SnakeRiverLib

Guess what?  Democrats are deficit hawks! So, I guess there should have been a warning. Since you are reading, I assume that you have been treated for shock and have been revived. The President proposed some bold action regarding taxes.  Not nearly as strong as I would have done, but very significant.  He did not offer any offsets to  "pay"  for them.  They will be partially paid for by increased growth in the economy.  Here is my question.  Who's money is it?  Maybe it would  take a large reduction in revenue to spur the spending cuts that are needed, regardless of whether we cut taxes or not. When Congress raised taxes, did they ask whether or not  WE  could afford it?  No, and it is because the government doesn't think it is your money.  All  Democrats in Congress as well as many Republicans all seem to look at it that way.  So here is the test, to see if your politician is posturing.  Also, the same test can be applied to any media, whether the face on telev

This is something that should bother everyone.  Doubtful. Ever since the 1960s, we have heard a bunch of BS about "separation of church and state" .   These would be "scholars" and even Supreme Court Justices, who have sworn oaths to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, go on and on about a Thomas Jefferson letter regarding the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment.  Here is the amendment:  Note that the words "Separation of church and state" do not appear in it. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What they don't understand is that Thomas Jefferson had NOTHING to do with the Constitution.  He would probably have said that the Articles of Confederation would not have allowed the Convention to begin w

Here is my prediction.  April 19, 2017.  If we are using substantially the same tax forms next winter, the Rep ublicans will probably lose the House and Senate.  I say probably, as there is no accounting the apathy of the American people. How many days is Congress in session this month?  If you guessed 9, you would be right.  But no worries, just a week away from a lapse of funding for the government. The GOP has proven to be serial hypocrites when it comes to healthcare.  When President Obama was in office, they passed through the House, and the Senate, a clean repeal of the economy killing Obamacare.  Moderates, Conservatives, all voted on it.  In the Senate, even the left of center GOP members voted for it.  Why won't they do that now?  Because it is possible that the President might actually sign it.  that is why. Border crossings are down, deportations are up.  And by deportations, I am not talking about counting those turned away at the border, like the previous adminis

Today, the Republicans did the right thing, and put things back to pre-2003.  Prior to 2003, judges were not filibustered.  The only one that came close was Abe Fortas back in the 60s, and it was to be a bipartisan filibuster, due to ethical issues.  The fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg got on the Court with a 96-3 vote speaks to the willingness of Republicans to allow a nominee that was well qualified, even though she was about as hard left as is possible, while still pretending to be "unbiased" Which brings us to 2003.  What is special about that year?  Republicans held a narrow lead in the Senate, W was president.  In 2001, W nominated Miguel Estrada to the DC Circuit.  So for nearly two years, Democrats sat on the nomination.  Miguel Estrada was a brilliant immigrant from Honduras, ( I thought Dems loved immigrants, oh, wait, he was legal, never mind).  He had served as a US Attorney, and as the Associate Solicitor General under Bush 41.  So, now, with a majority, Republ

The pretense used by progressives and Muslims the world over regarding relations with the West, is that if only Israel would let the Palestinians have their own country there would be peace.  For the better part of the 1990s and 2000s, Israel bent over backwards, offered, more than once, their own state.  They vacated Gaza, and ceded control completely to Hamas. The Palestinians pretended to want peace.  What did Israel get for all of this? Palestinians who hate Israel, do not acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and would do anything to eliminate Israel.  How is that for meeting half way? So why do I mention Israel, and in what context am I using it? Progressives in this country (including the "unbiased" media) are still in denial about Trump winning.  Note, that I say progressives , and not Democrats.  That is important.  So they are pretending that if it really did happen, they can't understand that the American people would vote this way.  Gee, I don't k

Having done a review of the last several decades of Senate votes, I would like to make one thing clear. Those who bemoan the potential of the Senate becoming a 6 year House, I would just say this:  This happened because of the Seventeenth Amendment.  It is the natural outcome of that change.  It is ridiculous to say that the filibuster is some hallowed tradition.  If the Senate still functioned as it should, then maybe I give you that.  But it doesn't.  And it won't.  If the Senate goes nuclear on this nominee, then no longer will a President be able to get through any nominee if the opposition party has the majority in the Senate. This past election should tell people a lot about what has happened to our Republic.  By consolidating more and more power in Washington, it allows DC to dictate to states, regardless of political persuasion.  For years, flyover country has been dissed by DC.  Red states have been shafted by federal mandates.  The left has loved it.  They have lo