Credibility Crisis: the truth shutdown

Two terms come to mind with the ongoing government shutdown: lying and credibility.

What we have today is a National Credibility Crisis. Democrats will not talk now but claim if you just open government they will sit down and discuss it civilly.

But the problem is that we the people have been lied to for years and going back decades. It’s so bad some of us can’t remember a time when politicians were not lying to us.

Democrats are willing, no eager, to negotiate with Asaad, Iran, ayatollahs, Castro, Russia; but they cannot negotiate with the POTUS or Donald Trump. They cannot even negotiate on or talk about one of their first duties: to protect and defend the country.

What “ineffective remedies,” like a wall or barriers? But Chuck will not tell us what is ineffective about the wall? It works where it is used and has been proven effective. The border patrol and professionals all agree that it is necessary.

The same Democrats voted for it multiple times. Schumer owes the people an explanation since he is staking our security on it, and disrupting our Government over it.

The unfortunate and “unattainable position” is the chronic state of lying to the people. Chuck and Nancy managed to consistently maintain that schizophrenic position for years and years. It’s akin to negotiating with Kathy Bates or Hannibal Lecter.

But it really reminds me of Whimpy from Popeye claiming I’ll gladly discuss paying you tomorrow if you open the government today. People don’t buy it and it’s old.

If they cannot talk now, why should we think they would talk if government is opened? What person could believe that? And whenever they do “talk,” they lie anyway.

Why would they do so earnestly with any credibility in this case? Their main objective thus far has been to lie. They are professionals at it, practicing for years.

Deception is Democrats’ game. They never meant to secure the borders. They never intended to go along with the fence, barriers or anything else. They will promise this or that, if they have to, and then promptly refuse to ante up. So what good is their word?

This is a Credibility Crisis that is also a border crisis. Those who caused and encouraged it refuse to negotiate on a solution to it. Who is indeed holding this country hostage?

Even worse, Democrats care more for the plight of illegal aliens than they do about the government, which is their holy grail. They will put that Government on the line to serve and protect illegals and an open border agenda. It is Democrats’ credibility deficit.

Right Ring | Bullright

Schumer recruiting Trump

Cheesy Chuck Schumer declared that the only way Democrats could work with Trump is if he abandons his Republican base and joins Democrats, instead.

Well, I guess he already forgot who won the election. See their idea of bipartisanship?

Take note McCain — it is going to get increasingly lonely on his pedestal. But then he probably already made that choice.

Politics of Big-Government, Schumer style

 

Schumer Calls for Using IRS to Curtail Tea Party Activities

Democratic senator says Obama should bypass Congress, use executive powers

BY: Alana Goodman | Free Beacon
January 23, 2014 5:38 pm

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) proposed using the Internal Revenue Service to curtail Tea Party group funding during a speech on how to “exploit” and “weaken” the movement at the Center for American Progress on Thursday.

Arguing that Tea Party groups have a financial advantage after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, Schumer said the Obama administration should bypass Congress and institute new campaign finance rules through the IRS.

“It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies—we must redouble those efforts immediately,” Schumer said.

“One of the great advantages the Tea Party has is the huge holes in our campaign finance laws created [by] the ill advised decision [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission],” Schumer said. “Obviously the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.”

The Obama administration proposed new IRS restrictions on campaign related activity by tax-exempt groups last November. The rules would crack down on “candidate-related political activity,” which includes advocacy “for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party” and communications that are “made within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) and clearly identify a candidate or political party.”

Last May, the IRS admitted to singling out Tea Party groups for increased scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. The scandal forced the resignations of IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and director of Tax Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner.

Schumer was one of several Democratic senators who sent a letter in 2012 calling on the IRS to investigate tax-exempt groups for allegedly engaging in political campaign activity. He was also the architect of the 2010 DISCLOSE Act, legislation targeting the Citizens United ruling that failed to pass Congress. Senate Democrats introduced a similar bill in 2012.

Schumer also proposed electoral reform in his speech. “Our very electoral structure has been rigged to favor Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries,” he said.

He argued that this is due to the political makeup of primary voters and gerrymandering by Republicans who “draw districts where a Democrat could never be elected.”

Schumer recommended a primary system “where all voters, members of every party, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a run-off.”

The senator claimed there was a divide between what he called “Tea Party elites”—namely, the Koch brothers—who support small government policies, and the “Tea Party followers,” who support government programs such as Medicare and public education.

He said the small government mantra espoused by Tea Party leaders is the “core weakness of the Tea Party, and one we can exploit to turn American politics around to the benefit of our nation.”

According to Schumer, many Tea Party supporters are drawn to the movement because of their concerns about a changing country that “white Anglo-Saxon men are not exclusively running” anymore.

“The Tea Party rank-and-file know it’s a different America,” said Schumer. “It looks different; it prays different; it works different. This is unsettling and angering to some.”

He also compared the Tea Party to the Prohibition movement, and argued that its policies were “the route of the Know-Nothings, Prohibitionists, Father Coughlins, and the Huey Longs, towards anger, negativity and even hatred.”

Schumer’s speech comes at a time when both the Tea Party and President Barack Obama are facing record-low approval ratings.

Just 30 percent of Americans view the Tea Party favorably, according to a Gallup poll released last month, while 51 percent view the movement unfavorably.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s job approval rating has plummeted to 43 percent on the heels of the botched Obamacare rollout, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. His disapproval rating is also 51 percent.

The political world that Schumer is obsessed over, however real, is one where groups of people organized albeit loosely might have an affect on the political process.  To combat that preconception, he calls for the government tentacles to take a more aggressive and active roll in politics than they already do. 

The solution is direct government politicking. More than even arbiters,  he sees government advocacy on behalf of Democrats as righteous. Yes, have government bureaucracy clearly advocating for one political Party if not individual politicians. He envisions a country where an activist government must assure partisan election  results – controlling the strings of power.

That is nothing new for big-government Democrats, just that now they can so openly advocate it rather than conspiring in back rooms to pursue it. The hypocrisy of his position is so obvious but that never stopped the Democrats before. So why not use their favorite government agencies to affect elections? They use it for anything else politically related.

And do it through executive authority. What’s wrong with that? They do all the other stuff with executive power. Between EPA, the DoJ, and the IRS, and stacked courts, with a president willing and able to use his pen to legislate, they can accomplish a myriad of items in their agenda.

But then he never sees government running errant of its duties out of reach for career politicos to exploit in their favor.  They see that as the purpose of government rather than representing the people, it derives its power from. It’s a formula completely inverted from the visions of the founders but that matters not to them nor does their hypocrisy. The problem is always the unbridled freedom of the people. Must stop that.

RightRing | Bullright