No Response From Tester on Netanyahu Speech

Aaron Flint posted on March 03, 2015 09:12 :: 1140 Views

Well, I’m not sure if Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) plans to attend the speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or not.  As the list of Dems boycotting the speech grows to 55, Tester is not listed as attending nor boycotting. 

Beyond the fact that his press office can’t even answer the easy questions (as they get grilled for misrepresenting answers to other questions) about whether he simply plans to attend a speech or not, isn’t a sad commentary that Montanans are left wondering and even have to ask the question in the first place?  (Added note as of 10:15 AM: I heard from a couple callers that Tester was present, and in the front row at that- good for him)

Meanwhile, Democrats in the US Senate have once again blocked an effort to fund the Department of Homeland Security.  It’s all part of an effort by Tester and Senate Dems to shield President Obama’s amnesty for illegal immigrants. 

Well, at least Tester shows that he also supports *legal* immigration.  In the midst of the DHS immigration debate, he was able to find time to welcome a couple new immigrants to Montana:

The Hill- House GOP leader: Senate should change its rules to pass DHS funding

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on Sunday that the Senate should change its rules in order to pass a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“I think they should change the rule,” McCarthy said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” suggesting the Senate invoke the so-called “nuclear option” to allow spending bills to only require a simple majority to advance instead of 60 votes.

McCarthy’s comments represent frustration among House Republicans who were forced to vote on a one-week bill funding DHS and put off debate over President Obama’s executive action on immigration. Many conservatives have pushed for a plan to fund the agency while also rolling back Obama’s action.

Speaking of the Netanyahu speech earlier in this post, a listener to our statewide radio show in Great Falls, Montana had this reaction to the Left’s argument that boycotting Bibi’s speech was really about “election fairness.”  Here’s what Gordon in Great Falls has to say:

Aaron, the left claims to have deep concerns about BIBI Netanyahu’s speech today before congress because of the upcoming Israeli elections and it could project America is “choosing sides”?
So the party of ACORN is concerned about fair elections now?
The party against voter ID?
The party that would have allow the worst criminals in our prisons systems a voice at our ballet boxes?
The party that ran false documents against George Bush eleven days out of the 2004 election?
The party that tied Mitt Romney to a womans cancer death in the 2012 election? 
They want fairness now?
The fact is they could care less about fairness here in the “Great Satan” why would they care about the “Little Satan”?
Perhaps in his speech today Netanyahu cans state, “Mr. President, you can put lipstick on a pig but this Iran nuclear deal is still a pig”.
No doubt the Mullah’s in Iran will appreciate the pig reference and if the “Great Satan” and “Little Satan” remarks sound harsh please forgive me, I learned it from President Obam’s pastor and Louis Farrakhan a good friend of Wright’s.
Take care,

The Daily Caller: Father Of Black Teenager Murdered By Illegal Alien Asks ‘Do Black Lives Really Matter?’

Shaw told of his son, Jamiel Shaw II, who in May 2008 at the age of 17 was gunned down by Pedro Espinoza, a 19-year-old illegal Mexican immigrant.

“Do black lives really matter? Or does it matter only if you are shot by a white person or a white a policeman?” the elder Shaw asked during his testimony, referencing a phrase that became popular following the police-involved deaths of two black men, Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

The Daily Signal: Why Congress, Not Just the Courts, Must Address Obama’s Immigration Executive Actions

Improper Support for Illegal Actions. If legislators believe the president’s actions are illegal, then appropriating money to fund those activities makes Congress complicit. It is completely inappropriate for legislators to fund something they believe to be illegal.

Not Mutually Exclusive. Both Congress and the courts have the responsibility to address the executive actions. Neither branch of government should try to avoid responsibility by assuming the other will take care of the illegal actions.

Reassert Its Lawmaking Power. Congress would not be denying funds for programs that were lawfully created by Congress. It would be denying funding for the implementation of illegal executive actions that were specifically designed to get around Congress. Congress has a responsibility to reassert its lawmaking power (and its power to regulate immigration) under the Constitution and protect against the executive branch infringing on this power.

Also, from The Daily Signal- The Ruling on Executive Amnesty: Attorneys General Argue Their Case

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *