Bear Fan Rep. Mark Kirk Blasts House Leadership: "We Know Who Won the Super Bowl"

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) blasted the House leadership yesterday afternoon for focusing the House of Representatives on the Steelers Super Bowl victory (HR 110) instead of the serious economic issues at hand. Anne Schroeder Mullins of Politico talked to Mark afterwards and it sounds like he was still steamed, talking of the few people who were in the House chamber at the time Mark said “Originally they looked at me like, ‘what a guy from Chicago want to say about this? This is Pittsburgh vs. Arizona' but my point is bigger. Why are we talking about this and not talking about the stimulus?" To insure that his point was not lost he told Politico "(t)hree thousand to seven thousand Americans are watching CSPAN right now wondering what are these guys working on? We know who won the Super Bowl. And no, it’s not sour grapes, [The Bears] lost a long time ago."

Here is Rep. Kirk's floor speech:
I might just ask the leadership why we are debating this resolution, taking time away from serious debate on the hidden stimulus bill. Why, as the economy tanks, congressional leaders are voting to borrow $2 trillion but we’re debating National Engineers Week and a football resolution? Now I watched the game and it was a good game but it's not our core mission. We should be debating the $2 billion appropriation for "neighborhood stabilization" available to organizations currently under criminal scrutiny like ACORN, a new wellness fund, or a government medical effectiveness board now with powers to override decisions of you and your doctor. When we take up resolutions like this, it's because we are trying to distract members and the American people for knowing what they cannot read in the stimulus bill. We can debate the Super Bowl but the results are not in doubt. What we ought to be debating is should we borrow $2 trillion on behalf of the American people and does anyone have that cash? We debate Engineer Week instead of asking the Fed, when you "monetize" debt, doesn't that really mean you're printing money? It's resolutions like this that weaken the reputation of the U.S. –

Hat Tip: Backyard Conservative

Dems Want to Jail Political Opponents

In this morning's Chicago Tribune, a paper once described by the late Chicagoan John Belushi as "that fascist newspaper from Chicago", was another of the Tribs typical propaganda pieces. This time they are not shilling for CAIR but for the Democratic Party. They have a ridiculous article by Northwestern Law professor James Pfander and former Democratic congressman and former DC Court of Appeals judge Abner Mikva that suggests that the US House and the US Senate should construct a jail to imprison people from other branches who don't dance to their bizarre tunes. Abner Mikva was once White House Counsel during the Clinton administration when he gave that administration the advice that they could not legally implement their illegal fund raising schemes; ironically Mikva lasted a few months and left for "personal and family reasons" at about the time that the Clinton people implemented their illegal fund raising schemes, you know, the ones in which Al Gore claimed that there was "no controlling legal authority". Mr. Mikva was not exorcised over the blatant illegal political fund raising by the Democratic Clinton administration. It is worth noting that when the Clinton administration was in hot water with congress that Judge Mikva had no such suggestions. Mr. Mikva also argued that President Clinton should not be punished for lying to a Federal Court. Thanks Ab.

It is worth noting that these two "experts" on the Federal Court system are not willing to admit that the President of the United States has unlimited powers to appoint and relieve Federal prosecutors at ANY time for ANY REASON. What is going on up at Northwestern? Is it the water? Because they are two hyper-partisan lawyers these two men have dishonestly framed their argument as being about "executive privilege", a serious component of our system. They are also saying that congress should be able to throw people in jail for invoking a well established right to counsel that is held by the executive branch. They believe that all Republican Presidential counsel should be open to congressional and public scrutiny. Thanks Ab.

Mikva, a former congressman may be trying to give congress powers that he dreamed of having while he was in office. The balance of powers between the branches of the US government is a very important component of our system and to willy-nilly give hyper-partisans the power to jail their political opponents is disgracefully fascistic. It is interesting that arguments over the balance of power are as old as our nation and that these two are basing their arguments on the fact that the congress had a jail during the "19th century" and regularly used that jail to imprison those they disagreed with. Mr. Mikva and Mr. Pfander may not be aware of this but our nation and our government have changed quite a bit since those halycon days; for instance those two men could have owned slaves back in the 19th century, in fact as recently as the 1864 election the Democratic platform advocated slavery for the Southern states. Thanks Ab.

It is interesting how they develop their propaganda but it is important to realize that these two are advocating that the hyper-partisans of the House be given the power to jail those governmental officials with whom they disagree, a position that at least one of them did not take when the power in Congress was held by Republicans. Those two men are pathetic.

It is worth noting that as a pre-teen I passed out brochures for Mr. Mikva's numerous congressional campaigns and that I have met the man. My late father also knew "Ab" Mikva, my father also taught at his alma mater Northwestern Law and that one of my uncles is currntly on the faculty of Northwestern Law.