Mediaboss Marketing

With season seven of the smash HBO show Game of Thrones debuting on Sunday, Reason has released another hilarious video putting a libertarian spin on the fantasy epic.

ReasonsAustin Bragg, Meredith Bragg, Andrew Heaton, and Remy Munasifihave made libertarian versions of Star Trek and Star Wars in the past. Star Trek: Libertarian Edition won a Southern California Journalism Award forBest Humor/Satire Writingof 2016.

Now Heaton and the Braggs are back. The video features Heaton and Austin Bragg playing numerous roles. Heaton plays theHand of the King attempting to convince the small council that small government and non-interventionism is the key to a more prosperous Westoros.

Heaton and Austin Bragg also play two members of the Nights Watch trying to figure out why their ancestors built a giant wall to keep out the free folk, people who marry whoever they want, live however they please, and elect leaders instead of being under the rule of someone they never approved of.

Also, watch as Heaton attempts to remember what the sayings are for House Republican and House Democrat while attending lessons with Maester Luwin, and learn that the Libertarian sigil is a porcupine humping a pile of money.

Reason releases humorous videos regularly. Some havemockedSaturday Night Live for itsHillary Clinton Hallelujah musical number, and CNN for its biased reporting.

Visit link:
Reason releases hilarious parody video 'Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition' - TheBlaze.com

State Rep. Jerry Long found agreement on Thursday with local Libertarians on his opposition to the recent tax increase and FOID cards, but he encountered differences over marijuana laws.

Long, R-Streator, took questions from the Illinois Valley Libertarian Party at the Prairie Lakes Country Club near Marseilles.

He said conservative Republicans like himself are close philosophically to Libertarians, which favor less government in the economy and social affairs.

Last week, Long voted against the state budget that included an income tax increase. He said Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan did not budge "one inch" in his negotiations with Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Rauner, meanwhile, offered to support a temporary tax increase with structural economic reforms, yet Madigan got his way, Long said. That proves again Madigan controls Illinois, Long said.

"Michael Madigan is the problem in Illinois. He drove Illinois into the hole," Long said.

Temporarily, he said, the tax increase will bring more revenue to the state. Long-term, though, it will drive more and more people out of Illinois, reducing the state's tax base, he said.

"A lot of people can't pack up and leave. Farmers can't pack up. How can you pack up your acres and leave?" he said.

On another issue, Long said he supported laws to decriminalize marijuana below half an ounce of marijuana, assessing a small fine in those cases. When people have more than that amount, he said, they're likely distributing.

"No one has ever overdosed on marijuana," one Libertarian said.

The local party's chairwoman, Jenae Wise, pushed Long to support marijuana legalization.

"It would bring so much revenue. That is undeniable," she said.

Long asked, "You don't feel marijuana is the gateway to other drugs?"

The Libertarians said they didn't.

Long said he would be happy to revisit the issue.

"We'll talk about it a little bit later," he said.

Sunday car sales: Long said he was open to allowing car sales on Sundays. State law requires car dealerships be closed on Sundays, a law that dealers convinced the Legislature to support decades ago.

Fireworks: Long said he wouldn't mind legalizing fireworks.

FOID cards: Long said he is pushing a bill to ban the cards, which have long been required of gun owners. But he said Madigan and the Democrats prevented the legislation from going anywhere. "The purpose was to curb crime. It hasn't done that. It gives the state strength over individuals," Long said.

Pensions: Long said the state needs to keep the pension promises it has made to government workers. But he said the state needed to find a way to curb pension spending.

Politics: More Republicans need to be elected, Long said. That's the only way to reduce Madigan's power, he said.

Read more:
Long, Libertarians have common ground - MyWebTimes.com

Senate budget rules are giving opponents of the rollback of the 2010 health care law an easy way to attack Republicans for hypocrisy.

The Senate GOP may notreally want to immunize their own member and staff health plans from their health care policy changes, but because they are seeking to bring their bill to the floor under the expedited budget reconciliation process, they have little choice.

Sen. Ted Cruz has already unveiled a fix to nullify the exemption, but that bill would take 60 votes to overcome any filibuster attempts.

While this exemption was included in the Senate health care bill out of procedural necessity, we must still be diligent in ensuring thatMembers of Congressare treated just like other Americans under this law, the Texas Republican said in a statement. This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Lawmakers are not above the laws that they pass and I believe that it is crucial that Members of Congress abide by the same laws that their own constituents follow.

The exemption has already prompted a web ad from the group Save My Care, which has been working against efforts to repeal and replace the health care law that took effect under President Barack Obama.

Senators did make the bill better for one group of Americans ... themselves, the ad says, citing a Thursday report from Vox.

It is substantively accurate to say there is a carve-out in the Senate measure, but as with much of what happens when the Senate uses the budget reconciliation process, the reasons are complicated.

As part of the implementation of the 2010 health care law, members of Congress and many staffers both on Capitol hill and in state-based offices shifted from getting health insurance benefits through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to the small-business exchange in Washington, D.C.

Matters related to the local government in D.C. fall within the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and internal operations of the Capitol are the responsibility of the Rules and Administration Committee.

Aides previously confirmed that since neither panel received reconciliation instructions in the fiscal 2017 budget resolution that was adopted earlier this year so Republicans could pass health care legislation with just 50 votes and a tie-breaker by Vice President Mike Pence.

A bill or amendment could lose its privileged status and be subject to needing 60 votes to overcoming procedural hurdles if staff and lawmaker health benefits were not exempted.

Under a decision by the Office of Personnel Management during the Obama administration, employer contributions were allowed to be used in the D.C. SHOP.

That led to a recurring saga in the Senate involving an amendment crafted by then Sen. David Vitter. The Louisiana Republican sought to end the employer benefit. OPM under President Donald Trump has not reversed course on the availability of the benefits

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Read the original post:
Why Republicans Exempted Their Own Insurance From Obamacare Rollback - Roll Call

"There's no question but that the president's naivete with regards to Russia, and his faulty judgment about Russia's intentions and objectives, has led to a number of foreign policy challenges that we face. And unfortunately, not having anticipated Russia's intentions, the president wasn't able to shape the kinds of events that may have been able to prevent the kinds of circumstances that you're seeing in the Ukraine, as well as the things that you're seeing in Syria. ... This is not Fantasyland. This is reality where they are a geopolitical adversary."

Mitt Romney, March 23, 2014, on Barack Obama

If there has been any defining trait among modern Republicans, it's their ingrained distrust of Russia. For decades, the GOP made a habit of accusing its opponents of being weak-kneed and gullible about Moscow's intentions. If Donald Trump had been elected president as a Democrat, they would be painting him as the most craven appeaser since Neville Chamberlain.

But he was elected as a Republican, which has required some reorientation in the GOP. A lot of Republican voters have simply turned their worldview upside down. One recent poll found that only 1 in 4 thinks Russia should be treated mainly as a threat with two-thirds preferring warmer ties.

GOP officeholders, caught in the middle, are generally wary of Trump's policy toward Moscow. By a 98-2 vote, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a bill to tighten the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, which the president opposes. But the measure has stalled in the House. And most of the party's members of Congress have done their best to downplay or excuse Trump's strange fondness for Vladimir Putin.

That remained true even after the revelation that Donald Trump Jr. met last year with someone he believed was a Russian government lawyer offering "sensitive information" on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

If this was not collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, it was a conscious attempt at collusion with a hostile government on the part of the candidate's son. No wonder Donald Jr. lied about it until his emails were exposed.

That the Russian failed to produce what she promised doesn't make the meeting any less incriminating for Trump. If you give money to someone you believe is a hit man to kill your spouse, you can't claim innocence when he disappears without doing the job.

But many Republicans who should have been objecting couldn't bring themselves to speak up. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan were practically mute. When asked if the news was cause for concern, Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "No."

Only a few longtime Trump critics, notably Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, were vocally disgusted by what they had learned. Many of their colleagues are just hoping Trump and those around him are not obviously guilty of major felonies.

The standard for presidents used to be higher. In 1980, Ronald Reagan accused President Jimmy Carter of "cozying up" to the Soviet Union. In 1992, President George Bush attacked Bill Clinton for traveling to Moscow as a student in 1969. Even after communism collapsed and the pro-American Boris Yeltsin was elected president, Sen. Bob Dole ran in 1996, charging that Clinton "cherishes romantic illusions about the soul of a former adversary."

Romney flayed Obama in 2012 for telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he would have "more flexibility" on policies affecting Russia after the election. "I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses," Romney vowed.

In the past, the GOP demanded that presidents recognize the threat posed by the Russian government, understand the policies needed to counter it and have the backbone to stand up to any challenge. Trump, by their own criteria, has failed each of these tests.

Obama was vilified as a Russian patsy for actions that don't remotely approach what we know Trump and his circle have done. Today, all but a few congressional Republicans avert their eyes and swallow their tongues. Most of them, however, must be appalled to see the nation's security in the hands of someone so willing to overlook Putin's malicious behavior.

It may not be clear to them that Trump should be impeached. But by now, they have to know he can't be trusted.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

Download "Recalculating: Steve Chapman on a New Century" in the free Printers Row app at http://www.printersrowapp.com.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

The rest is here:
Republicans have lost the courage to stand up to Russia - Chicago Tribune

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said closed-door GOP conference meeting Friday morning that all 12 appropriations bills will be finished in committee by the end of next week. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

House GOP leaders will decide next week whether to brave an ugly floor fight over a massive GOP spending bill a proposal applauded by some rank-and-file Republicans but that risks embarrassment if it fails.

In a closed-door GOP conference meeting Friday morning, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said all 12 appropriations bills will be finished in committee by the end of next week. Starting Monday, leadership will begin a tentative whip count on whether lawmakers would vote for a package before the August recess that combines all of those bills into one $1 trillion government funding bill.

Story Continued Below

The idea, first proposed by Rep. Tom Graves, a senior appropriator, is to give House Republicans a chance to pass a red-meat spending bill that will lay out GOP priorities. Though the bill would never pass the Senate in the face of Democratic opposition, the process would allow House Republicans to offer potentially hundreds of amendments, an exercise that excites members who are frustrated that theyve had no input on how to fund the government.

Its actually been the consensus of the conference to get all this done before August, Graves (R-Ga.) said upon emerging from conference Friday, optimistic that his idea will take. Were here to get our job done, and Ill tell you, members are excited about the opportunity to put our priorities forward and advance it to the floor.

The strategy could open something of a Pandoras box, however. Lawmakers would be required to vote on controversial amendments that could be used against them in their districts, from provisions on the Confederate flag to gay rights proposals that put them in bind. Democratic amendments chiding the administration for the Russia controversy are almost assured.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Perhaps more worrisome: The bill might fail on the floor, which would provoke another flood of damaging headlines about the GOP's deep divisions and inability govern.

While Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), another senior Appropriations member, said the Graves strategy was the preferred approach, he acknowledged that reaching 218 votes could be a challenge for the fractious conference. Republicans have yet to unite around a broader fiscal 2018 budget, let alone a $1 trillion government funding package with hundreds and hundreds of pages, he said.

Thats why GOP leaders want the conference to commit to passing the final bill whatever it looks like before they move down this path. McCarthy asked members to read the various spending bills over the weekend and be ready to give leadership feedback next week. Leadership has reminded members that they wont get everything they want, and if their amendments or ideas fail on the floor, they should be ready to support the final version anyway.

Getting such a commitment from members, however, could be difficult since they will want to see the final product before committing to vote for it.

Former House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said hes optimistic GOP leaders will succeed in rounding up enough Republican votes to pass the omnibus spending package.

I think so, but its such an early moment here, Rogers told reporters Friday morning. The people havent seen the bills. But I think when they do, theyll find that these bills are solid, theyre complete and they give us a chance to take a shutdown off the table.

Whats different from previous intra-party clashes, Rogers said, is that appropriators have made concessions that should appease the fiscal conservatives who usually vote against spending bills.

We cut spending. We fully fund the military request. Social issues weve taken care of in the bill, he said. So I think weve taken away all the objections that most people had.

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa), a centrist Republican on the Appropriations committee, expressed concern that some of the bills called for unrealistically low spending levels, which would run into opposition in the Senate.

But he said he would support a bundled funding package, in part because it would include the bill funding military construction and veterans programs that his subcommittee wrote.

Im in the bus, he joked. Im the leadoff hitter.

Dent also lamented that many of the hard-line Republicans who back this spending package will ultimately oppose the final plan that can pass both chambers of Congress.

If this gets me to an agreement in the end, to the real numbers, I can deal with it, Dent said. But the point is my frustration is, there are people who will vote for the takeoff, for the initial launch, but theyll be nowhere to be found for the landing, for the real bill that matters.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Visit link:
House Republicans weigh massive partisan spending bill - Politico