I think so and he needs to get over it. His language about her victory is the very thing that pushed her to the finish line. Americans across the country are very angry at the elitist, power hungry politicians that are in there now.

But, he doesn't stop there.

After Christine O'donnell's stunning upset of Mike Castle in Delaware, Mr. Rove bemoans to Hannity:

"I'm for the Republican, but I got to tell you, we were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We are now looking at seven to eight in my opinion. This is not a race we're going to be able to win."

He still ain't gettin' it. He's putting party over principle and that's exactly what Americans are sick and tired of. He further whines:

Hannity: "You may be right in the end, I don't know. We can look into our crystal ball and can say things. I would argue back to you gently that I don't think we can make progress in stopping the Obama agenda with rhino Republicans that, you know are not going to be there when the solid votes are needed."

Rove: "I agree. But we also can't make progress if we have candidates who got serious character problems, who cause ordinary voters who are not philosophically aligned with us to not vote for our candidates out of concern of what they said and what they do."

Character problems? Where was this acrimony when Scott Brown and Joe Miller won in their primaries? Why isn't anything being mentioned about Rangel and his 13 ethics charges, yet still won hands down in his district? Character problems, indeed.

Here's the problem. Karl Rove is a strategist and right now he's feeling the heat from millions of pissed off Americans and he isn't liking it. Americans are sick and tired of being lied to and politicians they elect are not listening to the will of the people. He is part of the Republican party that would rather seize control, conservative principles be damned and this is what Americans across the fruited plane are removing from Washington D.C.

Senator Jim DeMint said it eloquently: "I’d Rather Lose Fighting for the Right Cause"

As Julius Caesar was being murdered by members of the senate, he says to his closest confidant: "Et tu Brute?" What's it going to be, Mr. Rove? Are you going to stand behind Christine O'donnell or are you going to sink the knife into her?

Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith Switches To GOP

By JOSH KRAUSHAARPOLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican. According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith's district in northern Alabama. Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010. Read the rest at Politico

Gallup - GOP Surges In The Polls

Republicans Edge Ahead of Democrats for 2010 House Elections, Poll Shows According to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, 48 percent of voters said they would back a Republican, while 44 percent said they would support a Democrat, if the 2010 House elections were held today. Fresh off major Election Day victories in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans got another boost Wednesday with a new Gallup poll that shows registered voters would favor the GOP over Democrats if the 2010 congressional election were held today. The Gallup survey, conducted Nov. 5-8, found that 48 percent of respondents said they would vote for a Republican candidate for Congress, while 44 percent said they would back a Democrat. Independent voters were decidedly stronger in their preference for a Republican candidate, choosing the GOP by a 22 percent margin -- 52 to 30 percent -- according to the survey. Read the rest at FoxNews

Too Little Too Late, Newt

From Newt Gingrich's Facebook page:

The developments in the NY-23 race is both a tribute to the power of the national conservative movement to define an issue and a commentary on the populist anger against politics-as-usual. I endorsed Doug Hoffman Saturday and believe everyone who wants to create jobs with lower taxes and to control spending and deficits should vote for him

It's too little too late, Newt. You showed your true colors when you placed party over principle during your book signing tour.

Gingrich: "Lets just start with, she is the nominee of the local party, my bias is to be for the nominee of the local party, and I don't second guess the local party, she has signed a no tax increase pledge, she is endorsed by the National Rifle Association, she has come out against Cap and Trade, [crosstalk] she is opposed to the Obama Health Care plan, she will vote for John Boehner instead of Nancy Pelosi.

All of those things together make her it seems to me, a legitimate, authentic, Republican nominee. In addition, the last poll that came out yesterday, she is well ahead of, and she is much more likely to beat the Democrat than Hoffman because Hoffman doesn't live in the district, he's never won an election in the district, she represents the biggest county in the district, she actually knows the local issues, and Hoffman has says publicly he doesn't know the local issues..

So I just think it is a mistake for the Conservative movement, to think splitting in the special elections is a smart idea, if we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us...

This is crystal clear, Newt. You would rather place party over principle and we are telling you that we've had enough. If you have any intentions of running in 2012, you can forget it.

An Emergence Of A Third Party? A Political Shot Across The Bow

With the current administration's attempt to "fundamentally transform" this nation and rewriting (destroying) our Constitution, as well as the Republican Party turning its back on their supporters and losing its way, could there be an emergence of a third party?

Watching the campaign in New York's 23rd District, we have seen what the definition of a RINO is, when Dierdre Scozzafava, a democrat in republican's clothing, dropped out an threw her lot in with Bill Owens. What has emerged out of this is a third party candidate, Doug Hoffman who has been running an anti-White House, anti-spending campaign. What some so-called republicans, such as Newt Gingrich, has voiced is one of fear that a third party will reinforce the democrat party by splitting the GOP.

I have two questions for Newt: So what? Have you forgotten what George Washington said? Our Founding Fathers were not stupid and were well aware of the possible issues of our future and constructed our Constitution to address them.

George Washington warned us of the dangers of a two party system in his farewell address:

19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination's. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Why do our nation's leaders constantly ignore our Founding Fathers? A better question to ask is the competence of our leaders in regards to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. I am an average American who has read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to understand why our Founding Fathers felt it was the best way to go for our country.

If Doug Hoffman wins New York's 23rd District race, it will send a shock wave through the White House and send a message to our politicians, republicans in particular that there is no such thing as a "moderate" republican, and his win will be a political shot across the bow that we have had enough of political party over the will of the people.

Someone once asked me what the difference is between a republican and a Conservative. I replied that the two are like a coyote and a Labrador Retriever; they are of the same species, but of a different breed.

Sources:

Third Party Candidates Shake Up Local Races, Send Warning Ahead of 2010

Fiasco: N.Y. Republicans deliver again

Third-Party Challenges in N.J., N.Y. a Warning Sign

Base sends GOP warning shot in NY-23

Huckabee Leads In The Polls

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Republican voters nationwide say former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is their pick to represent the GOP in the 2012 Presidential campaign. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 24% prefer former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney while 18% would cast their vote for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Read the rest at Rasmussen Reports

Pelosi Key To GOP Victory During Mid-Terms?

WASHINGTON -- Republicans are stepping up attacks on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, deciding that a major part of their 2010 electoral strategy will be linking Democratic candidates to her.The approach emerged last week when the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, issued a statement saying it hopes Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, puts Pelosi "in her place" on Afghan policy. The statement accused Pelosi, a California Democrat, of putting party politics ahead of national security in her cautious statements on expanding the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. Read the rest at FoxNews