How our great nation has been saddled with the bizarre, truly strange individuals we have in Congressional leadership – on both sides of the aisle – ranks right up there with Bigfoot, Area 51, and other mysteries of our time.
Ryan is every bit the radical that Obama is, except he’s got an “R” next to his name. He was for TARP and all the other wild spending after the crash – most of it thrown down a rat hole. He presented a “conservative” budget that was all the fancy around town that increased spending and grew big government, and was a crony capitalist’s dream. That’s all bad enough.
But his views on immigration, American identity, nationhood and internationalism are truly frightening. With the equally radical Democrat, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill) looking on with pride, Breitbart News has run a series of videos (here is one) of Ryan in 2013 that should disqualify this man from any position, much less one that is third in line to the Presidency.
Ryan extols a vision of a border-less America, where American citizens have to fight for their jobs with – this is not a joke – anyone in the world! No borders, no immigration quotas; a free-for-all where any company can hire anyone for any job – regardless of where they go to get that person.
And now, King Ryan has told House Republicans that if they want him as Speaker that they must submit to his four demands, set aside their own constituents’ best interests, and not rock the boat. It’s like high school.
But, Ryan has his supporters, perhaps enough to pull this off. Our own Northern Virginia Representative, self-identified conservative, “Amnesty” Barbara Comstock, gives Ryan the thumbs up. But not for substantive, constitutional reasons.
We need a new law: Mandatory Rorschach tests and remedial “Constitution 101” classes for anyone running for Congress.
18 comments
Mr Giere!
Who was your choice for Speaker out of curiosity?
Michael,
I forgot to mention the House Freedom Caucus support his nomination as well.
BTW-What makes you Michael the kingpin on conservative issues?
Michael,
In all due respect, Ryan will make an outstanding Speaker of the House. In regards to your comments about Ms Comstock you seem to have a strong angst against any woman who doesn’t agree with your stance on the issues. Your obsession with calling her ” Amnesty Barb” with no substantiated evidence to back that clam is childish on your part.
“But, Ryan has his supporters, perhaps enough to pull this off. Our own Northern Virginia Representative, self-identified conservative, “Amnesty” Barbara Comstock, gives Ryan the thumbs up. But not for substantive, constitutional reasons.”—— FREEDOM CAUCUS GIVES RYAN THE THUMBS UP…… ANYTHING ON THIS????
The Freedom Caucus caved after Ryan met with them Weds. evening and made a bunch of commitments that I believe he has no intent on keeping. They gave him a super majority vote while withholding the committee’s formal nomination from him, a meaningless act since this gives him the vote count to assume the role if he wants it. If they believe this provides them cover from the view of grassroots conservatives they are more foolish then I regard them to be first place, regardless the last of the “young guns” is thrust forward by the Republican establishment.
In my opinion this will likely guarantee at least five outcomes: 1) an amnesty bill pushed through Congress for 11M plus current illegial aliens by Q1 of 2017, if not before; 2) an open work visa program further impacting American worker employment opportunities; 3) a continuous disintegration of the Republican Party’s voter base; 4) a return to aggressive deficit spending and check box debt approval increases; 5) a major boost to the securing of the Republican presidential nonmination by Donald Trump. As Bobby Jindal has said in the past the stupid party has struck again.
Really.
1) Amnesty, I doubt it. Maybe a feasible pathway and actual reforms to gain legal citizenship. NOT a replay of Reagan’s Amnesty. and besides don’t we tout the economy for 10 years post Reagan.
2) Shouldn’t we invite Visa programs that allows us to register Aliens and tax them? Visas don’t give much rights.
3) The leading obstructionist caucus that claims to be the “base” supports him, it’s their job to convince the voters.
4) why would a guy who prides himself on responsible spending just start spending? remember “throwing Grandma off the cliff”??
5) Why?? because the Radio hosts that were all about Ryan in ’12 will turn on him now for Trump??
1) His 2014 plan, that was never brought forward due to Cantor’s primary loss, was amnesty if you want to use avoidance language like “feasible pathway” feel free but no one is being fooled anymore,
2) The foreign employment Visa process was ALWAYS intended to backfill shortages in primarily the tech area NOT as an expense headcount reduction technique for large corporations like Goggle, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook and others, and certainly NOT if available US citizens are capable to fill these openings as is the case today.
3) I would like to understand the answer to this one myself.
4) FYI he was the individual along with Murray and the Ryan/Murray budget bill that broke the 2013 Sequestration and reintroduced pork back into the budgeting process, no one else.
5) I expect Ryan’s leadership will eventually see a reversion to Boehnerism and that certainly isn’t going to soothe the anti establishment grievances that propel a large extent of the attraction to Trump’s candidacy and poll strength rather it will fuel it.
We will see who is correct and who is not over the next 12-18 months, we can compare notes then
You’re not one of the populists who don’t think there should be a pathway legal citizenship are you?
No, I believe in a legal, constitutionally based immigration policy taking into consideration the needs of the existing citizenship, something we clearly don’t have in place today.
So immigration reform. Good you’re on the same page as Ryan
Hardly, Ryan’s positions are much closer to Democrat Representative Luis Gutierrez’s, who he recently toured the country with regarding immigration reform and those of former Sen. Edward Kennedy and current President Barrack Obama, that advocate a more open border, extended family based policy, then individual based immigration rule of law. A constitutional approach would be based on just such US Congressional based legislation which clearly stands in clear juxtaposition to any reliance on broadly interpreted immigration Executive Order’s to justify our current US policy immigration actions. I don’t have an axe to grind here, I’m not so sure about you.
I don’t, just curious, been asking everyone.
Real quick, what is a constitutional solution
I do not want him. He’s beyond arrogant in his approach to the Speakership. We have enough arrogance and elitism in Washington.
He doesn’t want the job, has clearly stated so on numerous occasions despite establishment political and media arm twisting for him to reconsider, so rather then just holding a press conference and stating unequivocally “NO”, he instead makes a set of outrageous demands regarding the time he is willing to put into the leadership role, as well as requiring a commitment to revoke the change in the process for motion to “vacate the chair” authored by America’s Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. He undoubtedly realizes that these are outrageous demands that he doesn’t expect to be granted by the House Freedom Caucus or any constitutionally based elected official, but they do provide a topic and opportunity for the House establishment to continue their smear campaigns both on the floor and in the media when they are rejected. What Paul Ryan is truly lacking is the one thing he has never possessed “character”. Just say no Ryan and get off the soapbox your media proclaimed stature is rapidly shrinking before our eyes.
considering Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written the “vacate the chair” rule is not actually a Constitutional debate. It was written by Jefferson to organize the rules.
“The House of Representatives formally incorporated Jefferson’s Manual into its rules in 1837, stipulating that the manual “should govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the standing rules and order of the House and the joint rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives.” Since then, the House has regularly printed an abridged version of the Manual in its publication entitled Constitution, Jefferson’s Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives. [1]
Jefferson’s Manual was based on notes Jefferson took while studying parliamentary procedure at the College of William and Mary.[2] A second edition with added material by Jefferson was printed in 1812.”
Yes I realized that he was in France, I was unclear in my comment, but thank you for the further clarification on the manual’s history in the House.
That was as much to the writer as to you.