House Dems Introduce Legislation to Abolish Debt Ceiling

Well, it's just three stooges for now, but who knows, maybe more Democrats are willing to reveal themselves as completely insane.

Three congressional Democrats are introducing a bill Wednesday that would abolish the federal debt ceiling. The Democrats say that the recent debt ceiling debate had a "disastrous" effect on our nation's economy, and that the legislation would keep parties from using a debt-ceiling default as a hostage in future budget debates.

"The debt ceiling is truly arbitrary and has nothing to do with the deficit," Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement last Wednesday. "The debt ceiling does not prevent the United States from incurring new debts. That occurs when Congress decides to authorize more spending than revenues. The debt ceiling prevents the president from borrowing money to pay those debts when they come due.

Virginia Democrat Jim Moran and Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson will join Nadler in introducing the legislation. But the bill is unlikely to gain traction, especially in the Republican-controlled House.

Gee, ya think?

Hank Johnson, the man who thought Guam was going to tip over. Maybe send Nadler there to see if it really would.

Breaking News From 1972: Democrats Pushing for ERA

We obviously don't have enough important issues facing us these days. Now Democrats have to rehash lost battles from the early 1970s.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney said Monday she plans to make a major push to pass and ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

Bills calling for a Constitutional amendment to ensure women get equal treatment under the law have been introduced since 1923.

Legislation passed in 1972, but only 35 of the necessary 38 states had ratified it by the 1982 deadline.

ERA bills have been introduced in each session of Congress since, but Maloney says this time there will be a bigger effort to get it passed.

Most clear-thinking people would move on, but not Maloney. Especially in these dark days where women are under unprecedented assault or something.

"What is different now is the onslaught against women, the efforts to roll back rights we thought we had," Maloney (D-Manhattan, Queens) said.

"Many cuts Republicans are proposing affect women, children and families."

Women struggle with workplace discrimination and poverty, she said.

"In factories and offices, in mills and malls, women receive only 77 cents for every dollar that men make - and this has been consistent for 25 years," she said.

It's been a consistent fabrication for even longer.

Maloney is enlisting some real Democrats heavyweights for her battle. Or at least one.

Maloney also cited a recent observation by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that the 14th Amendment - which says no person should be denied equal protection of the law - does not include protecting women from sex discrimination.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan, Brooklyn) called Scalia a "troglodyte" and vowed to work with Maloney to get the ERA passed.

Nadler said he'll build support for the ERA by enlisting as many bill co-sponsors as possible. Women's groups plan to keep score; lawmakers who don't co-sponsor it will be considered opponents, and their constituents will be told.

Oh no, someone's going to tell on them!

Not to quibble with Jerrold Nadley, Constitutional Scholar, but here's what the "troglodyte" Scalia actually had to say about the 14th Amendment.

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Jerrold Nadler: Republicans a 'Bunch of Gangsters'

Earlier this week the Republicans were hostage takers. Now they're a bunch of gangsters, according to bloated New York Congressthing Jerrold Nadler. Imagine what they'll be called when they're actually in the majority.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) called Republicans "a bunch of gangsters" who blackmailed Democrats to ensure that the nation's wealthiest retain their tax cuts.

Nadler, appearing Sunday morning on CBS' "Face the Nation," characterized the Republican stance on the bipartisan compromise on extending the Bush-era tax cuts of "nice middle class tax cut you have there, pity if something would happen to it unless you give millionaires and billionaries" a tax cut. "Unless you give the wealthier a tax cut we're not permitting the middle class to get it."

Nadler expressed concern that Republicans will continue pressing Congress and President Obama for a permanent extension of those tax cuts and if we "succumb to blackmail" now why should there be any expectation that they will have the "political gumption in 2012 to not submit again."

It's overheated rhetoric like this that puts lives in danger.

This jerk Nadler is the guy who back during the 2000 recount said he detected a whiff of fascism. I think he was just smelling the bacon grease dripping from his lips.

I distinctly recall after the election the Democrats were all calling for "compromise" and wanted to work together. Calling people gangsters and accusing them of blackmail sure is a curious way of going about it.

'It Could Have Been an Islamic Terrorist; It Could Have Been a Right-wing Nut'

I guess the idea of it being a left-wing nut never entered into the equation, so I guess we'll classify Islamic terrorists as left-wing nuts, just to be helpful.

This bloated bigot gives the idiotic Michael Bloomberg a run for his money

As a New Yorker do you think we’re safer almost nine years after 9/11?

I think we’re safer in one respect – we’re a lot more aware now. We’re probably not safer in that there are a lot of terrorists out there who want to hurt us.

It could have been an Islamic terrorist; it could have been a right-wing nut.

People who are motivated because they’re sympatric to al Qaeda, or to right wing nut jobs sympathetic to others in Michigan, don’t have to be in contact with their leaders.

Here's a video clip of him expounding on this lunacy.

"Whether the guy who did this, or the people who did this were with some Islamic terrorist group or whether they were some right-wing nut group or whether they were by themselves, in one sense it doesn't matter."

Cowardly NYC Dem Phones It In

You would think a guy who represents the Upper West Side of Manhattan wouldn't be afraid to face his constituents when it comes to discussing ObamaCare.

Think again. Rotund Representative Jerrold Nadler apparently fears the Birkenstock brigade that populates his district may not be down with socialized medicine.

If you've lost the Upper West Side, then things aren't quite going according to plan.

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler is having his first health-care town-hall forum on Monday night -- it just won't be with any actual people in the room.

The Democratic congressman will hold a "telephone town hall," where Manhattan and Brooklyn constituents who have been calling his district office to talk about health-care reform will get return calls.

The method allows Nadler to hold a forum without potentially encountering the protesters who have spoken out at other health-care reform events around the country.

Profiles in courage. I bet if some folks said they were bringing doughnuts Nadler would gladly have them come to his office.

Free Press Moron: Hey, Let's Impeach Bush Now

Something named Rochelle Riley, who I'll assume suffers from raging Bush Derangement Syndrome, thinks now is a good time to impeach George W. Bush.

Does this idiot realize his term is up in less than two months?

Pelosi wouldn’t have to start from scratch: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the bravest member of Congress, introduced legislation 11 months ago to impeach the president and vice president. Last January, the House gave a first reading of one of those articles of impeachment. Our own Rep. John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, joined 38 other representatives to sponsor HR 635, which would form a committee to look into whether there are grounds for impeachment. Revive that effort!

Last week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, submitted a resolution demanding that Bush stop issuing “pre-emptive pardons of senior officials in his administration during the final 90 days of office.”

Anyone outside the districts of Kucinich and Nadler who pays the slightest attention to those oddballs should really consider psychiatirc help.

The only question remaining is this: Who's dumber? Riley or Gail Collins?

Battle for Hillary's Senate Seat Begins

Frankly I'm not putting much stock in the notion of Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State, but if indeed she winds up in that position, who her successor in New York might be is already under speculation.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate seat is still warm — and occupied — but the first notes are already sounding in the game of musical chairs to succeed her.

If President-elect Barack Obama does select her to be Secretary of State, it would further scramble the power structure in New York, which was upended earlier this year by Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s premature departure amid a prostitution scandal.

Just the names of potential successors — a Kennedy and Cuomo among them — conjure images of Democratic royalty.

Yes, just what we need: A choice of Andrew "Evil Eyes" Cuomo or the former junkie and environmental nutcase RFK Jr.

There has to be some fresh blood, no?

Some are already pushing for Buffalo-area congressman Brian Higgins. Tom Suozzi’s name has come up, too. He’s the Long Island politician who made a name for himself railing against New York’s notoriously high property taxes, battled Spitzer for the 2006 gubernatorial nomination then was appointed by Spitzer to chair a tax-cap commission.

In a year where Barack Obama broke down racial barriers, either Higgins or Suozzi would be a nod to one of the traditional pillars of New York Democrats: white Catholics.

Both Suozzi and Higgins are virtual no-names, although Suozzi is relatively popular on Long Island.

Then they get to the flotsam and jetsam of the NY congressional contingent, and it's a regular hack-o-rama.

Plenty of other New York members of Congress are in the early mix as well: Nita Lowey, who was in line to become a senator until Clinton moved in; Steve Israel, a moderate from Long Island; New York City’s Carolyn Maloney or Jerrold Nadler, both veteran lawmakers; or Kirsten Gillibrand, a relatively new upstate politician but one who has won Republican votes and raised scads of money.

I could see it possibly being Lowey, who probably would have won the seat in 2000 until Hillary barged in and took over. She played the good soldier and maybe should be rewarded?

Nadler? Good grief. Would he be able to cope with the weighty issues in the Senate, such as their substandard dining accommodations?

Since Obama may be intent on getting the Clinton band back together, why not just have her husband, The Clenis, finish out her term?

Liberals Pushing Impeachment

It appears the far left has a political death wish, while their constituents are not busy wishing death upon their opponents (hello, HuffPosters).

Congressional Democrats say their constituents are clamoring for something even the most liberal lawmakers promise they won't pursue: President Bush's impeachment.

"I get one call after another saying, 'Impeach the president,' " said Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat and one of Mr. Bush's most relentless critics on the Iraq war.

"It's a simple process but a very divisive thing," Mr. Murtha said. "You've got to measure what it's going to do to the country, and at this point I don't see that happening. Instead we'll fight it out on the issues."

Some members speculated that the Democratic takeover of Congress and passage of Iraq withdrawal timetables in both the House and Senate have emboldened liberals across the country who want to see the president embarrassed during his final 21 months in office.

"The timing is all wrong," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat. "If this were the first two years of his administration I would advocate impeachment. A lot of people at home say impeachment, and I'm sure he committed a lot of impeachable offenses, but think about it practically."

Mr. Nadler said impeachment hearings would be pointless and would only distract the country from the presidential election next year.

When even Burger Boy Nadler and Crazy Jack are against it, you know it's a bad idea. But that won't deter the insane left fringe.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said he thinks impeachment has merit. In a video on his 2008 presidential campaign site, Mr. Kucinich tells supporters: "We need to reevaluate the direction of this administration by looking at its conduct in office, by determining whether it has faithfully followed the laws of our nation. I'm prepared to start that process."

Shed Your Burqas!

Yes, it's the return of the ERA, and I'm not talking about earned run average.

Democratic Lawmakers to Reintroduce ERA

Liberal Democrats in the Senate and House plan to resume "the fight for women's equality" on Tuesday, when they reintroduce the Women's Equality Amendment.

Sens. Ted Kennedy (Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, both of New York, plan to join Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, in making the Tuesday afternoon announcement.

This time around, supporters say they hope "women will finally achieve official equality in America." But a conservative group said women's rights activists are "fighting old battles."

First proposed in 1923, the ERA states: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

Michelle Malkin has more.

Democrats Launch 'Adopt a Gitmo Detainee' Program

You just can never underestimate the Democrats and their ability to undermine national security. Not satisfied with keeping the world's most feral human debris safely locked up on an island prison, now they want to import the terrorists onto our shores.

Ironically, they don't have any problem with Fidel Castro keeping his citizens prisoner on the island. Castro they like. It's Bush they hate.

Key House Democrats plan to insist the Pentagon shut down the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and are contemplating the relocation of many of the 385 or so remaining terrorist suspects to military brigs along the East Coast -- including Quantico, Va., and Charleston, S.C.

"It sets us back in the war on terrorism to be maintaining Guantanamo," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who's heading an investigation of the facility for the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

"It will enhance our reputation to close it down and to apply our system of justice to all of these detainees," he added.

After two trips to Guantanamo, Moran told The Politico that he's recommending Congress cut funding to the detention center at the end of summer 2008. The men held there should then be released, tried or moved to the United States, he said.

Where Moran surely would allow them to register to vote, just in time for the 2008 elections.

Yet to be divulged by Jim Moran, Super Genius, is a plan to allow each of Gitmo's 385 detainees to be adopted by a Congressional district of their choice. For example, since Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind 9/11, he obviously would feel most welcome in lower Manhattan, the district represented by slobbering Bush hater Jerrold Nadler.

Other fiends most surely would seek to gain entrance to the Minnesota district now led by Islamist Keith Ellison (D-CAIR). Another choice spot would be San Francisco, a hotbed of jihad supporters and home to Nancy Pelosi.

Now there may be some logistical problems, as there may not be enough districts out there in the red states that are willing to accept these poor, misguided souls who just happened to be vacationing in Afghanistan after 9/11. So most of the innocents would likely be placed together in group facilities in urban areas heavily populated by friendly Democrats.

Of course, not all Americans think this is a good idea.

A senior administration official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he was puzzled by the Democrats' frequent discussion of closing Guantanamo.

"While we want to bring these guys to trial as quickly as possible, where do Democrats believe we should keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 plot?" the official asked. "Which American city will they choose to place America's most wanted terrorists?"

Details, details.

UPDATE: A must read from Debra Burlingame in today's Opinion Journal: Gitmo's Guerrilla Lawyers.