Congress Did It!

[Flanders]

Yesterday and into this morning the Senate voted on a bunch of amendments to the budget. I don’t know how many of those amendments had anything to do with the budget, but some of them were informative. The way votes are reported is not so informative.

The way Senate votes are reported is another example of media bias. Article titles and talking heads generally say “Senate does this or that” instead of “Senate Democrats did this or that.” Remember the Hillarycare II fiasco? Most reports said “Senate” not Senate Democrats. Ditto the House. Had the ACA not been so contentious Americans never would have learned from the media that Democrats did it all by themselves.

Media reporting protects individual Democrats. Basically, voters can bounce Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but voters cannot bounce the Senate or the House; ergo, blame the Senate and House not the individual. Voters can also deny a president a second term, but they can’t bounce the presidency.

In many cases the MSM does not identify Democrats as Democrats in a story that is less than flattering. Often the MSM does not cover those stories at all.

Were the media honest it would report on the Senate and the House by naming the majority party. Examples: Senate Democrats, etc. —— House Republicans, etc. That kind of reporting would not stop bipartisan skullduggery, but it would identify the guilty party more clearly.

Among the amendments that went down to defeat the one that caught my attention killed photo ID:

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) amendment 526, to require photo ID to vote in federal elections, 44-54

In plain English Democrats protected the illegal immigrant vote.

In a variation of media bias you will find this one:

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

Republicans should get credit for putting that amendment in the budget even though a few Democrats voted against one of their party’s top priorities. Republicans don’t get credit because it comes under the heading of:

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty
By Ramsey Cox - 03/23/13 04:36 AM ET

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty - The Hill's Floor Action

Irrespective of how each senator feels about gun control, that vote should have been 100 to zip because it defeats a United Nations treaty. Most importantly, 46 senators voted for a United Nations treaty. Good old Leaky Leahy, whose party is hellbent on abolishing the Constitution, not only saved face with a little spin, he made it look like he was defending the Constitution:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered an alternative amendment that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights. His amendment passed by voice vote.

Leahy was lying. Should UN-loving Democrats ever manage to ratify the Small Arms Treaty he knows better than anyone that when push comes to shove a Left-leaning Supreme Court may very well come down on the side of a ratified United Nations treaty over the Constitution. That’s one of the primary reasons the country gets the type of federal judge Democrats put on the bench in the first place.

So far, the SCOTUS has upheld the Constitution’s supremacy over treaties. Past High Court rulings offer no comfort to anyone knowing that Democrats and their judges do everything incrementally.

Read the linked article for a small sampling of the “budget” amendments. A few of those vote-counts will turn your stomach if you are a conservative.

 

[Flanders]

Here’s another one that should put frost on the old pumpkin:

The Senate early Saturday morning defeated the amendment to the budget resolution which would have put the Senate on record as opposing access to health care under Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act for undocumented immigrants who get a green card.

The amendment, which failed 43 to 56, was offered by Senate Budget ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

All Democrats — including gang members Dick Durbin of Illinois, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado — opposed the amendment. They were joined by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. All other Republicans — including immigration negotiators Marco Rubio of Florida, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — supported the amendment.

XXXXX​

During debate, Sessions argued that illegal immigrants who are given legal status in the future should not be eligible for these health care benefits.

“If a person is in our country illegally and they are rewarded with some legal status, do they then immediately become eligible for federal health care benefits,” Sessions said. “It’s a different situation than someone who came legally and has got legal status.”

Every Democrat voting for free healthcare for illegals while Americans are suffering is nothing new, nor was Susan Collins’ vote a big surprise. The state of Maine loves to send RINO to the Senate. The other one, Olympia Snowe, would still be there if she had not retired. Senators like those two must do something for Maine because they do not do anything for the country when they support free healthcare for illegal immigrants.

Also, Lisa Murkowski would not be there if the RNC would have given her opponent some help. Thank you Karl Rove.

I doubt if Murkowski’s vote got any media coverage in Alaska. So I have to wonder how many voters in Alaska now know the kind of person they sent to the senate?

This one takes the prize:

Immigration reform advocates, including National Council of La Raza, said Friday they would be monitoring what they contend to be any anti-immigrant votes and put members of both parties on notice that their votes would be remembered come election day.

Immigration Vote Splits Gang of 8
By Humberto Sanchez
Roll Call Staff
March 23, 2013, 10:15 a.m.

Immigration Vote Splits Gang of 8 : Roll Call News

I wish I knew why so many members of Congress fear reprisals from illegal aliens while they have no fear of reprisals from Americans. I suspect the situation would be the same if one thousand immigrants were here illegally instead of 18 to 20 million.

 

[editec]

Oh its is EVEN WORSE than the MSM doesn't report the votes.

The houses of congress sometimes have voice votes that are NOT RECORDED.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

I wish I knew why so many members of Congress fear reprisals from illegal aliens while they have no fear of reprisals from Americans. - Flanders

The latino vote is about as monolithic as the Irish vote. The only folks in government who worry very much about what latinos think are folks representing or living in heavily latino districts. It is kind of amusing that the media promotes latinos as a monolithic political force when the reality is most of the pandering is a basic response to an exponentially expanding market. We have to hear all that spanish horseshit on the phone because so many of these filthy fuckers can't speak English.

Why is that?

The power behind illegals is corporate America.

If the street level nutballs ever admit the reality most of their own congressfolk talk shit against illegals but vote in support of illegals in return for corporate cash, blue collar Republicans will have a choice to make.

The bottom line is fake liberal bullshit artists really believe there is some kind of benefit to having the scum of the earth destroy the US blue collar middle class and justify it by claiming the constitution embraces illegals, while nutball corporatists just want cheap labor and fuck the blue collar middle class.

Not a lot of high ground there. But that is the way it is.

 

[Flanders]

Oh its is EVEN WORSE than the MSM doesn't report the votes.

The houses of congress sometimes have voice votes that are NOT RECORDED.

To editec: That made Sneaky Leaky Leahy’s amendment all the more suspect. How many senators wanted a vote against the Constitution recorded?

From the OP
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered an alternative amendment that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights. His amendment passed by voice vote.

Leahy was lying. Should UN-loving Democrats ever manage to ratify the Small Arms Treaty he knows better than anyone that when push comes to shove a Left-leaning Supreme Court may very well come down on the side of a ratified United Nations treaty over the Constitution. That’s one of the primary reasons the country gets the type of federal judge Democrats put on the bench in the first place.

So far, the SCOTUS has upheld the Constitution’s supremacy over treaties. Past High Court rulings offer no comfort to anyone knowing that Democrats and their judges do everything incrementally.

The only folks in government who worry very much about what latinos think are folks representing or living in heavily latino districts.

To Dugdale_Jukes: I agree in general although I’m not certain “corporate cash” is the reason senators betray the country and the Constitution. Maine and Alaska do not have an illegal immigratnt population worth mentioning; so why did Collins and Murkowski refuse to support Senator Sessions’ amendment if corporate cash is taken off the table?

In one sense their vote was a good thing —— they showed what they stand for by voting against an amendment that was good for the entire country without harming their respective states.