Mike Johnson, New Speaker of the House.

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

Mr. Johnson wants to pass all 12 spending bills through the House

 

He can do whatever he wants.

[B-Man]

 

 

Speaker Johnson Passes First Difficult Test on Second Amendment
by Dean Weingarten

 

New Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R) has passed his first Second Amendment test. He immediately and forcefully stated that mass murder does not override the Constitution, and contrary to Democratic policy, emotion should not be used to enact laws that would never be acceptable in a quiet and reasoned debate. 

 

For those who prefer text, here is the quote from Mediaite.com:

Quote

 

 

“The end of the day, the problem is the human heart,” Johnson replied. “It’s not guns, it’s not the weapons. At the end of the day, we have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves and that’s the Second Amendment. And that’s why our party stands so strongly for that.”

He added, “This is not the time to be talking about legislation. We’re in the middle of that crisis right now.”

 

 

Just after a mass murder is committed with a firearm, politicians are most vulnerable to manipulation by pressure from the old dominant media. At this point, the old dominant media and the Democratic administration are parts of the same leftist ideology. They immediately push the false narrative that the cause of mass murder is the Second Amendment and firearms ownership in the USA. House Speaker Johnson did not accept the false assumptions. He gently corrected them:

 

“The end of the day, the problem is the human heart,” Johnson replied. “It’s not guns, it’s not the weapons.

 

The Biden administration immediately struck back with a false representation of what Speaker Johnson said. From politico.com:

 

In a statement, White House spokesman Andrew Bates said the administration “absolutely” rejected “the offensive accusation that gun crime is uniquely high in the United States because of Americans’ ‘hearts.’”

 

There are at least three lies in the White House statement.

 

• Lie #1. Speaker Johnson talked about “gun crime”.  He did not. In fact, he said it was not about weapons.
• Lie #2. “gun crime” is uniquely high in the USA. It isn’t. Many countries in the world have far higher rates of crime committed with firearms than the United States. Brazil has a homicide rate with guns, which is over four times as high as the United States. Brazil has about 1/16th as many firearms per person as the USA.
• Lie #3. Speaker Johnson did not single out “Americans’ hearts. He spoke of “the human heart”. This is an important philosophical difference between the left and conservatives. Conservatives believe there is a basic human nature. Leftists, generally, since Marx, do not.

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/10/speaker-johnson-passes-first-difficult-test-on-second-amendment/#axzz8H0F2yZIh

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

It's amazing how silly the Left looks, but it's what they do.

 

 

Welcome to Far-Right Extremists Extremism Land

STEPHEN KRUISER 

 

 

I kicked off the week by writing about how much I am enjoying the way that newly minted Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is triggering so many Democrats.

 

Watching them wash down handfuls of Prilosec with equitably sourced Nicaraguan kombucha is always entertaining. 

 

Johnson's rise to power at the end of October gave the Democrats a new monster under the bed just in time for Halloween. 

 

Chris Queen wrote a column yesterday that highlighted some of the diaper-soiling reactions in the leftmedia that I didn't get to in Monday's Briefing. He begins by quickly explaining the root of the Democrats' problem with Johnson:

 

Quote

 

Last week, the House GOP elected a new Speaker in Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.). It didn't take long for the left to pounce on Johnson, calling him all sorts of names that indicate one thing: he's a true conservative and thus a threat to left-wing hegemony.

And left-wing columnists aren't letting up. We're continuing to see a barrage of smears against the new speaker simply because he's — GASP — a Christian conservative.

 

 

 

Nothing terrifies secular leftists more than men or women of faith, especially if they're Christians. There was probably quite the spike in "The Handmaid's Tale" costumes shortly after Johnson was handed the gavel. 

 

https://pjmedia.com/stephen-kruiser/2023/11/01/the-morning-briefing-n4923502

 

.

[Tommy Callahan]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

He can do whatever he wants.

the house controls the purse strings.

 

just saying

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Democrats Outraged as, God Forbid, Speaker Mike Johnson Tries to Limit Spending Bills to a Single Issue

 

 

Watching the outrage from Democrats (and the muted anger of some Republicans) over newly-appointed House Speaker Mike Johnson's approach to spending is quite something. One gets the sense that responsible fiscal governance was never really on their agenda. But it is certainly on his.

 

So, in insisting that aid to Israel - a check to an ally - is actually covered, he offset the spending with cuts to the IRS. Keep in mind that he's not taking funding they've been using for years, but he is cutting new spending that was being sent their way via the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act." This has confounded and outraged the "This Isn't How We Do Things" crowd in Washington D.C., and they are struggling to come up with a coherent message.

 

 

https://redstate.com/joesquire/2023/11/01/democrats-outraged-as-god-forbid-speaker-mike-johnson-tries-to-limit-spending-bills-to-a-single-issue-n2165771

 

 

 

They are mad that they screwed up so badly. They would be getting everything they wanted if McCarthy were in charge. But they helped get rid of him. They sowed, and now they reap, and they do not like it one bit. Meanwhile, it sounds like Johnson will stay the course and make the Democrats come to the table if they want anything funded.

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

'The Daily Beast' Has Breaking Investigative News ... Mike Johnson Is Literally the Most Normal Guy Ever

 

 

Not to be the bearers of bad news, but apparently the new House Speaker is a normal American trying to figure out how to ever retire in today's America.

 

https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2023/11/01/mike-johnson-is-apparently-a-normal-american-n2389280

[Doc]

I'll bet the Dems now wish they'd kept McCarthy.   

[Tommy Callahan]

So, in insisting that aid to Israel - a check to an ally - is actually covered, he offset the spending with cuts to the IRS. Keep in mind that he's not taking funding they've been using for years, but he is cutting new spending that was being sent their way via the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act." This has confounded and outraged the "This Isn't How We Do Things" crowd in Washington D.C., 

 

Like how its spelled out for the house to pass 12 separate appropriation bills per year.  In some important document any civil servant or lawyer should understand.

 

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

 

 

As discussed in more detail in earlier essays, the Framers sought to limit the legislative power only to those powers granted by the Constitution.1 Section 8 of Article 1 sets out the bulk of Congress’s enumerated legislative authorities. Congress’s most significant powers, in terms of the breadth of authority, may be its power of the purse,2 referring to its authority to tax and spend3 and its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.4 Section 8 also defines a number of more specific powers. For example, it gives Congress authority to establish uniform laws on naturalization and bankruptcy,5 establish post offices6 and courts,7 regulate intellectual property,8 and punish maritime crimes.9 Further, although the President is the Commander in Chief,10 Section 8 also grants Congress certain war powers, including the power to declare war,11 to raise and maintain armies and a navy,12 and to call forth the militia for certain purposes.13 Apart from these specific powers, Section 8 also provides that Congress may make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and other express constitutional powers.14 This Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress discretion over the means it chooses to execute its enumerated powers, so long as the goal is legitimate and the means appropriate.

 

 

but its much easier to hide pet projects in ombibills with the threat of a shut down for public support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Tommy Callahan

[Kemp]

16 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Jesus was sacrificed as a means to redeem and reestablish God's relationship with man.

It was the fulfillment of countless Old Testament prophesy, and never figured out until his resurrection.

The leadership of the Jews at the time had it done becasue he was a threat to their authority and livelihood.

They had no legal ability for execution, so they convinced their Roman masters to crucify him on faked sedition charges.

The sacrifice was complete and required no additional "works" from man.

 

Kind of funny how this conversation of Jewish "additions" to Old testament law, rejected by Jesus and leading to his crucifixion, comes up on the exact date of the anniversary of the formal rejection of further "additions," also known as the Reformation.

 

Absolutely none of this has anything to do with the most barbarous, inhumane treachery I have ever heard of that was committed by Hamas against the Israelis on Oct 7. 

 

 

If you believe in God, you have to understand that no one could kill Jesus without the permission of God. The notion that the Jews killed Jesus has been used as a rationale for trying to wipe them out multiple times. It's bullshiit.

It's like the folks who say God put Trump in office, but he didn't do the same for Biden.

 

You either believe he controls everything or you don't. 

Personally, I don't think he had anything to do with what Hamas did, but similarly I don't think he had anything to do with the defeat of the Nazis.

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

If you believe in God, you have to understand that no one could kill Jesus without the permission of God. The notion that the Jews killed Jesus has been used as a rationale for trying to wipe them out multiple times. It's bullshiit.
 

You either believe he controls everything or you don't. 

Personally, I don't think he had anything to do with what Hamas did, but similarly I don't think he had anything to do with the defeat of the Nazis.

 

You and I are at vastly different places regarding this, and that is fine.

I couldn't care less.

 

You seem to believe, against scriptural evidence, that Jesus was killed against God's plan, suggesting that people who believe that dismiss the power of God.

 

In stating that, you are placing human emotions and assuming  human motivations on God, and denying the most famous verses in the Bible:

 

     "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned..."

 

That implies knowledge and consent.

 

    The historical evidence is that the leadership of the Jews, believing that Jesus was a heretic being empowered by the devil, with a rapidly growing and threatening following, trumped up charges against him and convinced the Roman rulers to kill him based on sedition nonsense, which was a capital offense.

The Romans could not care less about blasphemy against Judaism, but during the time of massive influx of devout Jews during Passover wanted to prevent a riot.

That's how it happened, and that has nothing to do with Judaism today, nor the problems that Israel faces with neighbors funded, supplied, trained and motivated by a third party intent on killing them all.

Nothing.

     

     

 

 

[Tiberius]

Those accounts of Jesus's trial and death were not written until decades after the fact. They were written by men. They were also written by men who were Roman citizens and would have a vested interested in blaming the religious sect they were breaking away from and not the authoritarian government they were living under. If you just take the text as "god's word" then there is not arguing with it, you are a spiritualist and believe in magic. But men wrote it and had their own biases, goals and distance in time from the actual event. 

 

And who cares if some Jews killed another jew 2,000 years ago, it matters not a jot today 

[All_Pro_Bills]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Those accounts of Jesus's trial and death were not written until decades after the fact. They were written by men. They were also written by men who were Roman citizens and would have a vested interested in blaming the religious sect they were breaking away from and not the authoritarian government they were living under. If you just take the text as "god's word" then there is not arguing with it, you are a spiritualist and believe in magic. But men wrote it and had their own biases, goals and distance in time from the actual event. 

 

And who cares if some Jews killed another jew 2,000 years ago, it matters not a jot today 

Generally, history is written by the winner and the majority of what we know about times past is from that perspective.  But what you say is true.  Men wrote these tales.  Men wrote all these religious documents and books too.  Including the verses and sections that tell people to kill people outside of their faith.  That should give the creative thinker an idea of what's really going on with the religion hustle.  Control I conclude. 

 

I've always been skeptical of people that use some spiritual belief as an excuse to justify murder.  Or go along with the idea.  The way I look at it is if some all-powerful, omnipotent God, creator of all things, wants to "kill" some person or group of persons then do it yourself.  Nobody's going to stop you.  And leave me out of it.  I've got no gripe with anybody along with having enough problems of my own already.  And while I'm at it, I'd ask God if "he" didn't want any non-believers then why did you put them here in the first place?  The religious zealot will say its a test of their faith.  But faith in what?  A God that wants you to kill others?  That's not sounding like a message of love and peace and eternal life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sherpa]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Those accounts of Jesus's trial and death were not written until decades after the fact. They were written by men. They were also written by men who were Roman citizens and would have a vested interested in blaming the religious sect they were breaking away from and not the authoritarian government they were living under. If you just take the text as "god's word" then there is not arguing with it, you are a spiritualist and believe in magic. But men wrote it and had their own biases, goals and distance in time from the actual event. 

 

And who cares if some Jews killed another jew 2,000 years ago, it matters not a jot today 

 

You have no idea if they were written by Roman citizens.

In fact, you have no idea who wrote them at all.

 

They were written for different groups.

Mark was written for Romans, and is the the experiences as told by Peter.

Luke was written for Greeks.

John was written for everyone, and was probably written by John himself.

Matthew was written for Jews.

They didn't have to "blame" a religious sect. There is ample historical evidence of the events.

 

All but one died a horrible tortured death because of their beliefs. I'd suggest that argues pretty strongly for their veracity.

Why would someone spend their entire life professing something, being imprisoned in some cases, beaten in others and suffering a horrible death promoting a lie?

 

Your last sentence is particularly insightful.

"Who cares is some Jew killed another Jew 2000 years ago?"

 

It is perhaps the single most important event in history. 

 

[Tiberius]

18 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

You have no idea if they were written by Roman citizens.

In fact, you have no idea who wrote them at all.

 

They were written for different groups.

Mark was written for Romans, and is the the experiences as told by Peter.

Luke was written for Greeks.

John was written for everyone, and was probably written by John himself.

Matthew was written for Jews.

They didn't have to "blame" a religious sect. There is ample historical evidence of the events.

 

All but one died a horrible tortured death because of their beliefs. I'd suggest that argues pretty strongly for their veracity.

Why would someone spend their entire life professing something, being imprisoned in some cases, beaten in others and suffering a horrible death promoting a lie?

 

Your last sentence is particularly insightful.

"Who cares is some Jew killed another Jew 2000 years ago?"

 

It is perhaps the single most important event in history. 

 

Oh boy, you do know--or not--that all those groups were in the Roman Empire, right? That's how early Christianity spread the word. Peter was a Roman Citizen and spread the word because he could travel through the empire. 

22 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Generally, history is written by the winner and the majority of what we know about times past is from that perspective.  But what you say is true.  Men wrote these tales.  Men wrote all these religious documents and books too.  Including the verses and sections that tell people to kill people outside of their faith.  That should give the creative thinker an idea of what's really going on with the religion hustle.  Control I conclude. 

 

I've always been skeptical of people that use some spiritual belief as an excuse to justify murder.  Or go along with the idea.  The way I look at it is if some all-powerful, omnipotent God, creator of all things, wants to "kill" some person or group of persons then do it yourself.  Nobody's going to stop you.  And leave me out of it.  I've got no gripe with anybody along with having enough problems of my own already.  And while I'm at it, I'd ask God if "he" didn't want any non-believers then why did you put them here in the first place?  The religious zealot will say its a test of their faith.  But faith in what?  A God that wants you to kill others?  That's not sounding like a message of love and peace and eternal life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's why authoritarian regimes love fundamentalist religion, it's either us or them, just like with the government. The Iranian government beating women to death because God wills it! 

 

All BS! 

[sherpa]

43 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh boy, you do know--or not--that all those groups were in the Roman Empire, right? That's how early Christianity spread the word. Peter was a Roman Citizen and spread the word because he could travel through the empire. 

That's why authoritarian regimes love fundamentalist religion, it's either us or them, just like with the government. The Iranian government beating women to death because God wills it! 

 

 

There are some people whom I disagree with. There are many people whom I agree with.

You sir, are in another class.

 

I cannot believe how you repeatedly make silly statements that expose you as a fool.

Completely ignorant claims.

 

This latest post is not only complete ignorance, it is something most everybody who would ever post a view on this subject would absolutely know.

Peter was not a Roman citizen. Absolutely not.

None of the original Apostles were.

 

The guy who you mis-identify as Peter was Paul.

You've, not surprisingly, got the wrong guy.

Paul, not one of the original twelve was a sanctioned by the Jerusalem church to persecute, imprison and kill Christians.

He was a Roman citizen and it is a big deal in his ministry because he had certain rights that non Roman citizens did not.

 

Again, I am in no way linking any of these historic events with the current situation between Hamas and Israel. 

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

There are some people whom I disagree with. There are many people whom I agree with.

You sir, are in another class.

 

I cannot believe how you repeatedly make silly statements that expose you as a fool.

Completely ignorant claims.

 

This latest post is not only complete ignorance, it is something most everybody who would ever post a view on this subject would absolutely know.

Peter was not a Roman citizen. Absolutely not.

None of the original Apostles were.

 

The guy who you mis-identify as Peter was Paul.

You've, not surprisingly, got the wrong guy.

Paul, not one of the original twelve was a sanctioned by the Jerusalem church to persecute, imprison and kill Christians.

He was a Roman citizen and it is a big deal in his ministry because he had certain rights that non Roman citizens did not.

 

Again, I am in no way linking any of these historic events with the current situation between Hamas and Israel. 

Ok, wrong guy, but point still stands. Remember the point?  These versions of what happened decades before, were written under Roman rule, and could very well of been a "history" that passed political muster of the time. And the Empire totally helped out the christians spread their message to the people of the Empire. Do you take them as Devine knowledge or just something men wrote? 

 

And careful going too far with criticizing a mistake, Mr Navy Guy. Midway was a multi-day battle. 

[Kemp]

13 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

You and I are at vastly different places regarding this, and that is fine.

I couldn't care less.

 

You seem to believe, against scriptural evidence, that Jesus was killed against God's plan, suggesting that people who believe that dismiss the power of God.

 

In stating that, you are placing human emotions and assuming  human motivations on God, and denying the most famous verses in the Bible:

 

     "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned..."

 

That implies knowledge and consent.

 

    The historical evidence is that the leadership of the Jews, believing that Jesus was a heretic being empowered by the devil, with a rapidly growing and threatening following, trumped up charges against him and convinced the Roman rulers to kill him based on sedition nonsense, which was a capital offense.

The Romans could not care less about blasphemy against Judaism, but during the time of massive influx of devout Jews during Passover wanted to prevent a riot.

That's how it happened, and that has nothing to do with Judaism today, nor the problems that Israel faces with neighbors funded, supplied, trained and motivated by a third party intent on killing them all.

Nothing.

     

     

 

 

 

And some people can't understand why anti-Semitism is baked into some followers of Christianity.

 

All they need do is read your words to understand.

Reminds me that as a kid, a lot of the kids who went to Catholic school hated Jews because they were taught that Jews killed Jesus.

And here we go again.

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

23 minutes ago, Kemp said:

And some people can't understand why anti-Semitism is baked into some followers of Christianity.

 

pay attention. it's not the Christians that are out there attacking US citizens that happen to be of the Jewish faith, in colleges and what not.

 

taking Israel off maps and what not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

He, nor anyone in his immediate family, has a bank account. He is in the upper 12% of earners in the country. Sounds shady 

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/does-new-speaker-of-the-house-mike-johnson-have-a-bank-account#:~:text=Speaker Mike Johnson has never,a single asset at all.