Ted Cruz on how Senate should handle Schumer's 'judicial intimidation' ~ Fox News Video

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz joins 'Fox & Friends' to discuss the government's coronavirus response and Sen. Chuck Schumer's 'unacceptable' comments directed at Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Before Schumer's threats to two Supreme Court Justices were discussed, the conversation began with the actions that President Trump has taken to limit the Covid-19 virus (Coronavirus) infections and deaths in the United States. Sen. Cruz (R-TX) tells the Fox & Friends hosts, Steve and Ainsley, that when President Trump froze civilian air travel to and from China, along with screening and quarantine of travelers coming from China and other areas affected by the virus, very early in the outbreak, that it played a major role in limiting the spread of Covid-19 in the United States.

Then the subject of Sen. Chuck Schumer comes up. While the Senate Minority Leader was clearly intimidating two Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, in front of the Supreme Court, Senator Cruz seemed to go easy on what the punishment would be, when asked by Ainsley Earhardt. Censure of Schumer? Is that all you have, Senator Cruz? It's a federal crime to threaten and intimidate federal officials, isn't it?

If that wasn't disturbing enough, there were people in the Schumer clip holding up signs that read, "Protecting Abortion Access is a Catholic Value," and in small letters at the bottom of the sign, "Catholics For Choice." It is hard for me to even believe any Christian would not value LIFE as a choice! I am praying that those people do not represent a very large percentage of the Catholic church. However, right now, if I was a Catholic, I'd be looking for another Christian denomination, or place to attend church, if the Catholic hierarchy, all the way up to the Pope, doesn't condemn that organization, and excommunicate them.

The Democrats' 'nuclear option' ~ By Henry Lamb

Thank God for Henry Lamb, because he has shown in this column something that probably few people would have known, or believed, just how hypocritical the Democrats are! The good thing is that we now have a written record of what Senate Democrats said five years ago about using the "nuclear option" when the Republicans had the majority in the United States Senate. Now look! Gee, those words spoken by then Senators Obama, Biden and Clinton, must not have been very sincere, apparently.

It seems to show the Democrats for what they really are. If they do use the "nuclear option" to pass health care reform, doesn't that say they could care less about what the Founders gave us in the Constitution, and that they honestly could care less about this country? Should anyone be at all surprised if the Republicans regain the majority in the Senate in 2010 or 2012?

The Marxist majority in Washington is determined to take control over health care. They want it all, now. If they can't get it all, they will take whatever they can get now, and come back and back and back again, until they get the entire economy under government control. This is the obvious goal of this administration and of the Democrat leadership. This end justifies any means for these people.


For the rest of the people, this means an end to the arrogance of Democratic power in November.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: March 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

A few years ago, the Democrats were in the minority in Washington. They took great delight in using the 60-vote filibuster rule to prevent President Bush's judicial nominations from ever coming to the floor for a vote. The Republicans threatened to change the rules so judicial nominations and presidential appointees could get approved or rejected with a simple majority vote. Democrats went absolutely ballistic. The threat was dubbed "The nuclear option."

Dianne Feinstein said:

If the nuclear option is successful, it will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments. And then, legislation. (Senate chamber May 18, 2005)

Then-Sen. Obama said:

A change in the Senate rules would change the character of the Senate forever. And what I worry about would be that you would essentially still have two chambers in the House and the Senate, but you would have, simply, majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the founders intended. (National Press Club, April 25, 2005)

It's a different story now that the Democrats are the majority party. Now, however, the issue is not simply whether judicial nominees and presidential appointments should require 51 or 60 votes. The issue now is bypassing the filibuster rule so that the health-care system – 17 percent of the entire economy – can be handed over to the government by a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes required by the current filibuster rules.

Five years ago, Democrats believed that bypassing the filibuster would destroy the government.

Five years ago, Sen. Schumer believed:

We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option.

Then-Sen. Joe Biden said:

The nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab. I say to my friends on the Republican side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. And I pray God that when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing. (Senate chamber, May 23, 2005)

What irony. If the Democrats proceed with their version of the nuclear option, it will be none other than Joe Biden who will make it happen. As president of the Senate, he is the only person who can overrule the parliamentarian who will have to recommend the removal of all policy matters from the bill. There's wisdom in the old adage "Be careful what you pray for."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Democrats 'plan to steal the vote'

From WorldNetDaily

If you thought health-care bill was scary, check out universal-registration scheme By Chelsea Schilling Posted: January 13, 2010 ~ 5:43 pm Eastern © 2010 WorldNetDaily A political correspondent is making waves with his stern warning that Democrats are scheming to manipulate the electoral process this election year by implementing a federal mandate to involuntarily register millions of people to vote – making the system ripe for unprecedented fraud and abuse. "Democrats were very rattled by the Nov. 3 election results," Wall Street Journal reporter and political commentator John Fund told a crowd in November 2009, at a David Horowitz Freedom Center forum. "What do liberals do when they lose elections? They change the rules." 'Definitely introducing a bill' Fund is warning that Sen. Charles Schumer, D.-N.Y., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., plan to propose universal voter-registration legislation – possibly within weeks. "Schumer is definitely introducing a bill," Fund told WND. "It's not public yet, but he's definitely going to do so." A congressional staffer confirmed Schumer's involvement. "What we know from statements from advocacy groups that support universal voter registration is that they have been working with Sen. Schumer's office since approximately last spring to create a bill," the staffer told WND. "We don't know exactly when he will introduce it, but it has been predicted to be introduced in the near future for several months now. Schumer definitely has been, and seems to be, the point person on this." Neither Schumer's office nor Conyers' office has returned WND's numerous calls and e-mails requesting comment. While Schumer has yet to publicly share the plans, the staffer said advocacy groups have published materials calling for the use of a wide range of government lists and databases to add people to voter registration rolls. Fund said the health-care reform negotiations are lasting longer than expected, so he anticipates the universal voter registration legislation may be introduced in February or later. The congressional staffer said he believes a bill passed this year would probably take effect in time for the 2012 election. READ FULL STORY >

Liberal love for tyrants ~ By Burt Prelutsky

From WorldNetDaily

By Burt Prelutsky Posted: October 30, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Back when I was a kid, the two major fears in America revolved around polio and communism. Because the first disease was so prevalent and so often fatal prior to the miraculous cures wrought by Dr. Albert Sabin and Dr. Jonas Salk, neither of whom managed to garner a Nobel Prize for their heroic efforts, children were kept out of public swimming pools and were discouraged from having too much physical activity. It's a wonder that our entire generation didn't grow up to be hypochondriacs because if you were even slightly fatigued or had an aching back or a stiff neck, anguished parents started measuring you for an iron lung. The second disease, communism, created its own form of hysteria. During the late '40s and early '50s, we had A-bomb drills in public schools. We grammar-school kids were led to believe that in case the Russians hit L.A. with an atomic bomb, we would be safe so long as we dropped to the floor and huddled beneath our desks with our hands clasped tightly behind our necks. As everyone knows, there's nothing better than tiny hands to ward off the effects of atomic radiation. To this day, I wonder who came up with that particular brainstorm. On the off-chance that the Russkies elected not to vaporize us, a lot of people were convinced that the plan to prevent tooth decay by introducing fluoride into our reservoirs was a Commie plot. The fluoride, we were warned, would turn our brains to mush and make us easy prey for the Soviet Menace. It's taken about 60 years, but I am now convinced that the scaremongers were right. How else to explain American liberals except by accepting that the Commies contaminated our water supply? The fact that most Americans haven't turned into brain-dead zombies muttering "hope … change … hope … change" like those scary creatures in horror movies only goes to prove that people have different tolerances to tainted water, just as they do to alcohol, various viruses and Barack Obama's voice. I mean, seriously, when Obama, during the campaign, spoke about judging him by the people he surrounded himself with, he pointed to Richard Lugar, Joe Biden and Warren Buffett, while drawing the curtain on Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi. These days, though, he surrounds himself with such visitors from a strange planet as Van Jones, Kevin Jennings and Cass Sunstein. I'm just wondering if it's still OK for us to judge him by his associates. The MSM likened Obama to Abe Lincoln. I guess their confusion was caused by both men being skinny and from Illinois. One major, rather obvious difference, though, is that Lincoln waged a war to preserve the Union. Obama, on the other hand, would go to war to preserve such unions as the SEIU and the UAW. Liberals get all in a tizzy when they're accused of hypocrisy, but it's hard to escape the fact that while arguing for the redistribution of wealth, you never see such kazillionaires as George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Charles Schumer or John Kerry redistributing any of theirs or even paying a penny more in taxes than is absolutely required. And, as we discovered when he was putting his administration together, Obama's friends and colleagues quite often try to avoid paying any taxes at all. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]