The just-concluded Values Voter Summit in Washington D.C. was punctuated by standing ovations. Among them: a few for the President, who spoke decisively but without pugnacity; for Bannon and Gorka, the red-meat guys; for Alveda King, bringing the crowd to its feet to join her in song.

And then there was the one for Steve Scalise.

Months after a gunman’s savage and politically-motivated attack left him near death, Congressman Scalise made his way to the Values Voter podium last Friday to the sound of appreciative cheers. He moved with the aid of crutches, the only visible sign of his injuries. Once at the podium, he spoke in the strong and steady voice of a man eager to get to work.

As House Majority Whip, he has the unenviable task of herding the GOP cats when it’s time for votes on the House floor. HIs position is probably what earned him an invitation to speak at Values Voter. He understands first things first, though. Before he spoke about policy, he spoke about gratitude.

After he was shot, while he was in the hospital, he and his family received countless prayers and good wishes, including messages from people who are not in political harmony with him. That touched him deeply. He understood that the messages were not merely routine.

“You knew that this was an attack on the values of our country….I cannot thank you enough for those prayers and that love.” This from a man who spent three and a half months in a hospital.

He was candid in his speech about the tough times past and to come, as he and his family face long-term challenges arising from his injuries. His candor made his enthusiastic demeanor all the more meaningful. “We have a great and mighty God,” he declared, “and I am a living example of the miracles he can produce.”

Then, and only then, he addressed specific policy initiatives. He said, “I came back with an even sharper focus” on family, friends and America.

He Considers the Pain-Capable Act a victory. That’s the measure to restrict abortions after 20 weeks, the point in pregnancy when science indicates that unborn children can feel pain. Passage of the measure was a near thing. “As Majority Whip, I had to put that coalition together. But we did.” Now, the bill is in the Senate, its prospects uncertain in view of the particular batch of Republicans now serving. “Tell your Senators to pass it,” Scales urged. The President “wants to sign this bill into law.”

The bill includes cutting federal funding to the nations’s largest abortion provider. That gives me pause, as voter who questioned (and still questions) the depth of the President’s roots on the life issues. Scalise has no doubts. “He wants to sign this.”

He’s determined to support the President’s tax reform proposals. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone give a snappier summary and smile while doing it: reduce personal rates; reduce business rates to encourage families to bring jobs back to this country; repeal the death tax, double the child tax credit (now there’s a pro-life initiative).

He did not dwell on the unhappy fate thus far of efforts to repeal Obamacare, beyond saying “let’s not give up fights. President Trump wants these on his desk.”

All this was said in a tone that most other speakers at Values Voters didn’t approach. He was passionate and determined without breathing fire. He didn’t sound as though we were all under siege; in fact he radiated hope, both political and personal.

HIs final words to the crowd, coming after all he has experienced these past months, rang with truth that brought the audience to its feet yet again: “It’s great to be alive.”

Ellen is a New Hampshire writer and pro-life activist. Read more by and about her at ellenkolb.com.

Support independent journalism by making a donation to Da Tech Guy blog. Thank you!

Illinois signBy John Ruberry

On Thursday a federal grand jury indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert for breaking banking laws and lying to FBI agents. Prior to his entry into politics, Hastert was a teacher and a state champion wrestling coach at Yorkville High School 50 miles southwest of Chicago. The charges are rooted in a sexual affair with a male student at that school–the over $1 million the man nicknamed “Coach” in Congress was apparently hush money to keep the man quiet.

Amid the reports of the bombshell Hastert indictment was news that legislation authorizing a $500,000 statue of the former speaker for the grounds of the state capitol was introduced earlier this month by state House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Chicago Democrat who is also chairman of the state party. According to AP, Hastert, citing the ongoing state budget crisis, declined the offer. Or more likely, he saw his indictment on the horizon.

Madigan’s proposed 2016 Illinois budget includes a $4 billion deficit–despite constitutional requirements that the state budget must be balanced. But Madigan, who was arguably the most powerful Democrat in state government even when Illinois had a Democratic governor, somehow found money–or maybe he didn’t–to put the Coach in bronze.

Worse, Illinois’ public worker pensions are unfunded by an astounding $110 billion.

Democrats are not serious about cutting spending in Illinois.

As for Hastert, his speakership was of the Illinois-kind. House Republicans who played Denny’s game were rewarded earmarks–and that reckless spending contributed to the end of the GOP majority in the House in 2006.

The Coach also played footsie with Illinois Democrats–and he was a leader in the bi-partisan graft machine dubbed the Combine by Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass.

So in a way, while Hastert is deserving in a twisted way of the honor of $500,000 statue, preciously scarce taxpayer funds should not be squandered on this monument.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

We are here WE ARE HERE, WE ARE HERE!

Horton Hears a Who 1970

If there is one thing that’s axiomatic on Capital Hill it’s this:  If you want to get the attention of the lobbyists and the various monied interests you need to have power and influence or the prospect of shortly gaining it.

If there is one person who, media attention notwithstanding, has no prospect for power or influence anytime soon, it’s Nancy Pelosi.

With State Legislatures firmly in GOP hands an unpopular lame duck president and John Boehner GOP caucus holding a full 247 members Nancy Pelosi’s relevance on Capitol hill is practically nil.

However power is in many ways a matter of perception and this move by Nancy Pelosi is a clever if desperate attempt to claim it:

“Now that the election is over, Congressman Grimm is finally admitting the truth to his constituents,” Pelosi said in a brief statement on Tuesday morning. “Clearly, Speaker Boehner must insist that Congressman Grimm resign immediately.”

Pelosi’s “demand” has drawn snark from folks from the conservative hideout to Glenn Reynolds noting Pelosi’s hypocrisy but frankly what’s more interesting is her attempt to jump in front of a parade.

She likely figures it’s a low risk no lose move.  When Boehner and the GOP move to remove Grimm from his seat after his guilty plea she will run to the media who will gladly paint her as the person who called for this resignation while at the same time she will note the jabs over her hypocrisy, however accurate, as a sign she still matters and fundraise from a gullible base with them.

And if for some inexplicable reason the GOP doesn’t force Grimm it’s even better.  She has Grimm, convicted of Tax evasion as a club to beat the GOP with for as long as he holds his seat.

How should the GOP proceed?  Substantially if Grimm doesn’t resign on his own the House ethics committee should move to expel him.  Politically if and I should really say “when” the media asks him about Pelosi’s demands he should  say this:

“Like the voters of America I believe Nancy Pelosi’s opinions should have no bearing on how the House of Representatives operates.” 

While such an answer is not only a low-cost way to please his base but it will pay one other dividend.  Such a statement would ill will likely lead to outrage by the lefts allies in both print and television media but it will also give an opportunity for the GOP’s allies on the right to crank out story after story highlighting a truth that no amount of outrage, indignation or spin can alter.

Nancy Pelosi is completely without power on Capitol hill and is likely to remain so for the rest of her life.

The only comment about any Democrat member of the house that any Republican should give is on how little they matter.

********

Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards We are proud to announce that for the 2nd year in in a row DaTechGuy blog is a winner in the Fabulous Fifty Blog awards. This year for best blog improvements We would like to thank our Magnificent Writers whose contributions made this honor possible.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below.

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat) ,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with    and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) also a Fabulous Fifty Blog winner

 

by baldilocksbaldilocks

I’m guilty of many things, but one is talking about race and Things Black too much.

The reputational demise of public astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson elicited a great deal of Schadenfreude, but it depressed me for one reason: I liked seeing a black person talk about something other than race, being black, or crime–the last of which is all too often a byproduct of race. Finding out that Mr. Tyson is a bit of a charlatan made me sad.

That said, in this post, I will be again guilty of discussing race, but only to point to three pockets of hope on the subject.

The mindterm election this past week saw the turning of the U.S. Senate to the GOP and GOP gains for the House. Among these are Senator Tim Scott (SC), Representative-Elects Mia Love (UT-4), and the much-less heralded, but no less significant Will Hurd (TX-23). That these three people are black and Republican is remarkable in itself, but some might also find it equally remarkable that the majority of each constituency is non-black. (Mr. Hurd’s district consists of mostly of Americans of Mexican ancestry.) However, this shouldn’t be surprising at all.

Most (all?) U.S. congressional districts represented by black Democrats–Congressional Black Caucus members–have long been carved out for them. I contend that each one of them has been planted by the Democrat Party and the party heavily funds all of their campaigns.

It is a method of keeping each of these districts voting Democratic, keeping the voters quiet about economic progress, and it feeds on the indoctrinated notion that having a representative who looks like you somehow elevates you. That same notion explains why virtually all black American voters voted for Barack Obama, especially in 2012. And I need to repeat: it keeps each of these districts voting Democratic. This is how the fallacy of black=Democrat was born.

An inverse anecdotal example: I live in a district with a majority-black voting base–formerly represented by Maxine Waters and recently re-carved in order for Karen Bass to retain her place at the table–and have watched, cycle after cycle, as Republicans–usually black, but not always–have haplessly run, including the locally famous homeless activist Ted Hayes in 2008. These brave people get no publicity and, usually, little funding, though Mr. Hayes got a great deal of the latter.

Also related: the National Association for the Advancement of Communist Principles (NAACP) ignored the elections of Scott, Love and Hurd while nattering on about voting rights in its November 4 election statement. This omission is the very embodiment of the aforementioned indoctrination. Take a bow, LBJ!

Back to the newly elected black Republicans, the demographics of these pockets of post-racialism is the real progress: that three people who do not look like the majority of their constituents can be elected by them and that three black politicians can base their campaigns on issues other than race.

And, please, save it about the election of Barack Obama. We all know that his election and his subsequent two terms have not represented the onset of post-racialism. Remember, being black equals being a Democrat, according to the brainwashing.

However, I think that the ascent of these three legislators will make a difference. Maybe.

After all, wasn’t that what the Civil Rights Movement was really about, conflating public and private property notwithstanding?

(Thanks to Instapundit and to Twitchy)

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2009; the second edition in 2012. Her second novel, Arlen’s Harem, will be done in 2015.

Please contribute to Juliette’s Projects: Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or contribute to Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism—->>>>

 

Following up on yesterday’s post concerning how to go forward on the IRS investigation there question is going to be asked, do you have a special committee or do you just give this to the standard committee’s that would handle such and investigation.

While there are some advantages to a special committee there is a better case for using the existing committees.

The biggest problem with a select committee is both sides will be appointing members to it. In Man of the House Tip O’Neill talked about the issue both in terms of the Democrat Caucus:

John Moss, a California Democrat who came to Congress the same year I did, wrote up a petition calling for a special impeachment committee. More often than not the member who initiates a particular piece of legislation end up as the chairman of the special committee appointed by the speaker to deal with it and that’s probably what John had in mind –a select committee on impeachment with him as chairman.

The GOP doesn’t need someone specifically trying to advance themselves that way. Meanwhile on the side playing defense on the idea of a select committee…

.had plenty of allies on the Republican side . And there’s certainly no question the White House preferred a special impeachment committee as well. Ont only could they control the appointment of the Republican members, but they also hoped to influence Carl Albert to appoint enough conservative Democrats to protect the president. With the Republicans already in the bag it wouldn’t take many

and the GOP has a smaller majority then the Democrats had in O’Neill’s time and no majority in the senate (yet).

Additionally the committee’s that are in charge of oversight of the IRS and the members in those committees are going to be more familiar with their workings. Even better presumably such members are MUCH more likely to be outraged by any IRS excess.

The left, media, and White house’s is going to be all about making any investigation a “political” one, that will be the game plan and we’re already seeing signs of this card being floated. If we want this process to be and be perceived as a search for the truth this is the best way to go about it.

Olimometer 2.52

Yesterday my base post was picked up all over (oddly it never made it as a memeorandum thread) and My weekly paycheck goal of $300 has reached over 98%.

That’s a fancy way of saying I’m still $4 short.

So if at least one of you today thinks this site is worth more than either a value meal at Dunkin Donuts or a burger fries & drink at McDonalds then this week’s paycheck will be made. If you do then consider hitting DaTipJar below.

Nancy Pelosi is telling democrats in tough races that they should be willing to give up their seats to pass the healthcare bill.

Ok Madame Speaker, since you are so adamant about this issue I have a suggestion:

Resign.

Resign today!

Show your fellow democrats that power doesn’t mean anything to you. Show that you are so committed to this bill and all the good it will do. Show them that you will give up your safe seat in the house in order to inspire others to risk theirs.

Forgetting the political advantage, this will give you time to actually enjoy life outside of Washington while you are still young enough to do so. Spend time with your children and grandchildren, it’s the greatest pleasure in life. You might even take the time to get yourself right with the church again.

Your seat is safely democratic so you are sure to see it kept by the party, maybe you should get the other chairmen in safe seats to follow you as an example.

The world is waiting on you Nancy, do you have the guts to give up what you are asking your fellows to risk? What will the order be?

Go! or Follow?

Update: Another reason for Nancy to resign. She gave my friend Adrienne a headache yesterday.