Phyllis Schlafly: Trump is 'last hope for America'

WND: Schlafly unloaded on Republicans in Congress for passing the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill last week, a move she called a “betrayal.”

“This is a betrayal of the grassroots and of the Republican Party,” Schlafly said in an exclusive interview with WND. “We thought we were electing a different crowd to stand up for America, and they didn’t. We’re extremely outraged by what Congress has done. Nancy Pelosi couldn’t have engineered it any better. I think the people are going to react by electing Donald Trump.”

Trump put out a statement Friday to ABC News saying, “If anyone needs more evidence of why the American people are suffering at the hands of their own government, look no further than the budget deal announced by Speaker Ryan. In order to avoid a government shutdown, a cowardly threat from an incompetent president, the elected Republicans in Congress threw in the towel and showed absolutely no budget discipline.”

Trump continued, “Congress cannot seem to help itself in bending to every whim of special interests. How can they face their constituents when they continue to burden our children and grandchildren with debts they will never be able to repay? Our government is failing us, so we must do something about it. Who knows how bad things will be when the next administration comes in and has to pick up the pieces?”

Schlafly applauded the GOP front-runner’s fighting spirit.

"Obama would veto bill stripping sanctuary cities of federal funds"

"The Obama administration on Thursday threatened to veto a House bill that would strip federal law enforcement grants from "sanctuary cities."

The bill would deny cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws certain Justice Department grants, and is expected to get a House vote on Thursday. The bill is a response to the shooting death of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been deported several times.

The immigrant, Francisco Sanchez, was released despite federal requests to keep him detained, a decision that was required under San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy.

But a White House statement indicated that the Obama administration doesn't see that event as a reason to pressure sanctuary cities to enforce federal laws.

"This bill fails to offer comprehensive reforms needed to fix the nation's broken immigration laws, undermines current administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals and to work collaboratively with state and local law enforcement agencies, and threatens the civil rights of all Americans by authorizing state and local officials to collect information regarding any private citizen's immigration status, at any time, for any reason, and without justification," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement of administration policy issued Thursday morning.

"If the President were presented with H.R. 3009, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill," the statement said.

In some other time, at a place far far away, this kind of thing would be an impeachable offence.

"And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read"

"Extreme secrecy eroding support for Obama's trade pact"

If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.

“It’s like being in kindergarten,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who’s become the leader of the opposition to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda. “You give back the toys at the end.”

For those out to sink Obama’s free trade push, highlighting the lack of public information is becoming central to their opposition strategy: The White House isn’t even telling Congress what it’s asking for, they say, or what it’s already promised foreign governments.

P.J. O’Rourke: "In Defense of Lobbyists"

“Congress doesn’t pass laws anymore. Not really. Not the kind of individual laws where I can go to a representative or a senator and explain what the law would mean, pro or con, to my client. Nowadays they’re burying all the laws inside gigantic fuzzy bills.”

“Congress is punting legislation to regulators. Congress feels less inclined to get the facts. That ball is in the hands of the regulatory agency receivers.”

Eric told me about a case with which a fellow lobbyist had to cope. McDonalds wanted universal nutritional restaurant menu labeling. If Mickey D ain’t happy, ain’t nobody going to be happy. What Big Mac wanted Big Mac got, buried somewhere in the paper pyramid that is Obamacare and worded as clumsily as Joe Biden remark.

The FDA was left to decide what a “restaurant” is. The FDA said anyplace where 50 percent of square footage was devoted to preparing and serving food. Eric’s friend had go to a hearing and explain that this definition would eliminate the nation’s delis, commissaries, and school cafeterias. As a dimwit consumer affairs reporter put it to Eric’s friend, “Oh, I never thought of that.”

Eric said, “I meet with regulatory agencies. But they don’t answer to voters. They don’t answer to anybody. I go in by myself, and they’ve got twenty agency employees at the table with a dozen others calling in by speakerphone. It’s more like testifying in court than lobbying.”

I asked him, “Isn’t there some growing, sort of libertarian, anti-regulatory feeling in the country?”

He said, “I’d agree if Congress had done anything about the IRS. Basically congress’s attitude is ‘Who gives a shit about business owners? They dealt with this before. They’ll deal with it again.’”

“Maybe,” he said, “the pendulum swings on things like regulation. But gerrymandering has cold cocked the pendulum weight, stopped it dead. ‘He was elected for being too far right.’ ‘She was elected for being too far left.’ Not much room for me to get in there and sway opinion. I’ve stopped putting regulatory reform on my agenda.”

“How many of these problems,” I ask, “are unintended consequences of lobbying reform laws?”

“Intended consequences,” Eric said. “All we can do now is have our industry give money to campaigns. I’ll go in for a meeting with a congressman who isn’t even listening, and the next day I’ll get a call from his campaign fund-raisers wanting to know what my client will donate. I spend more time on fund-raising than on issue influencing. They don’t even need the money. The incumbent is going to get re-elected. It’s just, ‘I’ve got more money, so I’ve got more credibility.’ This is a shell of the lobbying industry. All we are is ATM machines in pinstripe suits.”

Money spent on lobbying itself (as opposed to campaign contributions) is declining, down almost 9 percent since 2010. Advocacy group lobbying has held on but lobbyists for private enterprise aren’t getting a grip. E.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $136.3 million lobbying in 2012 and $74.7 million in 2013. The number of registered lobbyists peaked in 2007 at 14,838.This year it’s 11,079.

And don’t for a moment think any of that is good news.

I skipped the first half, the comical half of this article. You can go ahead and read the whole thing if you want. PJ is a good writer.

“The president’s request is open-ended”

"The Obama administration’s request for U.S. military intervention in Syria would not pass the Congress as written because it is too broad, a senior senator said Sunday after a classified briefing on the situation."

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the dean of the Senate, told reporters after the meeting that the resolution seeking military force is “too open ended” as written. “I know it will be amended in the Senate,” he said.

“The president’s request is open-ended,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “That has to be rectified, and they simply said in answer to that that they would work with the Congress and try to come back with a more prescribed resolution. But I’m not too sure that the people who answered that are the people that have that decision to make.”

Others, like Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), emerged to say the briefing had helped them decide how to proceed in the coming days. “It was certainly instructive, as classified briefings always are,” she said.

“I’m glad I read the documents, it was worth the trip,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “I haven’t really made up my mind. I’m not trying to be a wise guy, I just haven’t.”

Pascrell said he sensed that colleagues in both parties and chambers seemed to appreciate the seriousness of the decision they face in the coming weeks.

“People are coming in from all over the place, I’m from Jersey, I’m only three hours away,” he said. “California is another story.”