in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Free Beacon | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Power Line | 0 | |
| B’berg | 2012 Watch: Gingrich Seeks to Ease Fundraising Woes as Las Vegas Checks Slowing Down |
0 |
| The Hill | Scandal: Pelosi might have skirted House ethics rules on campaign solicitations |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Conyers channels Pelosi with ‘no rush to impeachment’ opinion piece
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) wrote in an opinion piece for the Washington Post stating that, assuming Democrats gain control of the House this fall, there would be no ‘rush to impeachment’ of the President:
As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
Rep. Conyers apparently thinks Republicans are too stupid to research his Congressional actions in the past concerning the impeachment of the President. Here’s House Resolution 635, sponsored by John Conyers, presented on 12/18/2005 (with emphasis added):
H.RES.635
Title: Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration’s intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 12/18/2005) Cosponsors (36)
Latest Major Action: 12/18/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Cached version of his call for his constituents to “demand” an investigation into the admin for:
[...] Abuses of Power and Make Recommendations Regarding Grounds for Possible Impeachment if Warranted
The new version of that page simply states the following:
Stand with Congressman Conyers
Demand an Investigation of Administration Abuses of Power
Nice clean up of your website there, Rep. Conyers.
Let’s not forget last July’s mock impeachment hearing, where Rep. John Conyers played the role of “Mr. Chairman”:
In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.
They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official.
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) banged a large wooden gavel and got the other lawmakers to call him “Mr. Chairman.” He liked that so much that he started calling himself “the chairman” and spouted other chairmanly phrases, such as “unanimous consent” and “without objection so ordered.” The dress-up game looked realistic enough on C-SPAN, so two dozen more Democrats came downstairs to play along.
The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war. As luck would have it, all four of the witnesses agreed that President Bush lied to the nation and was guilty of high crimes — and that a British memo on “fixed” intelligence that surfaced last month was the smoking gun equivalent to the Watergate tapes. Conyers was having so much fun that he ignored aides’ entreaties to end the session.
“At the next hearing,” he told his colleagues, “we could use a little subpoena power.” That brought the house down.
As Conyers and his hearty band of playmates know, subpoena power and other perks of a real committee are but a fantasy unless Democrats can regain the majority in the House. But that’s only one of the obstacles they’re up against as they try to convince America that the “Downing Street Memo” is important.
A search of the congressional record yesterday found that of the 535 members of Congress, only one — Conyers — had mentioned the memo on the floor of either chamber. House Democratic leaders did not join in Conyers’s session, and Senate Democrats, who have the power to hold such events in real committee rooms, have not troubled themselves.
It’s obvious the very thought of impeachment makes Conyers so giddy that he can’t help but play ‘pretend impeachment’ games on Capitol Hill.
As for his claim that the accusation that he’d immediately start impeachment proceedings against the President is a Republican “strawman”, well, I think it’s safe to say that his own statements and actions in the past have proved that he’s lying through his teeth – or in this instance, his keyboard.
Don’t fall for his baloney.
More: See Gateway Pundit for even more background info about Conyers and impeachment – and just who some of Conyers pals are (hint: at least one of them is a hero (Ray McGovern) to the hate-Bush left).
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
108 Responses to “Conyers channels Pelosi with ‘no rush to impeachment’ opinion piece”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
I disagree. There is a great logical reason. Movement of capital is the essential ingredient towards having a prosperous economy and low unemployment.
To shine the light. Let’s look at what would happen if the capital gains rate was 100%. Nobody would invest because there would be no incentive to do so. Without investment there would be much less growth as companies wouldn’t have the capital to invest into new plants and infrastructure improvements. So should the tax rate be the same rate as income taxes? Depends. Which rate. There are several brackets of the progressive tax code. However if you look at investment income as earned income what the leftist writer fails to understand is that other investments would have a greater return over years. The capital gains tax is already pretty high but if raised to 36% like the top earned income tax bracket people would see less reason to invest that way and might put more money in other investments. Money ALREADY in investments would be kept there and there would be LESS movement of capital which is harmful to this country. Movement of capital is what takes money from the rich and gives it to workers much better than giving it to the government. It is better for the capital to be moved into jobs than DEPENDANCY.
I know it is a difference in perspective but I do hope you understand that I view it as BENEFICIAL to the poor to have lower capital gains tax rates. It’s an easy call as subsequent to capital gains rate reductions the federal government has a wash of revenues coming in because capital is released as people sell and take advantage of the lower rates. So the government benefits and as the money is used for other investnents (movement of capital) jobs are created big time. Lowering capital gains rates are actually a faster way of improving the economy than lowering income tax rates because lowering income tax rates are better for long term growth. Both in tandem are very good for the economy as there are MORE income earners and good for the government as government revenues grow with a growing economy as they did in 2004 (14.6%) and 2005 (15%)
KC, The gist of your link (most of it is opinion) is found in these sentences:
Who in the heck is calling for no continued investment in public programs KC? And taxes and spending are TWO TOTALLY separate items. It is evident through many instances in history that tax rates can go up while revenues drop and tax rates can go down while subsequent revenues go UP. Spending in this country has gone UP in health, education, social services, veterans benefits and education EVERY year for over 6 decades and just because 2,000 millionaires sign a document doesn’t mean they understand economics and doesn’t mean they know the truth past all the brain washing from the legacy drive by media that makes everyone believe programs are cut by Bush and Arnold and Reagan. It simply isn’t and wan’t true that any budget was cut. Spending is and has been up every year.
Of course government spending helps the economy. So does lower tax rates. What these millionaires seem to be are …. liberals…
By the way, What the Internet has blossomed into speed and backbone wise and content wise has been exponential (100 times and over) what the federal government release to the public. The private investment and backbone infrastructure given to the Internet from companies DWARFS what investment the federal government gave the public.
I am not arguing against public spending. I’m saying spending HAS gone up for over 6 decades every year (as opposed to the message from liberals that it hasn’t – that isn’t the truth). And I’m saying that it is a irrelevant argument to what leads to prosperity more than government spending.
1) Stability – National Defense and law enforcement and the courts and enforcing the rules based on the constitution
2) Safety – National Defense
3) Non-punitive tax rates that don’t punish people who work hard and succeed only to give almost the same income to those who are lazy. That would be almost communism and it doesn’t work everytime because who would want to work for the same amount as the lazy?
- I simply do not let the Marxist Lefties pull me into anymore class warfare arguments. It generally boils down to they raen’t cutting it, for various and sundry reasons, most of which are self imposed, and they’re jealous.
- Are there cases of excess, and unearned largess. Of course. But building an entire campaign of class hate on those extremely rare exceptions to the rule is like trying to explain life on earth by eating a big Mac.
- Bang
Solidarity !
It cracks me up. Every Wed the state workers here in CA wear the purple shirt with “Solidarity” on it not knowing the Marxist lingo that it is I guess. Or they don’t care.
Edited – insult. –ST
ST “disappeared” your petty banality, you really should learn to argue like an adult and be civil Colon.
At least I have one…snort!
Hmm…that paste didn’t work quite like I wanted it to…the font is the same as if ST edited my post.