mspart

Well, the House session got started rough, but at least 2 bills have been passed out of the chamber. 1. Bill to remove a majority of the IRS funding of $80 Billion that was in the Inflation Bill/Law. Biden is against this. https://freebeacon.com/politics/house-republicans-vote-to-cancel-bidens-billion-dollar-irs-funding/ House Republicans, in the first act of their tenure in the majority, voted on Monday to rescind nearly $71 billion of the $80 billion that the previously Democratic-controlled Congress allocated to the IRS through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. This is largely symbolic. Senate won't pass and Biden will surely veto if the Senate passes it. No way to override a veto. R's say the funding is to add IRS agents, enough to double the current payroll. D's say this shows Rs want to allow the rick to get away with cheating on taxes. Do you notice that the D's response does not even respond to the Rs case? Very interesting really. 2. House passes Born Alive Act. This bill says that if a baby is brought out of the uterus alive, it must be kept alive by all means available to medical staff. In other words, this is a bill to prevent a botched abortion that produces a live baby, from then after birth, killing the baby. This seems rather straightforward. Yet Ds are reacting hysterically and making zero sense. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/born-alive-act-pelosi-schumer-melt-down-new-bill-care-babies-born-abortion Senior Democratic lawmakers took to Twitter shortly after the House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires doctors to provide care for infants born alive after a failed abortion, to criticize the Republicans who supported the "extreme" bill. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Vice President Kamala Harris were among those who responded. "Today, instead of joining Democrats to condemn all political violence, [House Republicans] chose to push their extreme anti-choice agenda," Pelosi tweeted Wednesday. She added, "Democrats believe everyone deserves the freedom to access reproductive health services – without fear of violence, intimidation or harassment." "Democrats will always defend reproductive freedoms against extreme Republicans who disrespect a woman’s right to choose the size and timing of her family," she said. And, "These are serious, personal decisions that must be made by women guided by faith, physician and family — not by politicians." Schumer, who did not vote on the bill as he is a senator, responded similarly. "The MAGA Republican-controlled House is putting on display their extreme views on women’s health with legislation that does not even have the support of the American people," he wrote. The vice president also made her opinion known. "House Republicans passed an extreme bill today that will further jeopardize the right to reproductive health care in our country," Harris tweeted. "This is yet another attempt by Republican legislators to control women's bodies." The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act says any infant born alive following an abortion attempt or that survives the abortion is a "legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States." A bit of hysteria that has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill. The abortion takes place yet the baby lives. So now we have an alive human being out of the body of the mother. What does this have to do with controlling women's bodies? Nothing. It is now a matter of an alive human being being cared for and his/her body and right to live. What this does show is the utter lack of concern for the now born baby on the part of the Ds. This is a rational and right thinking bill that prohibits the murdering of a human being, either by direct action or neglect. I find it amazing that Ds want the ability to murder a child after it is born. It is now alive by all definitions and they want the baby to be murdered after surviving a horrific procedure designed to kill it. They have always been about in utero, it is just a mass of cells. Once out of the womb, it is a person. Now they are trying to redefine this as an afront to women's rights etc. I find this abhorrent. I do not agree with abortion in general. I can see some reasons for it. I think a 12-15 week time to have an abortion as being rational maybe as a matter of law. This is pretty standard in the developed world. But this is not a 12-15 week fetus, this is about out of the womb alive babies that they still want to be able to kill. All but 2 democrats said NO to this bill in the vote. Horrendous. Really too tough to stomach how depraved these people have become. Again, no doubt this is a largely symbolic move by the House Rs, because the Senate will never pass this and Biden will not sign it. This very much shows Ds as the party of death. Their whole rationale on abortion has changed over the years from we want the mother to kill the baby before it has really formed to wanting the mother to be able to kill the baby up to birth. But after birth? That has always been sacrosanct that a baby born alive should be cared for. These D's, the whole lot of them except for 2, want the baby to be killed after it is born alive. It doesn't matter than the medical procedure was designed to kill them, they are now out of the womb and alive and that completely changes the calculus. Not for the Ds it doesn't. My point of bringing both of these to your attention is that the complaints of the Ds does not even remotely address the intent of the bills. They go on some rant that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Whatever happened to logic and reason? A dumb question these days I know. mspart

Yeah, he looked quite healthy these last few years. Touring and touring and looking healthy. I am really sorry to hear about his passing. He was one of the greats of our era. Very sad really. mspart

At the end, like the last second, one of the bears head comes up like "what the heck!!!" How do I get outta here? I'm guessing it was the bear on the left. With the way the bear on the right kept backing up, I was thinking lefty would prevail. But he took it just a bit too far and found out who's the boss. mspart

Yeah, sounds like it. NFL is tough even for college football players to make it into, much less college wrestlers. mspart

He just made a mistake. All forgiveable. Except he was targeted because of his position on the Intelligence Committee. He should have been removed by Pelosi at the very least. Now he is being removed, and rightfully so, by McCarthy. mspart

I don't see him getting THAT fight this year. Next year maybe. But there are a lot of dues to pay. Cejudo didn't get there for 5 years. Really tough to see how this could be done. mspart

May I just say that his last name is just killer!! mspart

This! mspart

Perhaps. Does anyone in Congress deserve to be on the Intelligence Committee anyway? But indeed, what goes around comes around. mspart

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mccarthy-expected-3-democrats-off-house-committees/story?id=96344389 McCarthy expected to keep 3 Democrats off House committees His targets are Reps. Ilhan Omar, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell. Speaker Kevin McCarthy and leading Republicans are expected to soon make good on a vow to keep three Democrats from seats on influential committees in the new House. McCarthy's focus is Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who has served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, two California lawmakers who have served on the House Intelligence Committee. "Speaker McCarthy confirms that Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Ilhan Omar are getting kicked off the Intel and Foreign Affairs Committees. Promises made. Promises kept!" Rep. Troy Nehls, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, tweeted on Tuesday. ... House Majority Leader Steve Scalise was asked during a press conference on Tuesday what the process would be for stripping members of their assignments and said no one had yet been assigned to committees. But he suggested removals were a new standard first set by Democrats. "As we see what comes out, the Democrats set a precedent that we urged them strongly not to go down last Congress," Scalise said. "They decided that they were going to break the precedent that had been in place for over 200 years and remove members of the opposing party that our party selected to be on committees," he continued. "And so that was a practice they set and so, obviously, we're going to be looking very closely at who they appoint. They haven't appointed anybody yet to committees, but we're gonna see if they do." ... McCarthy has accused Schiff of lying to the public during references to a disputed dossier that claimed to outline links between former President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia. McCarthy has also called Swalwell a "national security threat" for Swalwell's reported run-ins with an alleged Chinese spy, stating there's no way he should be allowed to serve on the committee. ... Separately, McCarthy's criticized Omar over what he described as her "repeated antisemitic and anti-American remarks." Let's see. Schiff has touted the Steele Dossier as truth even after it was completely debunked. Off the Intelligence Committee. Swalwell slept with a Chinese spy. Off the Intelligence Committee. Omar has repeatedly made anti-Semitic comments. Off the Foreign Affairs Committee. These actions should have been taken by Pelosi on the last two if nothing else, but she didn't. Schiff is a maybe from a Pelosi point of view, but the other two should have been no brainers. mspart

Quite!!!!!!!! Possibly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! mspart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-of-the-house-ousted-motion-to-vacate-rcna64902 How a speaker of the House can be ousted with a 'motion to vacate' Speaker Kevin McCarthy made concessions to the far-right to get his job, including changing the rules to allow any member of Congress to force a vote to remove him. Jan. 10, 2023, 11:20 AM PST By Kyle Stewart WASHINGTON — In his bid to become speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy agreed to a number of concessions to secure the support of Republicans who originally opposed him. One was a rule change to allow just a single member to try to force him from office. Under the new House rules passed Monday, only one member of Congress — Democrat or Republican — is needed to bring a "motion to vacate," which forces a vote on removing the speaker. That would need only a simple majority of the House to pass to oust McCarthy. This spells it out in very clear language. mspart

I read this in the article: What about Democrats? Clearly Democrats are loathe to throw McCarthy a lifeline in his bid to become speaker, but it's not clear how they would handle an effort to remove the gavel from his hands. If Democrats did vote to remove the speaker, that would give McCarthy a cushion of four votes. He would be removed if five or more Republicans voted with all Democrats. I assumed that this meant they one of their corps could object to the speaker and a vote would be had. On second reading, it appears to just be talking about a general vote, not the one person instigating it. I'll see if I can find clarification. mspart

12-20. OKST won. ORST won 4 matches. HWT, 125, and 157 were very close wins for OKST - One pointers. I'd say the Beavs did pretty well, better than I expected. I think they got a great deal with Pendleton. Hopefully he can drive some excitement there and get some good recruits. I can't tell you how happy I am that Zalesky is no longer there. 149: Voinovich (OKST) MD Gurr (OSU) 10-2 157: Gfeller (OKST) DEC Crosby (OSU) 10-9 165: Olguin (OSU) SV-1 Sheets (OKST) 7-5 174: Olmos (OSU) DEC Plott (OKST) 9-4 184: Munoz (OSU) DEC Wittlake (OKST) 4-3 197: Harvey (OSU) DEC Surber (OKST) 14-9 HWT: Doucet (OKST) DEC Dixon (OSU) 3-2 125: Mastrogiovanni (OKST) DEC Kaylor (OSU) 3-2 133: Fix (OKST) MD Shaner (OSU) 12-4 141: Young (OKST) DEC Belton (OSU) 6-2 mspart

VR archery is a gas. mspart

Stalling on top guy should be "not trying to score or improve their position". Not trying for the fall should be in the list of stalling. Improving your position is getting the bottom guy to his back. From there it is to pin. This does not incentivize the top wrestler to do anything other than stay in the middle and STALL. mspart

Quite the research you have done. Isn't it amazing that PSU did so well as soon as Cael took over? It didn't take long to become dominant. Very interesting. mspart

Many years ago, I remember that match, I was there at Oregon State in Corvallis OR. I remember they announced that Burley was a true freshman and I thought it was pretty cool that he won. I also remember the Oregon St. Hwt Howard Harris who pinned his way through the tourney. I was about a junior in HS and my Dad took me with his buddy and his buddy's son. mspart

You say that like it is a bad thing!! mspart

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/motion-vacate-key-sticking-point-gop-speaker-battle/story?id=96241364 This article explains how the vote of no confidence is initiated, by either R or D. mspart

Interesting. 1. I have read that both Ds and Rs can ignite a vote of no confidence. So I don't think you are correct there. 2. This may come to nothing, but you did not answer but that is not why you are against it. Are you philosophically against investigating FBI, or just think there is nothing there? 3. Agreed!! 4. There have not been many budgets passed over the several decades you refer to. So no real issue there that I see. They should have as many spending bills as there are departments in the administration, then maybe one for the Judiciary and Legislative branches. No more sneaking in things via amendment that have nothing to do with that US Dept. 5. Yes it is in Congress' lap and that's why it is in the concessions. Well the "not war on drugs" certainly isn't working as more people than ever are dying due to drug overdose. 6. Will not argue this point. Like I said, I really am on the fence. Depends where the funds go to. 7. This is a tired old argument that will get nowhere. But you are not, apparently, for a budget that is more real with income and spending. Or you would have said so rather than bring up debt from different admins. I think it is good policy to only spend what comes in. Call me crazy but you and I need to do it, our States need to do it, our National govt should do it too. Thanks for your thoughts, mspart

Jason, That's pretty funny. Thanks for adding that to the mix here. mspart

It would take time away from the "important" business of the House and make the R's look like they can't control anything. One D could say I want a vote, and all Ds will vote against the Speaker, they only need 5 R's do the same and then the speaker is no more. Good for the Ds if they don't want to play those games. mspart

As has been reported, it will only take a single congressperson, acting in what is known as a Jeffersonian Motion, to move to remove the Speaker if he or she goes back on their word or policy agenda. A “Church” style committee will be convened to look into the weaponization of the FBI and other government organizations (presumably the CIA, the subject of the original Church Committee) against the American people. Term limits will be put up for a vote. Bills presented to Congress will be single subject, not omnibus with all the attendant earmarks, and there will be a 72-hour minimum period to read them. The Texas Border Plan will be put before Congress. From The Hill: “The four-pronged plan aims to ‘Complete Physical Border Infrastructure,’ ‘Fix Border Enforcement Policies,’ ‘Enforce our Laws in the Interior’ and ‘Target Cartels & Criminal Organizations.’” COVID mandates will be ended as will all funding for them, including so-called “emergency funding.” Budget bills would stop the endless increases in the debt ceiling and hold the Senate accountable for the same. 1. For for this one, as I understand it, it is not limited to the party in power, but to every House member. I don't think this is viable hence my comment on D's using this at least once a week. If it is limited to the Rs for this Congress, I still don't like it as it will be very disruptive. 2. I think this is a great idea as there is at least half the country that believes the FBI has been weaponized against conservatives and their ideology. 3. This may happen but is moot as discussed. 4. Single subject bills is good. A Defense bill should not be including stuff for DHS, National Parks, Aunt Trudy's favorite cause etc. Single subject like defense, or HHS, or what have you. 72 hours to read them is quite reasonable and requires a minimum of planning and administration. The omnibus bill is something no one could read in 72 hours and it had all kinds of subjects. My understanding is that if an amendment comes up that is off topic, it is summarily rejected as out of order. This is all good. 5. The border is porous, the admin is not following the law and allowing millions to enter and with them millions in drugs coming across the border. Something needs to happen to close the border. 6. Again, I'm not sure about this one. I am not a Covid hawk and want all kinds of money for it. But there are some folks still hurting from the economic paralysis that occurred due to it. I am not a covid denier, I have it. It wasn't fun. But there was entirely too much money piled into this. Something needs to be looked at rationally here but I don't think that comes with a stop all funding idea. 7. Continuing to spend more and borrow more really needs to stop. There is trillions of dollars of debt and with interest rates rising, more and more of the budget will be to service that debt. That is a zero sum game. We should not be spending more than we bring in and each year we bring in a record amount of cash to the Treasury. These are my reasons for generally supporting these "concessions". Please provide a point by point reasoning why these concessions are not good. mspart

What are the odds that the Ds use this at least once a week? So in general Mike, you are not supportive of any of these concessions? mspart