T1B

Katy wrote:Doesn't seem too serious..

Robert Byrd Treated for Fall

mvscal wrote:Good riddance. Hopefully it's something painful.

mvscal wrote:What's astonishing is that someone who calls themself a Democrat could ignore his participation as an officer in the KKK yet disparage any critic of Obozo as racist.

TIGRDOG wrote:while the grim reaper is out and about, perhaps he can visit jimmah carter as well.

Bizzarofelice wrote:hopefully West virginia will find a new leader who exhibits qualities other than pork monger.

smackaholic wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:hopefully West virginia will find a new leader who exhibits qualities other than pork monger.

I doubt it. Pork mongering is pretty much there only industry other than a modest tourism thing.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:We notice you can't dispute a single part of his assessment.

“I will never submit to fight beneath that banner with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."” - Robert Byrd

“The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan realm of W. Va.” - Robert Byrd

Regarding Bill Clinton's sex scandal... "When the scribes and pharisees brought before Jesus a woman taken in adultery, saying that under Moses the law commended that she be stoned, and they sought to tempt Jesus that they might accuse Him, He said unto them: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.... This time, the president himself has by his own actions and his own words thrown the first stone at himself, and thus, made himself vulnerable to the stoning by others. What a horrible (ph) spectacle. To maintain that presidents have private lives is, of course, not to be denied. But the Oval Office of the White House is not a private office. It is where much of the business of the nation is conducted daily. It is the people's office, and the only real privacy that any president can realistically claim is in the third-floor living quarters of the White House with his family...

His speech was a lawyer-worded effort, as in the reference to "legally accurate" testimony. And the people have long since grown tired of having to pick and sift among artfully crafted words that have too often obscured the truth rather than revealed it. The White House's apparent strategy over so many long months of delay and attack has only succeeded in stringing out a judgment day that is increasingly threatening and has only made bad matters worse. Former President Nixon, in an earlier tragedy for the nation and for all of us who were here and lived through it, tried the same thing -- delay, delay, delay; and counterattack, attack, attack. And it failed in the end. We seem to be living history all over again.

As the book of Ecclesiastes plainly tells us, there is no new thing under the sun. Time seems to be turning backwards in its flight. And many of the mistakes that President Nixon made are being made all over again.

We also must stop and remember that this is a sad time for the president and his family; a sad time for his friends and supporters throughout the country; a sad time for the devoted members of his staff, who have labored and sacrificed and given so much for a man in whom they implicitly believed. It is a sad time for members of his Cabinet and heads of agencies who publicly defended him -- and who depended on his word. But it is an even sadder time for the country.

As a school boy, I looked upon George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Abraham Lincoln as my idols to be emulated. I looked upon Babe Ruth and Jack Dempsey and Charles Lindbergh and Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, and Nathan Hale and Daniel Morgan and Nathaniel Greene and Stonewall Jackson as my heroes.

I was taught, as most of us were, to revere God. I was taught to believe the Bible and that a judgment day would surely come when we would all be punished for our sins or be saved by our faith and good works.

And the old couple (KKK MEMBERS) who raised me taught me by their example and their word not to lie but to tell the truth, not to cheat but to be honest. But what will parents tell their children? Can they tell them to plow a straight furrow and that honesty is still the best policy? To whom can our young people look for inspiration?

Fortunately, we do have a Mark McGwire and a Sammy Sosa, both of whom have captured the nation's admiration with their home runs. But where are the nation's leaders to whom the children can look and be inspired to work hard and live clean lives?

... The nation is inexorably sinking toward the lowest common denominator in its standards and values. Haven't we had enough?

Yes, talk of impeachment and censure and resignation are in the air. Is it practically on everybody -- most -- almost everybody's minds with whom I have talked.... Being bold is one thing, Mr. President. To say we ought to get on with this impeachment and get this thing behind us is a bold thing to say. And it is one thing to say it and something to be desired in certain situations. But boldness to the point of cavalierness can come back to haunt us.

I suggest that we senators should let the House do its work and wait to see what action that body takes. The Senate cannot vote on articles of impeachment. We all know that, until the House formulates such articles and presents them by its managers to the Senate, if it ever does." - Robert Byrd

firecrotch wrote:lot of words

LTS TRN 2 wrote:mmmm, mmmm, mmmm

Turning the Senate into the Chicago City Council
by Newt Gingrich
09/23/2009


“Using the budget reconciliation process to pass health reform and climate change legislation…would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the constitutional role of the Senate.”

These are not the words of a Republican or a conservative activist.

This is a warning issued on April 2 of this year from the former Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).


He was referring to a dangerous assault on American freedom as it is protected by the constitutional balance of power -- an assault that is being considered by the Obama Administration right now.

“We Pour Legislation into the Senatorial Saucer to Cool It”

The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution and our government to guard against political power grabs by slowing down the process of making laws.

They insisted that the Senate had to be a deliberative body to slow down the passions of the House and stop mob rule from destroying freedom.

In a famous conversation between the two presidents, Thomas Jefferson is said to have asked George Washington why the Framers had agreed to a second chamber in Congress at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked him. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

The Founders Relied on the Senate to Carefully Consider Before They Commit Us to a New Law

One of the key means by which the Senate slows down the legislative process is through the filibuster.

Unlike in the House, in the Senate, even a small group of senators can hold up a bill by threatening to continuously debate it.

It takes the votes of three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 senators, to end a filibuster. This means that it effectively takes 60 votes to pass a controversial piece of legislation or nomination.

And again, this is for good reason. The Founders looked to the House to more directly reflect the will of the people. They relied on the Senate to take a step back and carefully consider a bill before they commit the American people and our resources to it.

A Revolutionary Act Worthy of a Third World Country

I have taken this brief tour of American constitutional history to make an important point: The Obama Administration clearly has concluded it cannot get a big government health plan through the Senate if they accept the traditional, historic requirement of a 60-vote majority.

It is also clear left-wing activists would cheerfully destroy the integrity of the Senate and the freedoms it protects if that is what it takes to get a government-run, bureaucratic health care system which would expand their power and increase the importance of Washington.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the Democratic majority leader, has warned that a failure to get 60 votes would lead him to try to force through a bill with 50 senators and Vice President Joe Biden breaking the tie.

Changing one-sixth of the American economy with 50 senators voting yes would be a revolutionary act worthy of a third world country.

Senator Byrd: “Reconciliation was Intended to Adjust Revenue and Spending Levels in Order to Reduce Deficits”

The Obama Administration and Sen. Reid are considering getting around the 60-vote majority rule in the Senate by using a process called “reconciliation.” Under reconciliation, just 51 votes are required to pass a bill.

Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, whom I quoted at the beginning of this message, has unique authority on reconciliation. Not only is he the author of a remarkable history of the Senate (four volumes published between 1989 and 1995), he was, as he wrote, “one of the authors of the reconciliation process,” which was created in 1985.

Here is what he said about using reconciliation to pass things like health care reform: “I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose. Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits.”

Sen. Byrd concluded with this warning: “The Senate cannot perform its constitutional role if senators forego debate and amendments. I urge senators to jealously guard their individual rights to represent their constituents on such critical matters.”

For 20 Years, I Was Told to Be Patient When Conservatives Couldn’t Muster 60 Votes

For 20 years as a member of the House, I was told to be patient when conservative reforms could not muster 60 votes or a conservative nomination could not get 60 votes.

For the last decade I was told to be patient when reforms conservatives wanted and personnel conservatives wanted were blocked by the lack of 60 votes in the Senate.

Now after a lifetime of sustaining the constitutional role of the Senate, we find that the left wants to suspend the normal constitutional process so they can ram through a gigantic government run health program immediately.

Every American Who Cherishes the Institutions That Have Preserved Our Liberty Will Tell Their Senators to Fight

We are being told the Obama agenda is so important we should destroy the Senate and make it more like the House of Representatives.

This radical action may make sense to President Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior strategist David Axelrod, all of whom come from Chicago and are used to seeing the Chicago City Council muscled by a strong mayor on behalf of a machine.

However, every American who cherishes freedom and appreciates the institutions that have preserved us from tyranny will be telling their senators to preserve the integrity of the Senate and preserve the protections of American liberty.

This fight over process may turn out to be even more important than the fight over the substance of the big government, big bureaucracy, high-tax health bill they want.

When both process and policy are wrong there is something very bad going on.