Tannhauser42 wrote:
So Ted Cruz opened his mouth and verbal diarrhea came out.

Seriously, I thought we had moved on from threatening to kill other leaders about 40 years ago or so? I mean, I get Iran hasn't caught up to us yet and is still about 40 years behind us in political rhetoric (we stopped chanting "better dead than red" and similar things long ago). Do we really need to be dragged back into that era? What's next, a return to McCarthyism where people are demonized because they might be a member of a different ideology? Oh, wait, we're already there....

It was in an earlier version of that article, but in the same speech Cruz was also rather gleeful about Boehner's resignation. I guess nothing demonstrates the self-destruction of the GOP more than that several of its elected members are jubilant in the resignation of such a respected leader. And what's worse is they're too stupid to realize how much damage it's going to do to them in the long run.

 whembly wrote:

Guys... does Obama bear any faults? Any at all?

Oh, quite a few. But, the real question is, does it really matter? Barack Obama and George W. Bush could walk on water, hand-in-hand, to heal a wounded swan with a touch, and the parties would still complain about the other side somehow. That's how bad the situation is. That's why so many are supporting Trump, Sanders, et al., because they represent something different (maybe real hope/change?). When one side says their primary goal is to stop the other side from accomplishing anything, in an ideal world that should have resulted in every one of them being voted out of office and replaced with someone who is willing to work together. And it doesn't matter if the other side "did it before", because that doesn't make it right. It's like revenge killing: it only stops when there's no one left.

Compromise is dead. It's like there's nobody left in Washington who understands that to get something, you have to give something, too. Now, each party just tosses the election coin every two years, hoping it lands on their side. What they don't get is that the coin never lands on a side, it always lands on its edge. Because even if one side gets the majority, the minority can still obstruct them unless they're all willing to work together. That's how our government was designed to work.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Tell the thousands of small business owners who rely on the fed govt. agencies being open to make money that it doesn't hurt them "in the grand scheme of things" coffee shops and restaurants across the street from federal buildings? No customers. Pvt. Businesses that rent out canoes or bait shops near federal land? Sorry, you don't get customers because a few representatives are throwing a hissy fit and not doing their job over something that would never pass a veto anyway. They do not get reimbursed when the govt. reopens.

 Frazzled wrote:


The thought a sitting President would shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous. The fact the Congress hasn't put forth a budget in years is outrageous. The fact a portion of Congress wants to shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous.

Fire them all.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Tell the thousands of small business owners who rely on the fed govt. agencies being open to make money that it doesn't hurt them "in the grand scheme of things" coffee shops and restaurants across the street from federal buildings? No customers. Pvt. Businesses that rent out canoes or bait shops near federal land? Sorry, you don't get customers because a few representatives are throwing a hissy fit and not doing their job over something that would never pass a veto anyway. They do not get reimbursed when the govt. reopens.

Trying to figure out how that is bad.

The thought a sitting President would shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous. The fact the Congress hasn't put forth a budget in years is outrageous. The fact a portion of Congress wants to shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous.

Fire them all.

Yes, Hillary Clinton broke the law

Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.

Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)

On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.

According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”

The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?

Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.

She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.

Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server).

She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).

Two examples demonstrate this point.

When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.

Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.

Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”

While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.

There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.

Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.

The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.

It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.

Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.

Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.

 the Signless wrote:
If you ever get tired of the bickering multi-party systems, the one party system doesn't have any problems passing a budget. We all agree or get arrested. Efficiency!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Whembly, do you have a source besides the New York Post?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Whembly, do you have a source besides the New York Post?

Hillary’s Sources, Methods, and Lies
I’ve been doing my best to explain the complex intelligence realities behind Hillary Clinton’s on-going #EmailGate scandal for months now, and we’re still far from the end of this messy saga.

Hillary’s take on what happened with her State Department “unclassified” email and her “private” server has see-sawed with the customary Clintonian lawyerly evasions, untruths, and now something approaching half-truths.

First it was: everything done was legal and acceptable.

Then came: mistakes were perhaps made, but not by me, and I’m not apologizing.

Followed by: the inevitable Clintonian sorry-not-sorry.

Now, having seen her polls dropping in rock-like fashion, we’re at: I’m kinda sorry but still nothing I emailed was “marked” classified.

The last is a particularly dishonest evasion, given that the Intelligence Community has twice determined that in fact TOPSECRET//SCI information was included in Hillary’s “private” email on at least two occasions. Given that’s from a sample of just forty emails, out of the 30,000 she has handed over to investigators (to say nothing of the 30,000 more that Hillary deleted), the mind boggles at how many actually classified (if unmarked) emails Hillary and her Foggy Bottom staff put on her personal server. As I’ve recently explained, this is a complex counterintelligence investigation that will last for months yet.

The core of this debate is what makes information classified in the U.S. Government. Much of what’s marked — and it’s always marked — classified relates to policy matters and is customarily classified at the CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET level. The vast majority of the information identified as actually classified in Hillary’s “unclassified” emails is in this group, with most being CONFIDENTIAL, the lowest level of classification.

Critics of secrecy (including some Hillary defenders) love to point out that the U.S. Government, the Pentagon especially, habitually overclassifies things. While this is a hoary Beltway cliché it contains more than a grain of truth, and anybody who’s spent time in our secret government and is honest will admit to having seen things that were marked classified, usually at low levels, that really didn’t need to be. Some of this is mere bureaucratic habit while some can be placed at the doorstep of those three most important letters in Washington, DC; C-Y-A.

That said, what Hillary and her staff seem to have compromised was mainly what the State Department terms Foreign Government Information and, when it involves high-level diplomatic conversations — say, discussions between a Secretary of State and a foreign counterpart — that sort of FGI is always considered classified at Foggy Bottom. Secrecy lies at the heart of international diplomacy and always has, and if Hillary planned to change that she really needed to inform the countless allies and friends abroad who confided in her with the expectation that their conversation would remain out of view of the public and foreign intelligence agencies — and not on Hillary’s unencrypted private email and server.

The most serious allegations facing Team Clinton, however, focus on the compromised intelligence. Exposing TOPSECRET information is a much more serious matter, legally and practically, than compromising less classified things. If, as now appears certain, Hillary and/or her staff placed such highly sensitive information, reported to deal with North Korean WMDs, in private unclassified email, that is something the FBI will be unable to ignore.

How the Intelligence Community classifies its information is opaque to outsiders yet needs clarification as such knotty issues occupy an important part of the #EmailGate story. I’ve previously elaborated in detail how intelligence analysis from multiple classified sources winds up on the desks of senior policymakers inside the Beltway, creating a complex picture.

How that information gets classified in the first place needs explanation. Most, though by no means all, of the Intelligence Community’s output consists of information that’s been purloined one way or the other. As I like to explain to outsiders, the business of any spy agency is learning things that they are not supposed to know. Which is really a nice way of saying the core work of every intelligence service is breaking the laws of foreign countries.

How classified any information is derives from a process termed intelligence sources and methods. This is so critical that it’s called “the heart of all intelligence operations” in Washington, DC. All this really means is that how intelligence has been obtained determines its classification level, not the information itself.

Since our Intelligence Community is a seventeen-agency behemoth with a lot of people churning out a lot of information — remember, they’re not stovepipes, they’re “cylinders of excellence” — sometimes the same information gets reported through different channels at very different levels of classification. This provides an ideal example of showing how sources and methods actually work.

Let’s say that Zendia’s top general officer, Abu Jackson, is deathly ill and may not have long to live. High-ranking people in Washington, DC, care about this because General Jackson is considered a friend of the United States and he has been cooperative regarding hush-hush joint counterterrorism operations in his country.

If his illness is revealed in local press, that will likely be picked up by our Embassy there and probably also by the CIA’s Open Source Center, which translates foreign media. Since this is open press, it’s considered UNCLASSIFIED (though the Embassy may put a Sensitive But Unclassified — SBU, or what the Pentagon calls For Official Use Only or FOUO — stamp on it as a formality). Of course, Zendian press is sensationalist and it’s good not to put much credence in such reports without independent corroboration.

However, if our defense attaché hears whispers that General Jackson is seriously ill through his or her channels, which really amounts to hall gossip inside the Zendian Ministry of Defense, that will be reported by the Defense Intelligence Agency at the CONFIDENTIAL level, SECRET at most.

Meanwhile, if a Central Intelligence Agency case officer learns from a cultivated and validated human source about General Jackson’s illness and possible impending death, that report will flow through Langley with a SECRET//NOFORN stamp on it (unless the Zendian asset is unusually well placed, in which case a TOPSECRET//NOFORN marking and even special compartments could apply).

Let’s say, that same day, the National Security Agency intercepts a phone call between a top Zendian officer, a senior staffer to General Jackson, who tells a counterpart in Dirtbagistan, on what both believe to be a secure line, that his boss is dying of cancer and has three or four months to live. That will be reported by NSA at the TOPSECRET//SCI level since it relies on that Agency’s ability to decipher encrypted Dirtbagistani defense communications, and it will be given a high level of credibility by U.S. decision-makers since it’s “horse’s mouth” testimony.

The salient point is that the essential information — that General Jackson is a seriously unwell man — is identical. How this information was obtained by our intelligence services, the relevant sources and methods, alone determine classification levels.

The fact of General Jackson’s grave illness came from several different sources:

— Foreign press reporting, termed Open Source Intelligence or OSINT;

— Low-level Human Intelligence or HUMINT from DIA;

— High-level HUMINT from CIA;

— High-grade Signals Intelligence or SIGINT from NSA.

This complexity also goes some way to explaining why the Intelligence Community is prone to overclassifying things, for instance labeling press reports that appear in U.S. Government correspondence — as has happened with #EmailGate — as classified. This sounds crazy to outsiders but is commonplace since these are comments by senior officials who are reading classified intelligence in addition to press accounts (insiders term these “reflections”).

The next time a member of the media or a Hillary advocate, few of whom possess any real understanding of intelligence matters, presents these issues brought forth by #EmailGate as simple or straightforward — or, alternately, so complicated that no mere mortal could be expected to understand classification — remember that in fact they are complex yet comprehensible. As I have explained here.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Well, here is an opinion from one of Patraeus's prosecutors: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

“If you were Secretary of State now and your Deputy Secretary of State said I want to do all of my email on a personal server on a private email account, would you approve that?”

“I would not. No.”

 Easy E wrote:
I know I am way out of the loop, but did Walker leave the race?

I honestly thought he was going to be the next Presidential Nominee based on his union busting alone. I guess he wasn't extreme enough for the National base.

More likely, no one outside of the Midwest had even heard of the guy.

 d-usa wrote:
That, and "anti-Union" was basically the one-trick-pony he ran on.

How are you going to deal with the Middle East? The same way I dealt with the unions!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Speaking of the Middle East, it seems that Obama's UN speech is filled with the same old solutions to ISIS that have spectacularly failed to work these past 10 years, but Obama is pushing for them again... .

 skyth wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Speaking of the Middle East, it seems that Obama's UN speech is filled with the same old solutions to ISIS that have spectacularly failed to work these past 10 years, but Obama is pushing for them again... .

Gee...I didn't know ISIL has been around for 10 years...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ah, math, that thing no politician seems to know.

 whembly wrote:
Anyone see Trump's tax plan?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

It's not bad... (especially the non-stocks income).

What's hysterical is that it's awfully close to Jeb's and Rand's plan.

My biggest pet-peeve with these plans is that it's all about CUT TAXES and CHANGE THE TAX RATES!

Where's the plan to CUT SPENDING? Or, at the absolute minimum... where's the plan to enforce/encourage efficiencies/optimaizations to FREE UP MONEY already allocated to be used in other areas?

This is why the GOP and Democrat fails at any tax policies...

 skyth wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Anyone see Trump's tax plan?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

It's not bad... (especially the non-stocks income).

What's hysterical is that it's awfully close to Jeb's and Rand's plan.

My biggest pet-peeve with these plans is that it's all about CUT TAXES and CHANGE THE TAX RATES!

Where's the plan to CUT SPENDING? Or, at the absolute minimum... where's the plan to enforce/encourage efficiencies/optimaizations to FREE UP MONEY already allocated to be used in other areas?

This is why the GOP and Democrat fails at any tax policies...

The plan is gakiy because it raises taxes on the poor (notice the part about getting rid of exemptions, etc) and it continues the misinformation that the tax code is incredibly complex. For 90% of people, it's pretty simple. It's only complex if you are doing weird things or had your lobbyists get special stuff put in for you.

Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington
REMINDS LEADERSHIP TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE




WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today delivered a speech on the Senate floor highlighting the many examples of Republican leadership surrendering to President Obama’s demands, including funding Planned Parenthood and the catastrophic Iran nuclear deal. Sen. Cruz’s speech followed an attempt to permit a vote on his amendment to end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and the Iranian nuclear deal. His colleagues refused to allow him the courtesy of a roll-call vote on his motion, which would have allowed for consideration of his amendment.

The text of Sen. Cruz’s amendment can be found here.

Sen. Cruz’s floor speech in its entirety can be read below and video can be viewed here.

“Mr. President, there is a reason the American people are fed up with Washington. There is a reason the American people are frustrated. The frustration is not simply mild or passing or ephemeral. It is volcanic. Over and over again, the American people go to the ballot box, over and over again, the American people rise up and say the direction we're going doesn't make sense. We want change. Over and over again, the American people win elections. In 2010, a tidal wave election. In 2014, a tidal wave election. And yet, nothing changes in Washington.

“Mr. President, I'd like to share with you and the American people the real story of what is happening in Washington. Why is it that our leaders cannot stop bankrupting this country, cannot stop the assault on our constitutional rights, cannot stop America's retreat from leadership in the world? It's a very simple dynamic when you have two sides allegedly in a political battle. One side that is relentlessly, unshakably committed to its principles, and the other side that reflexively surrenders at the outset. The outcome is fore–ordained..

“I will give President Obama and the Senate Democrats credit. They believe in principles of big government. They believe in this relentless assault on our constitutional rights, and they are willing to crawl over broken glass with a knife between their teeth to fight for those principles. Unfortunately, leadership on my side of the aisle does not demonstrate the same commitment to principles. Now, how is it, you might wonder, that a preemptive surrender is put in place? Well, it all begins with the relatively innocuous statement ‘there shall be no shutdowns.’ That is a statement leadership in both houses, Republican leadership in both houses, has said: ‘We're not going to shut the government down.’ You could understand the folks in the private sector, folks at home – that sounds perfectly reasonable. Except here's the reality in Washington.

“In today's Washington, there are three kinds of votes. There are, number one, show votes.. Votes that are brought up largely to placate the voters where the outcome is fore –ordained,, where most Republicans will vote one way, Democrats will vote the other, Republicans will lose, and the conservatives who elected Republican majorities in both houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose. We had a vote like that in recent weeks on Planned Parenthood. Leadership told us: ‘You should be thrilled. We voted on it. What else do you want?’ We voted on it in a context where it would never happen. And indeed it didn't. The second kind of vote are votes that simply grow government, that dramatically expand spending, expand corporate welfare, and those votes, Mr. President, those votes pass. Because you get a bipartisan coalition of Republican leadership and Democrats, both of whom are convinced that career politicians will get reelected if they keep growing and growing government, and in particular, handing out corporate welfare to giant corporations. Oh, boy, if you’ve got the lobbyists on K street pushing for something, you can get 60, 70, 80 votes in this chamber because Republican leadership loves it, and Democrats are always willing to grow government.

“And then there's a third kind of vote. Votes on must-pass legislation. In an era when one side, the Democratic Party, is adamantly committed to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of Americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real consequence in this chamber. They typically fall into one of three categories – either continuing resolution, or an omnibus appropriation bill, or a debt ceiling increase. Each of those three are deemed must-pass votes, and if you actually want to change law, those are the only hopes of doing so. But I mentioned before you have got one side that has preemptively surrendered. Republican leadership has said: ‘We will never, ever, ever shut down the government.’ And suddenly, President Obama understands the easy key to winning every battle. He simply has to utter the word ‘shutdown,’ and Republican leadership runs to the hills.

“So President Obama demands of Congress ‘fund every bit of Obamacare, 100 percent of it, and do nothing, zero, for the millions of Americans who are hurting, millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, who have lost their health care, who have lost their doctors, who have been forced into part-time work, millions of young people who have seen their premiums skyrocket.’ President Obama says ‘you can do nothing for the people that are hurting.’ Senate Democrats say: ‘We don't care about the people who are hurting. We'll do nothing for them.’ And here's the kicker. President Obama promises ‘if you try to do anything on Obamacare, I, Barack Obama, will veto funding for the entire federal government and shut it down,’ and Republican leadership compliantly says, ‘Okay, fine, we'll fund Obamacare.’

“President Obama then – understanding he's got a pretty good trump card here he can pull out any time – next he says, ‘Okay, Republicans, fund my unconstitutional executive amnesty. It's contrary to law. It's flouting federal immigration law. But you, Republicans, fund it anyway, or else I, Barack Obama, will veto funding for the entire federal government and shut it down,’ and Republican leadership says at the outset, ‘Okay, we'll fund amnesty.’

“Or now you turn to Planned Parenthood. Barack Obama, this will surprise no one, says, ‘Fund 100 percent of Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money.’ Mind you, Planned Parenthood is a private organization. It's not even part of the government, but it happens to be politically favored by President Obama and the Democrats. Planned Parenthood is also the subject of multiple criminal investigations for being caught on tape apparently carrying out a pattern of ongoing felonies. In ordinary times, the proposition that we should not be sending your and my federal taxpayer money to fund a private organization under multiple criminal investigations, that ought to be a 100-0 vote. But I mentioned before Barack Obama is absolutely committed to his partisan objectives. He is like The Terminator. He never stops. He never gives up. He moves forward and forward and forward. So what does he say? ‘If you don't fund this one private organization that's not part of the government, that's under multiple criminal investigations, I, Barack Obama, will veto funding for the entire federal government and shut it down.’ And what does Republican leadership say? Well, it will surprise no one. Republican leadership says, ‘We surrender. We will fund Planned Parenthood.’

“You know, President Obama has negotiated a catastrophic nuclear deal with Iran. Republican leadership goes on television all the time and rightly says this is a catastrophic deal. The consequences are that it's the single greatest national security threat to America. Millions of Americans could die. Mr. President, I would suggest if we actually believed the words that are coming out of our mouths, then we would be willing to use any and all constitutional authorities given to Congress to stop a catastrophic deal that sends over $100 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei. But yet, President Obama says he will veto the entire budget if we do, and to the surprise of nobody, Republican leadership surrenders.

“You know, I’lldraw an analogy, Mr. President. It's as if in a football game at the beginning of the football game the two team captains go out to flip the coin and one team's coach walks out and says we forfeit, and they do it game after game after game. Right at the coin flip, leadership says: ‘We forfeit, we surrender, we, Republicans, will fund every single big-government liberal priority of the Democrats.’ Now, if a team did that, if an NFL team did that over 16 games, we know what their record would be. It would be 0-16. And, you know, I’d bepretty sure that the fans, who bought tickets, who went to the game, would be pretty ticked off as they watched their coach forfeit over and over and over and over again.

“You want to understand the volcanic frustration with Washington? It's that the Republican leadership in both houses will not fight for a single priority that we promised the voters we would fight for when we were campaigning less than a year ago.

“You know, this past week was a big news week in Washington. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner announced he was going to resign. There was lots of speculation in the media as to why the speaker of the house resigned. Mr. President, I'm going to tell you why he resigned. It's actually a direct manifestation of this disconnect between the voters back home and Republican leadership. Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell had promised ‘there will be no shutdown,’ so, therefore, they will fund every single priority of Barack Obama's. We are right now voting on what's called a ‘clean CR.’ Now I will note it is clean only in the parlance of Washington, because what does it do? It funds 100 percent of Obamacare, 100 percent of executive amnesty. It funds all of Planned Parenthood. It funds the Iranian nuclear deal. It is essentially a blank check to Barack Obama. That’s not very clean to me. That actually sounds like a very dirty funding bill, funding priorities that are doing enormous damage.

“Now, in the Senate the votes were always there for a dirty CR, a CR that funded all of Barack Obama's priorities. The Democrats will all vote for it. Heck, of course they will. They've got the other side funding their priorities. Of course every Democrat will vote for that over and over and over again and twice on Sunday. And the simple reality on the Republican side is when leadership joins with the Democrats about half of the Republican caucus is happy to move over to that side of the aisle. So the votes were always preordained.

“The motion I made just a moment ago was a motion to table the tree. You remember filling the tree? It’s something we heard about a lot in the previous congress. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, did it all the time. Senators on this side of the aisle stood up over and over again and said it's an abuse of process. In fact, we even campaigned - our leadership - saying we're going to have an open amendment process. And yet, what's happened here is Majority Leader McConnell has taken a page out of Leader Reid's playbook and filled the tree. I moved to table the tree. And what you then saw was leadership denying a second. And what does denying a second mean? Denying a recorded vote. Why is that important? Mr. President, when you are breaking the commitments you've made to the men and women who elected you, the most painful thing in the world is accountability. When you are misleading the men and women who showed up to vote for you, you don't want sunshine making clear that you voted "No." A recorded vote means each senator's name is on it. Now, why did I move to table the tree? Simply to add the amendment that I had added, which would have, number one, said not one penny goes to Planned Parenthood. And, number two, not one penny goes to implementing this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal unless and until they comply with federal law, the Administration complies with federal law, and hands over the full deal including the side agreements with Iran. What you saw was Republican leadership desperately does not want a vote on that.

“Well, Mr. President, I intend tomorrow to make that motion again. And when I make that motion again, I would encourage those watching to see which senators are here to give a second or not and to vote yea or nay. I would note, by the way, when you deny a second, which is truly an unprecedented procedural trick. It used to be that was a courtesy that was afforded to all senators, indeed in the opposing party routinely over and over again, when someone asked for a second everyone raises their hand, but leadership has discovered we can do this in the dark of night. But I encourage those watching to see, number one, when this motion is offered again, who shows up to offer a second and who either doesn't raise his hand or just doesn't come to the floor. One of the ways you avoid accountability is you somehow are somewhere else doing something really, really important instead of actually showing up to the battle that is waging right here and now.

“But I would also encourage people to watch very carefully what happens after that. After that you have a voice vote. A voice vote is still a vote. Let's be clear, standing here on the floor, there were two senators -- Senator Lee and I -- who voted aye, who voted to table the tree and take up the amendment barring funding for Planned Parenthood and barring funding for this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal. The remaining senators on the Republican side -- you had Leader McConnell; you had Whip Cornyn; you had Senator Alexander; you had Senator Cochran -- those four senators voted loudly no. It’s still a vote, even though it’s not a recorded vote. It's a vote on the Senate floor.

“So why did Speaker Boehner resign? Well I mentioned to you that the votes were always cooked here. The Democrats plus Republican leadership and the votes that they bring with them ensure plenty of votes for a dirty CR, a CR that funds Obamacare, that funds amnesty, that funds Planned Parenthood, that funds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal. But the House was always the bulwark.

“Mr. President, you'll remember in 2013 when we had a fight over Obamacare – you were serving in the House at that time. In that fight, we never had the votes in the Senate. Actually, the Senate was under control of the Democrats. They were going to do anything they could to fund Obamacare, regardless of the millions of people hurting, but the House was bulwark in that fight. And in particular, there was a core of 40 or 50 strong, principled conservatives who cared deeply about honoring the commitments they made to the men and women who elected them. That was always the strength we had in that fight.

“You know, it's been interesting reading some of the press coverage speculating that there would be some magic parliamentary trick that would somehow stop this corrupt deal. Well in the Senate there are no magic parliamentary tricks. When you have the Democrats plus Republican leadership and a chunk of the Republicans, those votes can roll over any parliamentary trick you might use. Even with the blood moon we just had, there are no mystical powers that allow you to roll over that.

“But in the House, we’ve still got that 30, 40, 50 strong conservatives, so how is it that Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell could promise there will never, ever be a shutdown? Because, I believe, Speaker Boehner has decided to cut a deal with Leader Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats, that this dirty CR that's going to be passed out of the Senate is going to go to the House, and the speaker is going to take it up on the floor, pass it with all the Democrats, just like Leader McConnell just did, and a handful of Republicans who will go with Republican leadership. A very significant percentage of Republicans will vote "No." But here is the problem. Speaker Boehner's done that more than once, and in this instance there were too many Republicans who were tired of seeing their leadership lead the Democrats, rather than lead the Republican party. I believe if Speaker Boehner had done that - had passed a dirty CR funding Planned Parenthood, funding this Iranian nuclear deal -then he would have lost his speakership. A member of the House had introduced a motion to vacate the chair because House Republicans were fed up with their leader not leading, at least not leading their party, leading the Democratic Party. So, Speaker Boehner faced a conundrum. If he does what he and Leader McConnell promised, which is fund all of Barack Obama's priorities, he would have lost his job. So what did he do? He announced he's resigning as Speaker and resigning as a member of Congress. That is unsurprising, but it also telegraphs the deal he's just cut. It's a deal to surrender and join with the Democrats. Notice he said he's going to stay a month. He's going to stay a month in order to join with the Democrats and fund Barack Obama's priorities.

“Now let's talk about some of the substantive issues that we ought to be talking about. Let's start with Planned Parenthood. In the past couple of months a series of videos have come out about Planned Parenthood. Now, to some of the people watching this, you may never have seen the videos. Why is that? Because the mainstream media has engaged in a virtual media blackout on them. ABC, NBC, CBS, the last thing they want to do is show these videos. If you watch Fox News you can see the videos. But the mainstream media, in the great tradition of Pravda, wants to make sure the citizenry doesn't see what's in these videos. I would encourage every American, Republican or Democrat, regardless of where you fall on the right to life, even if, and in fact especially if you consider yourself pro-choice, just watch these videos. Go online and watch them, and ask yourself: ‘Are these my values? Is this what I believe?’ These videos show senior officials from Planned Parenthood laughing, sipping chardonnay and callously, heartlessly selling the body parts of unborn children over and over and over again. One senior official is caught on video laughing and saying she hopes she sells enough body parts of unborn children to buy herself a Lamborghini. Again, I would suggest just ask yourself: ‘Are these my values?’

“In another video, a lab tech describes a little baby boy, unborn, aborted, about two pounds, his heart still beating. She was instructed to insert scissors under his chin to cut open the face of this little boy and harvest his brain. Because the brain was valuable, Planned Parenthood could sell the brain. This is something out of Brave New World. This is human beings. That little boy had a heart that was still beating, had a brain that was being harvested, and he had a soul -given him by God Almighty, he was made in the image of God. And we are now a nation that harvests the body parts of little baby boys and girls. It is the very definition of inhumanity to treat children like agriculture, to be grown and killed for their body parts, to be sold for profit.

“Now there is a reason that the media and the Democrats don't want these videos shown. Because anyone watching these videos will be horrified. But they're not just horrific - they are also prima facie evidence of criminal activity. There are multiple federal statutes, criminal statutes, that Planned Parenthood appears to be violating, perhaps on a daily basis. The first and most direct is a prohibition on selling the body parts of unborn children for a profit. Federal criminal law makes that a felony with up to 10 years jail time. Now, these videos show them very clearly selling body parts. They also show them bartering over price. They'll argue it wasn't for a profit, but you watch these videos, you watch the undercover buyer saying how much will you give me for them? You see the Planned Parenthood official saying, ‘Well, how much can I get? I don't want to bargain against myself.’ On its face, that's evidence of bargaining for a profit. You want the highest price you can get. It's not tied to your cost. It's tied to whatever dollars, whatever revenue you can bring in.

“And Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in this country. As another one of these videos reflects, it is a volume business, Planned Parenthood, taking the lives of unborn children and then selling them, apparently for profit. It is also a federal criminal offense to alter the means of an abortion for the purpose of harvesting the organs of the unborn child. That's a separate criminal offense. On video after video you see Planned Parenthood officials say, ‘What parts would you like? We can perform a different abortion depending on what parts you want us to harvest.’ On the videos, they essentially admit to this crime. They are filmed in the act.

“There is the third criminal offense that provides that you cannot harvest the organs of an unborn child without informed consent from the mother. And yet again, these videos seem to indicate that Planned Parenthood treats informed consent as a technicality that is sometimes complied with and sometimes ignored.

“Now I will say, Mr. President, as an aside, ordinarily when a national organization is caught on film committing a pattern of felonies, the next steps are predictable. The Department of Justice opens an investigation. The FBI shows up and seizes their records. Everything on those videos suggests those felonies are still occurring today. What does it say about the Obama Justice Department that no one on the face of the planet believes there's any chance the Justice Department would even begin to investigate Planned Parenthood? What does it say about the most lawless, partisan Department of Justice that you've got this group, hey, it's a political ally of the president so that's apparently all that matters. If it's an ally of the president, it doesn't matter that they're videotaped committing felonies. The Department of Justice will not even look at it.

“You know, I'm an alumnus of the U.S. Department of Justice. I was an associate deputy attorney general. I spent much of my adult life working in law enforcement. The Department of Justice has a long, distinguished record of remaining outside of partisan politics, of staying above the partisan fray, of being blind to party or ideology and simply enforcing the law and the Constitution. I'm sorry to say under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the Department of Justice has completely besmirched that tradition. No one remotely believes that the Obama Justice Department will even begin to investigate this pattern of felonies. You don't see Democrats suggesting it. No one in the media suggests it. And, by the way, if this were a Republican Administration and the entity that admitted to a pattern of felonies was a private entity that supported Republicans, you would see on CBS, NBC, ABC an indictment clock every night. You would see the anchors saying, ‘When will this investigation open? When will they be indicted?’ Instead, the media pretends these videos don't exist.

“In the face of what appears to be a national criminal enterprise, we're faced here with a much simpler question: Will we continue to pay for it? Will we continue to pay for it? With your and my tax dollars, will we send $500 million a year to a private organization to use to fund this ongoing criminal organization? And what's the position of the Democrats? Hear no evil, see no evil. They do not care. What Democrat do you see calling for the enforcement of criminal laws against Planned Parenthood? What Democrat do you see saying, at a minimum, ‘Let's not send taxpayer money to fund this?’ Not one. Not a single Democrat stood up and said that.

“Let me ask you, Mr. President, what happens if Planned Parenthood gets indicted? Because even though the U.S. Department of Justice under President Obama has become little more than a partisan arm of the Democratic National Committee, there are state and local prosecutors that are investigating Planned Parenthood right now. If Planned Parenthood is indicted, do the Democrats maintain their wall of silence and say, ‘We're going to continue to fund them under indictment’? By all indications, yes. You haven't heard a single Democrat say, ‘well, if they're indicted, then we'll stop.’

“Now, the response, Mr. President, from our leadership is ‘we can't win this fight.’ That's their response. They say, well, we can't win the Planned Parenthood fight. Why? Because we don't have 60 votes. Because we don't have 67 votes. Mr. President, if that's the standard, then Republican leadership's standard is: We will only do whatever Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi approve of. That's what it means. You want to understand why the American people are frustrated? We were told, ‘If only we had a Republican House of Representatives, then things would be different.’ 2010, millions of us rose up in incredible numbers and won an historic tidal wave election. Mr. President, you were a youth pastor, called to ministry. And yet you stood up and said, my country's in crisis. I'm going to stand and serve. The 2010 election was historic. And yet very little changed.

“Then we were told, ‘Okay, we've got a House of Representatives, but the problem is the Senate. As long as Harry Reid is Majority Leader, we can't do anything.’ Over and over again, Washington gray beards would go on television and in gravelly tones, they would go on TV and say, ‘You cannot govern with one-half of one-third of government. The House of Representatives is not enough. But if we had the Senate, then things would be different. The problem is Harry Reid.’

“Mr. President, you'll recall during the fight over Obamacare, a number of members of this body, Republicans, said, ‘No, no, no, no, no, we can't fight on Obamacare. We have to wait until we have a Republican Senate to fight.’ So the American people obliged. In 2014, millions of us rose up – the second tidal wave election in a period of four years. We won nine Senate seats. We retired Harry Reid as majority leader. We won the largest majority in the House of Representatives since the 1920's. It's been now over nine months since we've had Republican majorities in both houses, and I ask you, Mr. President, what exactly have those Republican majorities accomplished?

“I'll tell you, Mr. President, I've asked that question all over the country in town halls. I've never been in a town hall where the response spontaneously was not ‘Absolutely nothing.’ That's true in every state I've visited. And, sadly, my response over and over again is, you know, it's worse than that. I wish the answer were ‘Absolutely nothing.’ It would have been better if the Republican majorities had done absolutely nothing. Because what, in fact, have they done? Well, the very first thing that happened right after that election in November is we came back to Washington and Republican leadership joined up with Harry Reid and the Democrats and passed a trillion-dollar cromnibus bill that was filled with pork and corporate welfare, grew government, grew the debt. Then, Republican leadership took the lead in funding Obamacare. Then, Republican leadership took the lead in funding executive amnesty. Then, Republican leadership took the lead in funding Planned Parenthood. And then, astonishingly, Republican leadership took the lead in confirming Loretta Lynch as attorney general. Now, I ask you, Mr. President, which one of those decisions is one iota different from what would have happened with Harry Reid and the Democrats in charge of this chamber? Those decisions are identical.

“And I would note, by the way, with Loretta Lynch, the Republican majority could have defeated that nomination. The Senate majority leader could have done so. And yet, she looked at the Senate Judiciary Committee, she looked at the Senate, when asked how she would differ from Eric Holder's Justice Department, the most lawless and partisan Justice Department we'd ever seen, she said, ‘No way whatsoever.’ When asked to point to a single instance in which she'd be willing to stand up to President Obama to stop his lawlessness, to stop his abuse of power, she could not identify any circumstance in which she would ever stand up to the president who appointed her. Attorneys general from both parties have done that for centuries. Now, with Eric Holder, the Senate could be forgiven because his lawlessness manifested primarily after he was confirmed. With Loretta Lynch, she told us beforehand. She looked us in the eyes and said, ‘Hey, I'm going to do exactly what my predecessor has done.’ And Republican leadership confirmed her anyway. Is it any wonder the American people are frustrated out of their minds? We keep winning elections and the people we put in office don't do what they said they would do.

“Now, some people across the country ask me, is Republican leadership just not very capable? Are they not that competent or are they unwilling to fight? And, Mr. President, it's neither. They're actually quite competent, and they're willing to fight. The question is what they're fighting for. There's a disconnect right now. If you or I go to our home states, we go to any gathering of citizens, we put up a whiteboard and we ask the citizens in the room, give me the top priorities you think Republican majorities in Congress should be focusing on – we wrote 20 priorities that came from the citizens of Oklahoma or the citizens of Texas or, for that matter, the citizens of any of the 50 states – those top 20 priorities, at least 18 of them would appear nowhere on leadership's priority list. On the other hand, if you drive just down the street in Washington to K Street – K

Street is the street in Washington where the lobbyists primarily reside, where their offices are – if you get a gathering of corporate lobbyists that represent giant corporations and you ask them their top priorities, the list that comes out will not just bear passing similarity, it will be identical to the priorities of Republican leadership. That's the disconnect. You know why we're not here fighting on this? Because not giving taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood is not among the priorities of the lobbyists on K Street, so leadership is not interested in doing it. That's the disconnect.

“Leadership does know how to fight. Just a couple of months ago dealing with the Export-Import Bank, we saw leadership in both chambers go to extraordinary lengths, Herculean procedural steps to try to reauthorize a classic example of corporate welfare, hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer-guaranteed loans to giant corporations. Now, for that leadership is incentivized because those corporations hire lobbyists, and those lobbyists distribute checks typically by the wheelbarrow. And there is no incentive greater in this body than getting reelected. And the view of leadership is: You get reelected by raking in the cash. How do you think we've gotten an $18 trillion national debt? Because the way you reach bipartisan compromise in this body today, in the broken world of Washington, is you grow and grow and grow government. You sit around in a room, you say, ‘I'll spend for your priority, your priority, your priority, your priority, another trillion dollars and we're done.’

“The only people that lose are your children and mine. The only people that lose are the next generations who find themselves mired deeper and deeper and deeper in debt. I think of my little girls, Caroline and Catherine. They're seven and four. If we don't stop what we're doing, your children and my children will face a debt so crushing they won't be able to spend in the future, for the priorities of the future, for their needs, for their wants, for whatever crises come up that the next generation confronts. They'll spend their whole lives simply working to pay off the debts racked up by their deadbeat parents and grandparents. No generation in history has ever done this to their children or grandchildren. Our parents didn't do it to us. Their parents didn't do it to them. The reason is the corruption of this town. And it boils down to a simple proposition: The Democrats are willing to do anything to push their priorities. And the Republicans, the leadership, is not listening to the men and women who elected us.

“But it's actually an even deeper problem than that. On the Democratic side, the major donors that fund the Democratic Party, they don't despise their base. The billionaires who write the giant checks that fund President Obama and Hillary Clinton and the Democrats on that side of the aisle, they don't despise the radical gay rights movement or the radical environmentalist movement or all of the people that knock on doors and get Democrats elected. The simple reality is a very large percentage of the Republican donors actively despise our base, actively despise the men and women who showed up and voted you and me into office. I can tell you when you sit down and talk with a New York billionaire Republican donor -- and I have talked with quite a few New York billionaire Republican donors, California Republican donors, their questions start out as follows. First of all, you've got to come out for gay marriage, you need to be pro-choice, and you need to support amnesty. That's where the Republican donors are. You wonder why Republicans won't fight on any of these issues? Because the people writing the checks agree with the Democrats.

“Now, mind you, the people who show up at the polls, who elected you and me, and who elected this Republican majority, far too many of the Republican donors look down on those voters as a bunch of ignorant hicks and rubes. That's why leadership likes show votes. It wasn't too long ago when the Washington Cartel was able to mask it all with a show vote or two, and they'd tell the rubes back home, ‘See, we voted on it, we just don't have the votes.’

“You know, when I was first elected to this body, many times I heard more senior senators saying some variation of the following: ‘Now, Ted, that's what you tell folks back home. You don't actually do it.’ Here's what's changed. The voters have gotten more informed. They now understand the difference between show votes and a real vote. They understand the vote we had a week ago on Planned Parenthood was designed to lose, to placate those silly folks that think we shouldn't be sending taxpayer funds to a criminal organization that is selling the body parts of unborn children. But on the actual vote that could change policy, leadership has no interest in fighting whatsoever. You know, in the past couple of weeks, one of my colleagues sent me a letter that really embodied the leadership message. This letter said, ‘Explain to me how you get 67 votes to defund Planned Parenthood. If you can't produce 67 votes, I won't support it.’ Mr. President, if that is our standard, then we should all be honest with the men and women who elected us. We do not have 67 Republican votes in this chamber, and there is no realistic prospect of our getting 67 votes any time in the foreseeable future. If the standard is unless you get 67 votes, Republican leadership will support no policy issue, then each of us when we run should tell the voters, ‘If you vote for me, I will support whatever policy agenda Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi decide because that's my standard if I don't have 67 votes.’ Do you ever recall Harry Reid and the Democrats saying how could we get Republican votes? No. Their side is absolutely committed to their principles. You don't see them holding back at all. If the standard is how do we get 67 votes, name one thing that leadership will fight for. Well, the answer, I mentioned there are three types of votes. They will fight for big government. They will fight to grow government. They will fight to expand corporate welfare. Well, that can indeed get 67 votes. But I have never been to a town hall once where citizens said to me: ‘The problem is we don't have enough corporate welfare. I need more subsidies for big business.’ If 100 percent of the agenda of Republican leadership is more subsidies for big business, what the heck are you and I doing in the Senate in the first place? That certainly wasn't why I ran, and I know it wasn't why you ran either. You don't have to win every fight. You don't have to fight every fight. But you do have to stand for something.

“And let's look beyond Planned Parenthood for a minute. Let's look to Iran. Of all of the decisions that the Obama Administration has made, there may be none more damaging than this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal. If this deal goes through, there will be three consequences. Number one, the Obama Administration will become quite literally the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. Now, when I said that a couple of months ago, President Obama got very, very upset. He said it was ridiculous that I would say such a thing. But despite attacking me directly, President Obama didn't actually endeavor to refute the substance of what I'd said. So let's review the facts. Fact number one, Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. That fact is undisputed, even by this Administration. Fact number two, if this deal goes through, over $100 billion will go directly to Iran, to the Ayatollah Khamenei. And fact number three, if that happens, billions of those dollars will go to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to the Houthis, to radical Islamic terrorists across the globe who will use those billions to murder Americans, to murder Israelis and to murder Europeans.

“You know, Mr. President, it's worth remembering 14 years ago this month the horrific terrorist attack that was carried out on September 11th. Osama bin Laden hated America, but he never had billions of dollars. He never had $100 billion. The Ayatollah Khamenei hates America every bit as much as Osama bin Laden did, and this Administration is giving him control of over $100 billion. Imagine what bin Laden could have done. Look at the damage he did with 19 terrorists carrying box cutters. Now, imagine that same zealotry with billions of dollars behind it. The consequences of this deal could easily be another terrorist attack that dwarfs September 11th in scale, that kills far more than the roughly 3,000 lives that were snuffed out. Who in their right mind would send over $100 billion to a theocratic zealot who chants ‘Death to America’?

“A second consequence of this catastrophic deal is that we're abandoning four hostages, four American hostages in Iranian jails. Pastor Saeed Abedini is an American citizen. His wife, Naghmeh, lives in Idaho. I’ve visited with Naghmeh many times. Pastor Saeed has two little kids who desperately want their daddy to come home. Pastor Saeed was sentenced to eight years in prison for the crime of preaching the gospel. Just last week was the three-year anniversary of Pastor Saeed's imprisonment. Reports are that he is being horribly mistreated, that his health is failing. And yet, President Obama cannot bring himself to utter the words ‘Pastor Saeed Abedini.’ A hundred billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, and Pastor Saeed Abedini remains in prison. Also in prison is Amir Hekmati, an American marine the president has abandoned. Also in prison is Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post reporter,I note to the reporters in the gallery, a colleague of yours, abandoned by President Obama in an Iranian prison, thrown in jail for doing his job reporting on the news. And Robert Levinson, whose whereabouts remain unknown. Why does the president refuse even to utter their names?

“The third consequence of this deal is this deal will only accelerate Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, the Administration claims that the deal will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Why? Because they promise not to do it. We have learned from Iran they break their promises over and over and over again. And what we do know is that they will have an extra $100 billion to develop nuclear weapons with now -- I will say the Administration has laughingly suggested -well, they will use that on infrastructure to rebuild their roads, to rebuild their energy industry. Right now, they're sending vast sums to Hamas and Hezbollah, funding terrorism across the world, and they have those same infrastructure needs. With another $100 billion, you don't think they're going to funnel an awful lot of it to developing nuclear weapons. And I would point out it is not by accident that the Ayatollah Khamenei refers to Israel as the ‘Little Satan’ and America as the ‘Great Satan.’ This is the one threat on the face of the Earth that poses a real possibility of millions of Americans being murdered in the flash of an eye.

“Now, everything I'm saying, Republican leadership has said over and over again. And yet, Republican leadership refuses to enforce the terms of the Iran review legislation – federal law that the Administration is defying by not handing the entire deal over. I have laid out a clear path, a detailed path that leadership can follow to stop this deal. Leadership refuses to do so. Instead, we had a show vote that was designed to lose, and it did exactly what we expected. The Democrats by and large put party loyalty above the national security of this country, above standing with Israel, above protecting the lives of millions of Americans. If we really believed what so many of us have said, that this poses the risk of murdering millions of Americans, is there any higher priority? The most powerful constitutional tool Congress has is the power of the purse. If we had the ability to stop this deal and we don’t and millions of Americans die, how do we explain that to the men and women who elected us? Look, I'm not advocating that we fight willy-nilly. I'm advocating that we fight on things that matter.

“Don't give $500 million to Planned Parenthood, a corrupt organization that is taking the lives of vast numbers of unborn children and selling their body parts in a criminal conspiracy directly contrary to federal law, and don't give $100 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, who seeks to murder millions. In both instances, those are defending life. And yet, Republican leadership is not willing to lift a finger. If only all the people who might be murdered by a nuclear weapon could create a PAC in Washington and hire some lobbyists, maybe leadership would listen to them then. But the truck driver at home, the waitress at home, the school teacher at home, the pastor, the police officer, the working men and women, the Washington cartel doesn't listen to them.

“And I'll note where this deal is headed. In December, when this dirty continuing resolution expires, leadership is already foreshadowing they plan to bust the budget caps. Why? We talked about it at the beginning. Barack Obama has discovered, he says the word ‘shutdown,’ and Republican leadership screams, surrenders and runs to the hills. So Obama, understanding that quite well, says, ‘If you don't bust the budget caps, I'll shut the government down.’ And Republicans, in this bizarre process, Republican leadership will blame whatever Obama does on other Republicans. You noticed how much energy Leader McConnell devotes to attacking conservatives? You notice how much energy Speaker Boehner devotes to attacking conservatives?

“Just yesterday the Speaker of the House went on national television, and on national television, he directed an obscene epithet at me personally. He's welcome to insult whomever he likes. I don't intend to reciprocate. But when has leadership ever showed that level of venom, that level of animosity, to President Obama and the Democrats who are bankrupting this country, who are destroying the Constitution, who are endangering the future of our children and grandchildren, who are retreating from leadership in the world and have created an environment that has led to the rise of radical Islamic terrorism?

“You know, one of the dynamics, Mr. President, we've seen in fight after fight is Harry Reid and the Democrats sit back and laugh. Why? Because it's Republican leadership that leads the onslaught, attacking conservatives saying, ‘No, you can’t and we won't do anything to stop Obamacare. No, you can't and we won't do anything to stop Planned Parenthood. No, you can't and we won't do anything to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.’ If Republican leadership really believes we can accomplish nothing, then why does it matter if you have a Republican House or Senate? Every two years come October, November, we tell the voters it matters intensely. To paraphrase the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, ‘what difference does it make?’ if the standard for Republican leadership is anything that gets 67 votes, we'll support. That means Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi remain the de facto leaders of the Senate and the House.

“And I would note, by the way, if in December leadership goes through with their promise, or –not promise—but suggestion to bust the budget caps, they will have done something astonishing. Historically, the three legs of the conservative stool have been fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, national security conservatives. Between Planned Parenthood, Iran, and the budget caps, leadership will have managed to abandon all three. No wonder the American people are frustrated. No wonder the American people do not understand why leadership isn't listening to them.

“I ask unanimous consent that my time be extended…The Democrats are objecting to my speaking further, and both the Democrats and Republican leadership are objecting to the American people speaking further. I yield the floor.”

 whembly wrote:

Sure... it's not complex as long as you're either paying TurboTax/TaxCut or Accountant to do your taxes, a multi-billion dollar compliance industry.