Congress should allow C-SPAN's news cameras to broadcast House and Senate action from the chamber instead of only providing a video feed to the public affairs network, a C-SPAN executive told Just the News.

C-SPAN Corporate Vice President and General Counsel Bruce Collins described the current setup as state-run television in an interview on the "Just the News AM" show.

During the CARES Act debate last March, some lawmakers in the House objected to passing the $2 trillion stimulus bill with a voice vote, but the public could not see a shot of the full chamber while the situation unfolded. "Well, that's the difference between journalism and government, I don't know, propaganda, or government television — state TV, is what we have in the House, in the Senate," Collins said, referring to the example above.

"[O]ver the years, we've noticed many times where there will be a disturbance in the gallery, for example, and everybody will be looking up," Collins recalled. "But the state TV or the congressionally controlled cameras won't show you what's going on."

C-SPAN has sent letters to congressional leaders over the years to request camera access in the House and Senate chambers. Despite C-SPAN's outreach efforts, Collins doesn't think the network will be able to get their cameras inside Congress any time soon.

"The answer is no," Collins said.

Raru
11 hours ago
Takes me back to the 80s. The Reagan haters then (George Bush, Sen. Jacob Javits, Gerald Ford, Rep. John Anderson, who ran against Reagan as an independent) eventually had to shut up because Reagan was so popular. He threw the haters a bone by picking GHWB as his VP. And then Bush won what was essentially Reagan's third term.

Now imagine if Reagan had lost in 1984. That would have emboldened the haters and they would have acted the same way today's Trump-haters are. But because Reagan won, they had to keep their mouths shut lest they be drummed out of the party. Do you think any Rs would have voted for impeachment if Trump had won?

What Reagan did not know in 1980 was that he would have won even without the Rockefeller republicans. Imagine if he would have gone with a young Jack Kemp as VP who could have honestly advocated for his economic policies. Maybe we would not have had a Bill Clinton. Maybe a Liz Cheney would have never been in a place of power.

There's always been these scoundrels in the party, and the only thing that shuts them up is the good guys winning.

8
Reply
−
Avatar
deornwulf Raru
11 hours ago
President Reagan did not choose Bush. The Establish required Mr. Reagan to choose Bush. I have read that Mr. Reagan never met without others present during the entire 8 years he was in office.

2
Reply
−
Avatar
Raru deornwulf
9 hours ago
True. Reagan was badgered into choosing Bush by the "moderates". Little did anyone know at the time, the moderates turned out to be the fringe group of the Reagan coalition. They just happened to be the leaders of the Happy Losers in the House and Senate at the time, therefore they had Reagan's ear, moreso than the grass roots.

States With Active Legislation to Fund Students Instead of Systems

a New England government official revealed the left’s endgame in fighting the climate in an online meeting he assumed would remain private. Massachusetts Undersecretary for Climate Change David Ismay participated in a meeting with the Vermont Climate Council back in January, where he admitted that when it comes to the big climate “offenders” in their region, there are no bad guys left to break. Ismay went on to say that now the only ones left to “break” are the people.

I know one thing that we found in our analysis is that 60% of our emissions come from – as I have it started to say you and me, except you guys are in Vermont – 60% of our emissions come from residential heating and passenger vehicles. Let me say that again …60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person on your street, the senior on fixed-income. Right now there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at and turn the screws on and no break their will so they stop emitting. That’s you . We have to break your will. //

Herein lies the problem with climate policy specifically, and progressivism in general. Everyone is on board as long as the “big guys” are getting screwed. What the public at large does not know is that progressive government has no intention of stopping at the big guy. They know that small business and the middle class make up the majority of American life, currently. They know that any significant change to American life must be done on the backs of those people. This is the terrifying truth that they dare not utter out loud, because even they know they are advocating for more poverty, more struggle, and less prosperity for the people who pay their salaries. //

Poor people don’t matter. Small business doesn’t matter. Even as all these people are surely using walls, and insulation, and heat, and electricity, they simultaneously are plotting to make sure no one else has those privileges. //

The issue isn’t climate change. The issue is changing human nature and under our Constitution, no man has the right to force changes upon our free will. If people vote for heat it’s because they like being warm in the winter. The will of the voter is intended to be the most powerful voice in the nation. As with the Time article, here we see unabashed, admitted proof that there is a concerted effort to circumvent the will of voters.

These people despise the existence of anyone outside their elitist bubbles. That’s all you need to know.

11th Hour
@11thHour
'America is back': Biden ends 'America first' Trump agenda.

Learn more: http://on.msnbc.com/39MVaBp

“We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again, not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s,” Biden said during an address at the State Department that attempted to turn the page on isolationism [America first] and restore diplomacy [globalism] as the tool of choice. [Wait — who’s the “tool”?]

“America is back. Diplomacy is back,” Biden said... //

New York Post
@nypost
Pompeo slams Biden over 'America is back' foreign policy shift https://trib.al/BndGb6r

During an appearance on “Fox New Primetime,” Pompeo shared those thoughts with host Trey Gowdy.

“Does he mean back to when ISIS controlled a caliphate in Syria that was the size of Britain? I hope not. President Trump and our team took that down.”

[Pompeo drops mic, walks off stage.] //

“When he says “back,” when America is back, does he mean back to letting China walk all over us, destroying millions of jobs in places like Kansas and South Carolina, that we know so well? I hope that’s not what he means by back.

“He talked about allies, when he said go back, does he mean back to dissing allies and friends like Israel and treating the terrorists in Iran like friends by giving them $150 billion in pallets of cash?

“I don’t think the American people can afford to go back to eight more years of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. I hope they’ll move forward with a foreign policy look much more like our ‘America First’ foreign policy.

Five justices endorsed the "most favored nation" theory of free exercise—that the presence of ANY secular exemption to a law triggers strict scrutiny when that law is applied to religious exercise. This is basically the end of Employment Division v. Smith.https://t.co/IEQd9IWM4a

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC

Jason Willick
@jawillick
A fundamental divide: conservative judges are more likely to defer to legislators; liberal judges to experts. //

Yes, conservative judges do defer to the protective confines of the constitution and not the arbitrary and unaccountable edicts of the “experts.” Every atrocity in human history has had an “expert” standing beside leadership endorsing the action about to be taken. The idea that we should hand over our governance to “experts,” making them preeminent to the actual Constitution is an idea so insane that it makes me think a national break-up might actually be a good idea. How does a country even survive with so many of its citizens holding such a position?

But really, what does the fact that all the liberal judges on the court agreed with the ban say? I think it says that we are a few Supreme Court appointments by a Democrat away from having absolutely no liberty at all. If a state can simply decide you can’t go to church, then what is left, exactly? Because they can dang sure declare an “emergency” and arbitrarily decide you don’t get to have guns either. They can certainly suppress speech under that standard for the greater good as well. //

For every Never Trumper out there who didn't think Trump's term was worth it, had he not been elected, SCOTUS would have decided last night that a state can just stop people from going to church while allowing celebrity book signings. Your decorum wasn't gonna save you. https://t.co/YSStLCWMnS

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate)

consider the below summary in the context that over 90% of Republican voters cast their ballots to reelect President Trump last year.

First, the Republican National Committee had no nationwide campaign strategy that leveraged the widespread popularity of an incumbent Republican president. Then, despite foreknowledge of the election theft to come, the RNC had no legal strategy at all to either preempt the illegal state election law changes made by governors and secretaries of states or contest the fraud after Election Day. All legal challenges were left to the Trump campaign and “independent lawsuits.”

Next, despite the two months of election fraud evidence forthcoming from independent statistical analyses, at least 400 sworn affidavits in dozens of lawsuits filed in swing states, sworn testimony in election fraud hearings in several states, and videos of criminal conduct-in-action on Election Day, many elected Republicans in Congress (less 7 senators and 121 representatives) ducked their obligation to faithfully represent their own voters by rushing to certify an illegitimate president in the dead of night on 6 January without debating and reviewing any of that evidence. They didn’t even remark on the vote-shifting that took place in the tabulations reported in several states in real-time on Election Day night that Americans saw on network news with their own eyes!

Concurrently, not a single Republican in the Senate or House leadership commented on the fact that only a tiny fraction of the lawsuits filed that were decided in the courts actually examined the evidence of fraud that had been meticulously compiled. Where were their demands to see the evidence reviewed in courts of law? Where was the unified Republican demand to forensically audit the ballots cast in the disputed states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada? And toss Minnesota, Colorado, New Jersey, and Michigan in for good measure, too! //

There’s an old saying derived from Proverbs that “there’s no loyalty among thieves.” Well, that apparently applies to elected Republicans, too, as they have bailed out on the leader of their party since Election Day 2020 and are trying to avoid accountability to their own voters, too.