LANSING - Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, threw a fake Astroturf “tea party” Tuesday, but the only problem was he chose the Senate Judiciary Committee to do it, and six other Senators had to hear the drivel usually spouted at the fake “tea parties.”
With a boatload of meaningful Legislation the Senate Republicans could take up, like the budget, the workplace smoking ban many people have been clamoring for, laws to make voting easier that has bipartisan support and were passed in the House or the unemployment bills that will give Michigan families running out of unemployment access to $140 million in federal funds. Instead, the committee wasted almost two hours on a pair of resolutions that mean absolutely nothing.
The Judiciary Committee approved - there was no reason to vote against them - Senate Resolution 17 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 4. Both resolutions “affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
This has been a rallying point for extremist right-wingers since the militia was widespread back in the mid 1990s; it’s no coincidence they are back.
The sponsor- Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, - said it was a no-brainer. He was right. This was simply playing to the base.
“There is nothing to debate,” he said. “All this does is remind us of what we already agreed to.”
I agree. So, why did we waste two hours listing to extremist Republicans rail against the Democratic administration and crap about “state’s rights?”
Representatives of rightwing extremist groups tramped up to the microphone one after another to read their talking points. We heard from groups like the rightwing Republican Washington, D.C. lobbying group and think tank Americans for Prosperity - the people behind the “tea parties” and disrupting town hall meetings - something called the “campaign for liberty” and even a rightwing blogger who said she helped organize the fake tea party in Lansing.
The hearing raised more questions that were answered. Like where were these people railing about the federal government when George Bush was shredding the Constitution?
Where were these people when Bush conned Americans into a useless war that did nothing but endangered this country?
Where were these people when Bush violated the separation of powers with the signing statements that said he wasn’t going to uphold the law?
Where were these people when Bush was spying on American citizens?
Where were these people when Bush was dictating what we had to teach with no dime left for any child program?
Where were these people when Bush was blowing the cover of undercover CIA agents?
Where were these people when Bush was politicizing the U.S. Justice Department?
Where were these people when Bush was giving no bid contracts to his cronies in Iraq?
Where were these people when Bush was giving out bank bailouts?
We even got a long, rambling speech from former extremist Republican State Representative Jack Hoogendyk, a board member of Michigan AFP and a candidate for just about every office in Michigan.
“The first 10 amendments were therefore added to include the ancient, unalienable rights of Anglo-Saxon freemen so there could be no question as to the strictly limited authority the people were conferring on their central government,” he said.
In an earlier time in this country, the states used the 10th amendment to justify repressive and immoral policies, including slavery, to secede from the union, to deny African-Americans the right to vote and southern states invoked it as a barrier to enforcement of the 14th Amendment and to justify segregation and Jim Crow.
13 comments:
What? People have been disrupting "tow" hall meetings? That's outrageous.
And President Bush "coned" Americans? How many? Why didn't the press cover that? It sounds disgusting.
So your argument is that you can't have an opinion unless you criticized a previous administration? How many of the Democrats who criticized the Iraq War found time to mention the lies told by Lyndon Johnson to get us into Vietnam? Let's see, we lost about 50,000 Americans in Vietnam. But that was a Democrat, so it's okay.
Thanks for pointing out the typo, brett.
That is correct, brett. Bush conned Americans. All of them, including the conservative, corporate media.
No, my argument is not that you can't have an opinion unless you criticized a previous administration? My argument is that you can’t attack the current administration for doing what the past administration actually did.
You’re bringing up Vietnam? Many Democrats who criticized the Iraq fiasco were too young and some were not even alive during Vietnam. Republican Dick Nixon was also elected because he had a “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War, yet more servicemen were killed under his watch in Vietnam than any other President. That war was a mistake, but the press did it’s job and it didn’t make the country less safe like Iraq.
Maybe there was a reason Johnson didn’t run for a second term.
OK. I'll get more current. Let's praise Hillary Clinton for her outspoken criticism of the Iraqi War....oh, wait, she supported it.
You won't believe me, but I voted for Barack Obama, largely because of his early opposition to the invasion.
Clinton took the coward's way out. She didn't want to oppose the war in case it turned out to be popular, so she hedged her bet. Then later she came out against it, with the excuse that she had been fooled by Bush. So she is dumber than Bush. That's something to be proud of.
The Bush administration failed us miserably, and they were aided by chicken-shit Democrats.
By the way, could you explain how Bush "coned" Americans? It sounds kinky.
A lot of people supported the Iraq invasion, and that was because Bush constantly linked 9/11 to Iraq and Saddam and he used someone with the credibility of Colin Powell – the only person in that administration with any credibility - to sell the weapons of mass destruction myth.
No, I don’t believe you, brett.
Nice try on blaming the Republicans’ failures on Democrats. No one is buying it.
You are so clever, brett. Too bad you’re not that clever when you are trying to prove your arguments.
Are you now saying that Hillary thought that Saddam was linked to 9/11. She's conniving and manipulative, but she's not stupid.
I'm not trying to dismiss Republican responsibility. They were horrible. But I'm trying to say that Democrats also bear a lot of the blame.
You don't have to believe me. I know who I voted for. Because we live in my version of a democracy...and not yours...I'm allowed to freely vote in the way I wish to. You can blather all you want; doesn't change the truth.
There were, by the way, reasons to suspect weapons of mass destruction. And many people, including Saddam's generals, thought he was going to use them. Saddam wanted people to think he had them.
The mistake...the lie that Bush team told...was using WMD in once breath and nuclear bomb in the other. Recall the infamous line: We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. The team was right to suspect WMD, but Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, et. al would use the accepatably founded fear of WMD but then make it sound like Saddam was going to drop a nuke on us. Remember, Saddam poisoned his own countrymen...the Kurds. So it was possible that he had and would use WMD, such as chemicals. But he was never a clear and present threat to our nation...which means we were violating a sovereign state, albeit one run by a heinous dictator. We had no justification to invade. Worse, we essentially ignored Afghanistan and we now face huge threat there and in Pakistan.
I blame Republicans first and foremost for that, which is why I voted for Obama. (I'm not a blind partisan like you are. I have a brain, which I use to make choices.) But I also hold Dems accountable for failing to have the guts to stand up to the mistake. And especially Hillary who put her own personal ambition ahead of the nation's well-being. She's a terrible person...one with no sense of justice and integrity; a congenital liar. One who, if you recall, makes up stories about evading enemy fire in a plane taking corkscrew maneuvers. With her lack of morals, she would have fit right in with the Cheney gang.
Now that these people are in charge, I'm paying more attention to them.
No, what I’m saying is Bush cooked the intelligence and public opinion to fit a goal. “She's conniving and manipulative?” Based on what? She’s successful?
You can vote any way you wish; I don’t have any control over that. But I’m skeptical of an anonymous coward who makes disgusting accusations like you routinely do. I guess in your book the buck doesn’t stop at the President’s desk. The Iraq mess belongs to Bush no matter how hard you try and spin it.
There may have been reason to believe there were WMD’s, but there was no way to deliver it. Plus, he had to make up stuff to sell the nuclear threat. Ask Joe Wilson. The weapons inspectors were proving there were no WMDs, so Bush had to get them out ASAP.
I’m not a “blind partisan” either, but the Republican Party stands for nothing right now.
Talk about blind partnership. Hilleary Clinton is an intelligent, capable woman with integrity, honor and principals.
I have no idea what this has to do with the Senate Republicans using a committee meeting to throw a fake tea party.
You must be mentally ill. You argue with me by taking a position that I've already staked out.
I specifically laid the responsibility for the Iraq invasion with Bush and his team. I not only criticized what they did, I said they used a lie to justify the invasion. And you argue the point by saying...exactly the same thing.
But you ignore the role that Democrats like Hillary played. She's conniving because she cast the vote for the specific reason of protecting her political future...never mind the lives of American men and women, or the future of our nation for that matter. Is she successful? Of course. George Bush was successful. So what?
Actually, I was talking about Hillary Clinton, not Hilleary Clinton.
Her story about dodging bullets on a Kosovo airstrip was a lie and her defense of it was even more of a lie. She is, as a columnist said, a pathological liar. (She also said her daughter was jogging near the Twin Towers on 9/11...another self-serving lie. What's so scary about it, is that she tells lies that are not only whoppers but easily disproved. That's someone who is on such a power trip that she feels it is true merely because she says it is true. Kind of like you. Either that or she's deranged. Kind of like you.
You won't answer this because you have no answer. How do you defend or explain a lie like that?
Thanks for the compliments, brett.
Not true, brett. You’re are trying to drag the Democrats into Bush’s fiasco called Iraq, and it’s his and his alone.
“The role of Hillary?” She bought into the scam like many people. She cast the vote to protect her political future? What a bunch of crap. If she votes against the fiasco, you would accuse her of ignoring the will of the people.
That’s what you’re hammering her for? She was mistaken where her adult daughter was in NYC during an attack and she was mistaken about a landing in a war zone? And I’m deranged and mentally ill? Again, I appreciate the compliments, but it’s just not true, brett.
She was not mistaken about "landing in a war zone."
She was mistaken...in that she lied.. when she said she came under enemy fire; that the plane had to take corkscrew maneuvers to avoid enemy fire; that a tarmac welcoming reception was scuttled so that she and her party could run to safety. All of which were lies...there are plenty of videos showing her laughing and standing with small children at the airport. Sinbad the comedian was on the trip and he said she was full of crap...as did all news accounts and all videos. She later said she was "mistaken" but that she was tired when she said she was dodging bullets. That's bullshit...you don't forget and "mis-state" something like that...plus, she repeated it numerous times. She must be tired a lot.
Her daughter was in NYC during the attack but she was not jogging nor was she anywhere near the towers. The story was fine with the truth, but the truth wasn't exciting enough for Hillary, so she embellished it.
Are you saying that Hillary didn't know that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11? Her vote was a calculated political gambit to protect her ass when she ran for president. Even liberals say that, but they forgive her, I guess.
Her lies about Kosovo were given so she could have credibility in foreign affairs. But the fact that she had to make things up shows that she had no credibility. Just like she made up the fact that she played a role in brokering peace in Northern Ireland...yet none of the parties in Ireland, Britain or the United States seem to recall her having a role at all.
The Iraq War responsibility does belong to Bush. But Democrats voted for it. They don't shoulder the responsibility that he does, but they still have responsibility for their votes.
I don't find it unusual that you can't comprehend that concept.
One exaggeration or mistake. The fact is it was a war zone, and how would Sinbad know the flight path of a military aircraft?
“Her lies about Kosovo were given so she could have credibility in foreign affairs?” She already had that.
The Iraq fiasco belongs to Bush and Bush alone. Their votes were based on the facts they had; the facts the White House manipulated, spun and withheld.
I don't find it unusual that you can't comprehend that concept.
I don't find it unusual that you can't accept the concept of truth, integrity and accountability.
You think Sinbad wouldn't know if he was being shot at? You think he wouldn't know if they skipped a ceremoney on the tarmac and sprinted for cover?
Fact is, he didn't know that because they never happened...but that's what your sainted Hillary said happened. (Check out the YouTube clips of Hillary laughing with a young girl on the tarmac...that's when she supposedly was running for cover, ducking bullets. The liar.)
It wasn't a question of knowing the plane's flight plan. She said the plane had to take corkscrew maneuvers to avoid enemy fire. False. She said they had to run for cover upon landing. False. She said a ceremony on the runway was cancelled because of the danger. False.
Since you won't admit Hillary lies, it sheds light on your claim that you don't lie. You won't admit to obvious lies, which mean you never admit to your own lies.
Try this: Explain how someone supposedly as bright as Hillary could have concocted a whopper like that. What's really amazing is that Bill isn't even the biggest liar in his own family.
What foreign policy experience? She was making up stories in Kosovo and she made up stories in Ireland.
Post a Comment