Stupid Man Bill Maher Lies And Says Senate 'Never Used To Have' The Filibuster

This angry, cantankerous and Godless man is a major voice of the Left:

NewsBusters readers know there's almost nothing I like doing more on a Saturday than exposing the ignorance of Bill Maher.


On HBO's "Real Time" Friday, the host came through like he always does showing his total lack of knowledge concerning how bills move through the Senate as he told the American Spectator's John Fund "they never used to have" the filibuster.


Yes, he really did say the Vice President would have to vote if there was a 50 to 49 "deadlock."


And this man has his own nationally televised show each week.


I guess it's beyond his intellectual capacity to realize that 50 to 49 isn't a deadlock, and that the Vice President is only called in to decide a tie.


After all the nonsense that's come out of this man's mouth over the years, why should we expect him to understand something that simple?


But it gets better:


MAHER: There has been a quiet coup in this country where you now need 60 votes. We never voted on this idea that you need six. Why should this? This is not.


JOHN FUND, AMERICAN SPECTATOR: Bill, how many times, the Constitution..


MAHER: Yeah, the Constitution says a simple majority in the Senate. That's not what we have anymore.


Minutes later as the debate about this issue raged on:


Maher: First of all, you're talking as if the U.S. Constitution and this particular bill are the same thing.


FUND: You said it would pass. It wouldn't have.


MAHER: Well, I’m not so sure it wouldn’t. The fact it didn't pass, Harry Reid changed his vote. It becomes a procedural matter at some point. Yes, it would have passed if they did not have that filibuster hanging over their head which they never used to have hanging over their head.


Never? Really?


What liberals like Maher - who of course hate the filibuster when they're in the majority - but love it when they're not! - refuse to accept is that this procedure has been in existence since our nation was founded.


As the Senate's own website explains:


Using the filibuster to delay or block legislative action has a long history. The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.


In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could filibuster. As the House of Representatives grew in numbers, however, revisions to the House rules limited debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued on the grounds that any senator should have the right to speak as long as necessary on any issue.


In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, he threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.


Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." The new Senate rule was first put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Even with the new cloture rule, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next five decades, the Senate occasionally tried to invoke cloture, but usually failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to Southern senators who sought to block civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching legislation, until cloture was invoked after a 57 day filibuster against the Civil Right Act of 1964. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the current one hundred senators.


Many Americans are familiar with the filibuster conducted by Jimmy Stewart, playing Senator Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra's film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but there have been some famous filibusters in the real-life Senate as well. During the 1930s, Senator Huey P. Long effectively used the filibuster against bills that he thought favored the rich over the poor. The Louisiana senator frustrated his colleagues while entertaining spectators with his recitations of Shakespeare and his reading of recipes for "pot-likkers." Long once held the Senate floor for 15 hours. The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.


As such, and quite contrary to what most liberals like Maher believe, it's not the filibuster that's "new." It's the ability to end it via a cloture vote that was first enacted in 1917 and amended in 1975.


And yes, also quite contrary to what this nincompoop said, both changes were voted on.

Ann Coulter Gives Up, Endorses Mitt Romney: ‘You’ve Got To Go With What You Have’

Mediaite.com:

Ann Coulter is holding her nose and voting for Mitt Romney. After spending several months of the primary warning that Romney was a loser who would mean certain defeat for the Republicans, Coulter announced her support for a Romney/Cain 2012 ticket on Hannity last night, noting that Romney had been “magnificent” in debates and “you’ve got to go with what you have,” but sounding far more enthusiastic about a Chris Christie 2020 campaign.


With Christie a certain “no” now (and always, but don’t tell the media they wasted the past two months on a non-story), it seems the logical conclusion that Coulter would endorse whoever the New Jersey governor did. The problem with that, however, is that Christie endorsed a candidate Coulter argued would be a surefire loser back in February. That said, when asked who she was supporting in this race, Coulter told Sean Hannity she was “Romney/Cain 2012… with Christie in 2020.” Coulter refrained endorsing Herman Cain for the top of the ticket, she noted, because “he has never held elected office before, and I really want to defeat Obama.”


That said, she mustered up the best defense of Romney she could: “Romney has been magnificent in these debates… you’ve got to go with what you have.” She added, “even the nut candidates [this year] are better that John McCain.” She followed her short answers by noting that after a victory in 2012, “we’ll bring in Chris Christie as our Mariano Rivera” eight years from now.


While Coulter had noted the inevitability of a Romney nomination in her speech at CPAC in February, she had said, explicitly, “if we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we’ll lose,” so a Romney endorsement from Coulter doesn’t inspire too much confidence. That said, it is probably an endorsement Romney owes directly to Christie, and likely in part to Rick Perry‘s implosion, as well. As far as using Coulter as a barometer of excitement in the American right goes, this can’t bode very well for them.

McDonald's Cashier Beats Two Lesbians In Self Defense And Gets Fired

Conservatives need to come out and rally around former McDonald's cashier Rayon McIntosh, after he used in a steel metal rod to defend himself against two angry lesbians who slapped and then jumped the counter to further attack him Thursday night.

According to reports, McIntosh was just doing his job when he sought to verify a $50 bill the two drunken lesbos handed him upon ordering food at the fast-food joint (anyone who knows anything about retail knows that cashiers are required to inspect and verify large bills to protect businesses against counterfeit cash). But that didn't matter to the two lesbos who proceeded to yell and hurl obscenities at McIntosh and then lunge at and slapped the man. Yet, that still wasn't enough for the angry lesbos. as one dyke jumps over the counter while the other walks around the side to confront McIntosh, who reaches out of the frame and grabs a metal rod. Gripping the rod in both hands, McIntosh can then be seen in the video made by a patron, winding up and striking both women repeatedly while they fall to the ground.

One lesbo suffered a fractured skull and a broken arm; the other a deep cut on the head. McIntosh, who was only trying to defend himself the whole time, not only lost his job, but is now being held at the Manhattan Detention Center and faces charges of felony assault and criminal possession of a weapon, according to police. He is being held on $40,000 bail while the two lesbians who instigated the whole thing, face charges of menacing, trespassing and disorderly conduct.

Anyone who knows anything about the urban, gay lifestyle is quite familiar with boyish-dressing, quick-tempered, violent lesbians who refer to themselves as "studs"--these dangerous lesbians prefer feminine women and really think of themselves as being men. This bizarre lifestyle choice has gotten more and more popular as white liberals and their friends in the mainstream media continue to normalize homosexuality to the black community--an immoral, anti-God choice that is creating havoc on morals and values worldwide while steadily dividing families here and aboard.

Bottom line, these angry lesbians got what they deserved, acting like wild animals towards a man (and ex-con, clearly the angry dykes had on idea who they were messing with) who was only trying to do his job. But expect the mainstream media to rally around them regardless, portray the angry lesbians as "victims" and subject McIntosh to cries of being "homophobic" and the like.

Either way, bet these angry lesbian "studs" who like to behave and act like they're men, never disrespect a real man again. Props to Rayon MicIntosh for doing what he had to when a couple of angry lesbians left him with no choice.

Rudy Giuliani: I Would've Told Occupy Wall Street Protesters, 'Streets Are Not For Sleeping'

For once I agree with Rudy Giuliani:

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani told Sean Hannity on his talk show yesterday that, if he was still mayor, he would have told the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters, “You are not allowed to sleep on the streets.”


On his show, Hannity asked Giuliani how he would have dealt with the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement if he was still mayor of New York City - to which Giuliani replied, “Well I had a rule and I enforced it as best I could and pretty effectively. The rule was: You’re not allowed to sleep on the streets. Sorry, not allowed to sleep on the streets. Streets are not for sleeping.”


“Sleeping on the streets is a dysfunctional act. It harms the person, it harms society, it leads to unsanitary conditions that affect public health,” added Giuliani. “The first one who decided to sleep there should have been removed and then the second one, and the third one, and the fourth one and the fifth one.”


“They can protest during the daytime if they want to, but if you want to stay over in New York City overnight, you got to rent a room, and if you’re homeless we got plenty of shelters for you,” said Giuliani.

STREET JUSTICE: Megyn Kelly Interviews Real-Life Superhero Phoenix Jones

Mediaite.com:

And now for something completely different: A Seattle-based civilian “superhero” ran into some trouble when he was arrested for unleashing a can of pepper spray into a rowdy crowd outside a nightclub. We’re not using the term superhero sarcastically here either. The man, who refers to himself as “Phoenix Jones,” dons a black and gold superhero suit as he goes out to fight and/or commit crimes, and pursues justice with the help of a sidekick, “The Ghost.” He was thanked for all his trouble, by the way, by being repeatedly hit over the head with a shoe by a woman who did not take kindly to someone showering her friends with pepper spray.


Fox News’ Megyn Kelly invited the masked crime-fighter onto her show for an edition of “Kelly’s Court.” And he seems like a really nice guy! (Like, really nice. Amirightladies?) Kelly, thankfully, asked the big question on everyone’s mind: “Why are you wearing that costume?”


It’s the costume that I wear when I go out and fight crime. It’s my super suit. It’s bulletproof, it’s stab resistant. I guess I found it’s pretty shoe resistant.


Duh, Megyn!


He further explained that something needs to be done to cull crime and that, instead of donning a ski mask and potentially being mistaken for a criminal himself, he decided to use “an image that meant something to me” — that of the iconic American superhero — to go out and make things right.


Kelly brought on her legal panel to weigh in on whether or not Jones should be charged with assault for his use of pepper spray and vigilante justice.


Fox News? Please give Phoenix Jones a show. Something like Space Ghost Coast to Coast with occasional cameos from Karl “Rovin’ Raider” Rove and Sarah “The Impalinator” Palin

Far-Left, Billionaire Activist George Soros Is Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests

You knew the truth would come out eventually, I'm just surprised that FOX didn't report this first. Now will the protesters go to Soros' many homes and protest in front of them as they are with wealthy New Yorkers? I highly doubt it:

Anti-Wall Street protesters say the rich are getting richer while average Americans suffer, but the group that started it all may have benefited indirectly from the largesse of one of the world's richest men.


There has been much speculation over who is financing the disparate protest, which has spread to cities across America and lasted nearly four weeks. One name that keeps coming up is investor George Soros, who in September debuted in the top 10 list of wealthiest Americans. Conservative critics contend the movement is a Trojan horse for a secret Soros agenda.


Soros and the protesters deny any connection. But Reuters did find indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street. Moreover, Soros and the protesters share some ideological ground.


"I can understand their sentiment," Soros told reporters last week at the United Nations about the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, which are expected to spur solidarity marches globally on Saturday.


Pressed further for his views on the movement and the protesters, Soros refused to be drawn in. But conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh summed up the speculation when he told his listeners last week, "George Soros money is behind this."


Soros, 81, is No. 7 on the Forbes 400 list with a fortune of $22 billion, which has ballooned in recent years as he deftly responded to financial market turmoil. He has pledged to give away all his wealth, half of it while he earns it and the rest when he dies.


Like the protesters, Soros is no fan of the 2008 bank bailouts and subsequent government purchase of the toxic sub-prime mortgage assets they amassed in the property bubble.


The protesters say the Wall Street bank bailouts in 2008 left banks enjoying huge profits while average Americans suffered under high unemployment and job insecurity with little help from Washington. They contend that the richest 1 percent of Americans have amassed vast fortunes while being taxed at a lower rate than most people.


BANKING LIFE SUPPORT


Soros in 2009 wrote in an editorial that the purchase of toxic bank assets would, "provide artificial life support for the banks at considerable expense to the taxpayer."

Bill O’Reilly Spars With Tavis Smiley And Cornel West Over Wall Street Corruption

Mediaite.com:

Tavis Smiley and Cornel West appeared on The O’Reilly Factor last night and engaged in a spirited debate with host Bill O’Reilly over poverty, corruption in the financial sector and a jobless rate that is growing to nearly 20% in African-American demographic. The two sides of the debate represented distinct ideological points-of-view, which made for a remarkably compelling discussion of various of hot topics in the news, namely Occupy Wall Street and a struggling economy.


Smiley and West seemed to have been joined at the hip of late, having appeared on numerous television programs to promote their eponymous radio program, as well as bring awareness to the plight of joblessness in the African-American community. They make a formidable and entertaining team, as the each present a similar perspective on what ails the country but with a different skill set.


To help celebrate the 15th anniversary of Fox News, O’Reilly took his show on the road last night, delivering his show live and with a studio audience in Boston. This created quite a different setting for Factor viewers accustomed to the typically controlled environment at Fox News studios.


The discussion was focused primarily on alleged corruption in the financial sector that has been brought under the spotlight with the Occupy Wall Street protests. When O’Reilly cited Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O’Neal as an example, West asked his host why he cited the one of five black CEOs, to which O’Reilly shot back “knock it off with the black business will ya?”


Credit goes to West, Smiley and O’Reilly for engaging in an earnest, if not at times combative, dialog between what appeared to be diametrically opposed points of view. The only regret was that the debate was so short and not moderated, for this sort of discussion actually seems to bridge a divided nation instead of driving sides away from one another.

Chris Christie Endorses Mitt Romney, Defends Romneycare

NationalReview/com:

Announcing his endorsement of Mitt Romney in a press conference in New Hampshire this afternoon, Chris Christie described the endorsement as an “easy decision.”


Citing Romney’s experience as an executive in both the political and private sectors, Christie emphasized the need for a candidate who was ready to assume office and could beat President Obama in the general election.


“The biggest reason why I want to support Gov. Romney is because I believe he’s the best person to be able to articulate Republican values and defeat Barack Obama in November of 2012,” Christie said, mentioning Romney’s detailed jobs plan and template for replacing Obamacare.


“People who run for president of the United States because they think in their minds, ‘I think I can win, I hope I’m ready,’ – which is what the president of the United States did four years ago – are acting irresponsibly,” Christie added. “Mitt Romney says, ‘I hope I can win, I know I’m ready.’ That’s the big difference. That’s what the American people will see this November, and that’s why they’re going to elect him president of the United States.”


Speaking about Romney’s Massachusetts health-care program, Christie said it was “completely intellectually dishonest” to compare it to Obamacare.


“Gov. Romney did not raise one tax in doing what he did in trying to improve the health-care system in Massachusetts,” Christie said. “I will tell you, that I’m proud of him for standing up for doing what he believes is right.”


“The president of the United States is raising taxes over and over again to pay for this plan he still won’t pay for. What Gov. Romney did was what he believed was responsible as governor of Massachusetts to allow people to have access to health care. All the governors should have that opportunity to make that judgment on their own,” continued Christie, who emphasized that he believed each state should be allowed to put forward their own health-care solutions.

Al-Qaeda Joins Those Questioning Legality of U.S. Killing of Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki

No matter how much you might dislike Barack Obama, you gotta laugh at the absolute and gall and irony of Al-Qaeda putting on this front:

Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen has confirmed the deaths of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, the young American propagandist killed alongside him in a U.S. drone strike late last month.


Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.


“Where are what they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!” the statement says, according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites.


The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would find itself hard-pressed to claim the moral high ground in the debate over the killing of Awlaki and Khan.


But the killing of two U.S. citizens has prompted outrage among civil liberties groups, as well as a debate in legal circles about the basis for the administration's position.


The Washington Post’s Peter Finn reported after the strike that Awlaki’s killing had been authorized in a secret Justice Department memo, a revelation that later prompted senior Democratic senators and scholars to call for its release. Over the weekend, The New York Times quoted people who have read the document as saying that the memo found it would be lawful to kill the cleric only if it were not possible to take him alive. The memo, the Times said, was narrowly drawn to the specifics of Awlaki’s case.


Among those who have raised legal objections to the strike: Samir Khan’s family in Charlotte, N.C.


In a statement, the family said that, Khan was a “law-abiding citizen of the United States” and “was never implicated of any crime.”

Ann Coulter Talks "Occupy Wall Street" Protesters and Liberal Hypocrisy

Al Sharpton Defends A White Man's Right To Call A Black Teenager A Coward For Not Participating In Civil Rights Movement

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Again, Herman Cain does not get a pass for allowing the condescending prick that is Lawrence O'Donnell to make him look like a buffoon when he went on his show to promote his book the other day. First, Cain looked totally unprepared which says a lot considering that everyone on the planet knows how leftwing MSNBC is (Cain couldn't of thought he was going to get a fair interview). Secondly, why any conservative would go on MSNBC to promote their book is beyond me, it's not like any of the few viewers MSNBC has would have any interest in buying a book authored by a conservative. Third, in defending O'Donnell's right to call out Cain for "sitting on the sideline" during the civil rights movement Al Sharpton loses all credibility. Not that Mr. Race-Baiting, Tawana Brawley Lying, FBI informant, "I'll Never Criticize Barack Obama" had any left. But when you consider that O'Donnell has gotten flack both the Left and conservatives for the 'distressing' racial undertones he put on display during the interview with Cain, one might think that even a total shill like Sharpton would be able to see something a little disturbing there. But instead he deflects, lies and comes off like the total hack that he is:

Lawrence O'Donnell has taken a fair amount of heat for his interview with Herman Cain this week, where the host questioned both Cain’s involvement (or lack thereof) in the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. Last night, O’Donnell faced a panel made of MSNBC staples Al Sharpton and Melissa Harris Perry and The Grio‘s Goldie Taylor who had a word or two to say about his performance, the strongest coming from Harris Perry, who questioned why white politicians alive at the time did not get “litmus test” questions on their positions on race at the time.


O’Donnell replayed key parts of his interview along with comments Cain made at the Values Voter Summit yesterday accusing O’Donnell of veering into absurdity, and promptly gave the floor to Sharpton, who did not consider any of O’Donnell’s questions out of line. “I don’t see where you instructed him on how to be black or anything else,” he noted, but rather, “it is Mr. Cain who has decided to call blacks brainwashed,” which opened him up to criticism on his positions on the matter. He also argued that Cain attacking the Occupy Wall Street protests made his role in the Civil Rights movement fair game: “How can you call people unamerican for assembling and protesting now and not have considered those same tactics unamerican then?”


Harris Perry was far less comfortable with O’Donnell’s interview, though she did not say anything negative about O’Donnell’s performance but, rather, how his questions reflected the place black politicians have in American society. She told O’Donnell the interview had her “squirming with discomfort” because of the potential “implication that those that did not participate were necessarily cowards,” warning that “we have to be so careful when we are not facing that imminent violence ourselves.” She noted it was only a minority that participated in protests and, furthermore, this was a non-issue for white politicians. “I can’t remember anyone ever asking a white politician who is of the same age where they were during the sit-ins,” she noted, adding that it “worried” her when white politicians did not face the same challenges to their patriotism.


On his end, O’Donnell justified his questions arguing that it was worth putting the questions on the table: “we can go into those conversations without presuming there is a right or wrong answer.” Taylor jumped in to add that had Cain not been “righteously indignant at the questions” but had explained himself in a more appropriate way, or fessed up to simply not participating without being angered by the question, he would have found his response more adequate. Sharpton also added that he felt the questions were appropriate precisely because Cain’s “brainwashed” comment had “totally discarded the fact that it was based on public policy” and the role of Democratic Party had in passing civil rights legislation.