Tuesday, March 30, 2010


The Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina, Andre Bauer, has announced that he is attempting to convene a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to protect Americans from Obamacare's individual mandate. 

This is a very intriguing development.   It takes 34 states to convene a Convention, and whatever comes out of the convention will require 38 states to ratify it.  There has never been an amendment ratified through the states - they have all come from the federal government.  But just because it has never happened before doesn't mean that it never will - although it's almost guaranteed that will be the left's argument against it.  So the big question is, can it be done?  Well, conveniently enough, there are 38 states either preparing or actively pursuing lawsuits against the federal government over Obamacare and the individual mandate.  Interesting, no?

A Constitutional amendment would ensure that never again would our government try to force us to purchase a good or service that they mandate.  The amendment would make Obamacare null and void by making it officially and uncontrovertably unconstitutional.  It could take years for the lawsuits to wend their way through the court systems to the Supreme Court and might not even kill the bill altogether, just pieces of it, so a convention might be a faster solution as well as more comprehensive. 

The problem with the Obamacare individual mandate is that it opens the door to future mandates, so it needs to be blocked, and soon.  If the government is able to tell us not just that we have to buy health insurance, but what level of health insurance we have to buy, where does it end? Let's take, for example, GM.  Even with bailouts and government intervention, GM is still in the red.  Their prospects in the future aren't very rosy, and the odds of more bailouts are pretty good - after all, the unions are running the show now, and no one does unsustainable quite like the unions.  Instead of a bailout next time, what is to stop the government from mandating that all new car purchases must be GM cars?  Perhaps multi-car households might be required to own at least one domestic (read: GM) vehicle.   Sure, it sounds far-fetched, but stranger things have happened.  After all, our government just authorized the IRS to enforce health care.  Who would have thought of that just a few years ago?

Here's hoping this idea of a Constitutional Convention gains momentum.  It is insanely difficult to dislodge an entitlement - usually the best that can be done is 'reform'.  We need more than reform - this legislation is such a mess that there is really no way to fix it - just look at the so-called 'fixes bill' they passed - even at 2,000+ pages, it doesn't seem to really 'fix' anything.  The taxes, fees and penalties are threatening to cause serious damage to our economy and overburdening our health care system with an influx of some 30 million new enrollees will cause long waits and rationing.  We need to rid ourselves of this albatross around our collective necks and a state convened constitutional convention is just the way to do it.  Our federal masters have gone completely mad with their own power - it's time to remind them who really calls the shots.

While they are at it, how about amendments requiring the federal government balance the budget, eliminate the fed, and maybe a national sales tax in lieu of yearly income tax?  If they're going to do it, they may as well go big, right?

Saturday, March 27, 2010


It's hard to recall a more pretentious, rude, imperialistic person in the office of President of the United States of America.  In fact, it's tempting to say there has never been such a rude, pretentious, imperialistic, petty. self-serving president ever in the history of this great country.

His inexcusably rude snubbing of one of our closest allies, Israel's Benajamin Netanyahu, puts him and his administration at a new low - and that's really saying something.  His actions were more akin to an arrogant, petulant boy playing at President than a thoughtful, pragmatic statesman.

With one fell swoop, Obama has encouraged the arab world - Iran and Palestine in particular - to rachet up their rhetoric and weapons programs.  No doubt Hamas is busily rearming with the $900 million in American taxpayer funds Obama so generously gave them last year to "rebuild" after the 2008 conflict against Israel. 

The Palestinians have quite a racket going, now that the democrats are in charge.  They start missile strikes without provocation, hide behind women and children, and then sit back and let our press paint them as victims and our government give them money so they can start all over again.  In the meantime, our ally, Israel, is attacked and berated by our press and the democrat party in general.  This turn of events is extremely dangerous for the Israeli people, because the arab world will find encouragement in any appearance of strain in U.S.-Israeli ties.  Palestine instigates rocket attacks at the drop of a hat even with U.S. protection - if they think that protection is gone, Israel could be in real peril.

If anyone is surprised by Obama's despicable behavior towards Netanyahu, they just haven't been paying attention.  Rev. Wright, who has been popping up in the press again lately (book coming out), is a raging anti-semite, who counts among his dearest friends none other than Louis Farrakhan - the man puts the 'big' in bigotry.  The democrat party in general has, in recent years, been racheting up their demonization of Israel and has been siding with Palestine while their lapdog press yip and yap in agreement.

All of this posturing from our president has a huge impact on the world stage.  For those who argue that he is naive and doesn't realize the impact such incidents have, I would argue that this man is nothing if not aware of his own stature in the world.  In fact, it would be more appropriate to say that he has an over-inflated sense of self when it comes to the world stage - the proof of that is in his 2008 summer victory lap through Europe and his constant references to his supposedly world altering Cairo speech. 

No, he knew exactly what he was doing.  It's the Chicago way - if an underling (and let's face it, as far as he's concerned, everyone is an underling) doesn't toe the line, sometimes you have to put them in their place.  That is what that whole episode was about - Netanyahu had forgotten his place.  How dare he ignore a presidential command?   Obama said NO BUILDING.  You will comply.

Obama is the man who started off his term of office by stating that he the U.S. should listen, not dictate to other nations.  Israel is apparently the exception to that rule, because he has had no problem issuing diktat after diktat to the Israelis. 

As Netanyahu said in his remarks last week, "Jerusalem isn't a settlement, it is our capital".  They are not only a recognized state unto themselves, but they are also supposed to be our closest allies. That would be like the U.N. tellling us not to build in Alaska because the Russians think they still have a claim to it.

To quote another public figure, Mike Huckabee, in an interview with Sean Hannity said, "They're building bedrooms in Israel.  They're building bombs in Iran.  It's time to pay attention to the bombs, not the bedrooms"

Unfortunately, Mr. Huckabee, in the Age of Obama, Ahmadinejad is treated with respect and deference, and Netanyahu is insulted, embarrassed and undermined.   All we can do is pray for the safety of the people of Israel and add this latest outrage to the long, long list of reasons to make sure the Age of Obama ends in 2012.

UPDATE:  It seems there are still a few rational thinkers in congress.  327 House members sent Obama a letter condemning his childish behavior towards Israel.  This doesn't mean that he will change his stance, but at least this sends a message to Israel and the international community that Obama's behavior is not backed by the rest of the country.

Thursday, March 25, 2010


With the ink now dry on the health care bill, scrutiny is finally allowed.  After two days of gloating and self-glorification, the democrats are back to playing defense. 

The fact that the IRS is the enforcement arm of the bill has finally reached the general consciousness.  So too the missed demographics and taxation.  Does funding viagra for rapists and pedophiles count as one of those 'goodies' we kept hearing about?

Democrats assured us that there would be so many goodies once the bill was passed that the country would just fall in love with the legislation.  So far, the only thing that has kicked in has been taxes.

In an effort to control the debate and demonize the opposition, democrats are playing up threats, and laying them at the feet of tea partyers and republicans in general.  Yes, there is a great deal of anger out there over how this bill was passed and what it contains, but at no point have the protesters been violent. In addition, threats and violent acts are being heaped on republicans as well, so democrats aren't the only intended victims.   Democrat accusations of slurs being shouted at them on Sunday during the protests have been unsubstantiated, even though there is video and still photography of the event. 

Pelosi and the democrat's 'victory march' through the crowds of protesters was an asinine decision, and it's hard to understand their methodology behind it.  They must have known that they would be heckled, considering they were marching through a crowd that mainly consisted of opposition.  Which begs the question - were they hoping to catch such an incident on tape?

They know the bill is unpopular, and whenever they are faced with opposition, their go-to tactic is demonization.  What better way to do that than to go amongst an angry crowd and try to provoke them?  Every other attempt to paint the protesters as violent mobs has failed or been exposed, but, as the yearlong fight for the health care bill proves, these people are nothing if not tenacious. 

Let's not forget that there are plenty of people on the other side of the aisle who are angry with the bill, too, because of it's lack of a public option and it's alleged 'toothlessness'.  There are also those who like to pretend to be opposition and do things to put the opposition in a bad light.  A great example of this is the democrat supporter in Colorado who shattered the glass windows of a democrat campaign office after the 2008 election.  The democrats were quick to blame the right, but it turns out they were very, very wrong.  Needless to say, no apology was issued, and no corrections were made in the press.

What is really bothersome is how quickly these verbal threats are called terrorism, and yet Osama Bin Laden came out with another tape this week calling for the deaths of innocent Americans and nothing is said about it.  That is to be expected, though - after all, thousands of innocent people in numerous attacks have been slaughtered by those right wing tea bagger freaks....oh, wait....(BTW - since the left calls tea partyers 'tea baggers', does that mean the tea partyers get to call the left 'douchebaggers'?  They are both equally offensive terms...)

Did you ever think that a political party in America would stoop to calling a large portion of the public terrorists and the enemy?   During the Bush years, when he was being hung and/or burned in effegy, compared to Hitler and called the AntiChrist, dissent against government was patriotic.  Suddenly every word spoken against the current administration's policies are racist and/or dangerous.  You might say it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but then you'd probably be accused of being a racist for using the word 'black' in a sentence.

It is pretty obvious that democrats are attempting to smear the tea party movement in a desperate bid to discredit a peaceful, patriotic movement that obviously scares the bejesus out of them.  The Tea Party movement is a tough nut to crack for progressives, because it doesn't play into their gameplan.  Their tactics involve creating a leader and demonizing him/her, which then enables them to paint all followers of the movement with the same broad brush.  They haven't been able to do that with the leaderless Tea party, so they are instead left with vague accusations of unsubstantiated wrongdoing.

Isn't it amazing how Rep. Bart Stupak's allegations of threats to himself and his family when he was considered a no vote were of no consequence, but now that he voted yes and is still receiving threats, suddenly his life is in jeapardy?  There is also hardly any mention of Rep. Steven Lynch's (D-MA) threatening phone calls - probably because they originate from unions and health care supporters who are angry that he voted no. 

There are a few things being investigated right now, such as a cut gas line at the home of the brother of Congressman Tom Periello and windows broken at Rep. Louise Slaughter's NY offices.  The gas line incident in particular is quite serious, and we need to let the authorities get to the bottom of it.

The Tea Parties have been slandered before and been vindicated, so before anyone jumps to any conclusions, let's do what we do in America - grant the accused the presumption of innocence.  If the investigations turn up radical right-wingers, then they should be punished, just as if it is radical left-wingers at fault there should be prosecutions.

In the meantime, the democrats in Congress need to shut their traps and allow the investigations to be concluded before they throw any more bombs. 

When, exactly, did the demonization of fellow Americans become good politics?

Sunday, March 21, 2010


It's done, 219-212.

I was wrong at the end of my last post. 

The fat lady isn't singing a dirge.  She's singing the blues:


The most frightening part of this legislation isn't a specific part of the bill (although there are some pretty horrifying bits).  What is really scary is the length this administration is willing to go to pass it.  Not only are they sneaky and underhanded in their closed door crafting of this piece of....work...they are knowingly (he is, after all, a constitutional lawyer) violating the constitution in their brazen attempt to impose their will on the country.

Just how low are they willing to sink?

Well, first there is Bart Stupak's worthless piece of paper.  He has been duped and will have sold his vote (and 8 or 9 others) for nothing.  Executive orders are secondary to the law of the land, and the new law of the land after the Senate bill passes will be that abortions will receive federal funding.  For what it's worth, he can always take the order, tear it into strips and take it with him on his next visit to the congressional washroom.  That's about all it's good for.

And then there is the Slaughter Solution.   Once it got the nic-name Demon Pass, though, it was done for.  You have to hand it to them - those progressives sure do know a poisonous name association when they see one, don't they?  It is, after all, their favorite tactic.

There are plenty of other shady deals and misinformation in the creation and attempted sale of this bill of goods - far too many to mention.  But it seems that even after all of their other little schemes have been discovered, they are still trying.  Former PA republican senator Rick Santorum mentioned a really shady piece of information about the House reconciliation bill during his interview with Greta Van Susteren.  

According to Mr. Santorum, the Budget Act of 1974 states that revenues slated for Social Security cannot be used for other programs.  The current reconciliation has a provision for "rerouting" SocSec revenues into Medicaid.  This would nullify the entire Reconciliation package.  This means all of the promises that were made to persuade reluctant House democrats to fall on their swords was nothing but hot air. 

Senate Republicans have been attempting to meet with Leader Reid and the Senate Parliamentarian to get some sort of resolution to this situation before the House votes.  So far they have been unable to get a meeting. 

After listening to Santorum explain the deception, Van Susteren asked, "Could they be that diabolical?"

Let's let Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) answer that one, shall we?

They certainly have learned their Alinsky well, haven't they?

There is always the hope that Stupak and House Dems in general will realise they've been duped, but it's most likely this nightmare is going to pass. 

After this, there is still debate in the Senate, but only on the reconciliation package - the main Senate bill will be the law of the land.  If the reconciliation is voted down or nullified in some way, there is absolutely no doubt that Obama will sign the Senate bill into law without the "fixes".  That might just be even worse.  The whole point of Senate republicans making this public is an attempt to have wavering dems rethink their vote.  Odds are good that they won't. 

It's not over 'til the fat lady sings, but you can hear her warming up in the wings, and she'll probably be singing a dirge.

Saturday, March 20, 2010


Between the committee meetings and the Tea Party rally, DC is a hive of activity today.  The Tea Party turnout is impressive, as always.  Rep. Bachmann (R-MN) has officially invited the tea partyers in to the Capitol to speak to their representatives.  It will be interesting to see how the democrats react.  They are under a lot of pressure from all quarters today.

As for the House Rules committee, it has been rather chaotic.  In a surprising turn of events, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) stated (via the Washington Examiner):

“We’re not going to ‘deem’ the bill passed. We’re going to pass the Senate bill…I would be against the idea of ‘deeming’ something — we either pass it or we don’t.”

Sounds like soneone on the democrat side finally realized how unconstitutional the move is.  Perhaps the sheer number of lawsuits waiting to be filed against it tipped them off....Word has just come out that the Senate bill will be voted on directly - demon pass is dead.  

Now the big question is - does Pelosi have to votes to pass the unpopular Senate bill?

Let's not forget - the reason demon pass was spawned in the first place was because she couldn't whip up the votes for the Senate bill as it was passed.

The whip count varies so wildly that it is hard to keep track of how many votes they have.  Dick Morris explained the way he is keeping track - as of last night, 5 no votes had flipped to yes.  But, on the other hand, 4 yes votes flipped to no.  Which means that, although the dems are touting the five they gained, in reality the net gain is only one.  That was the count last night, however, and today has been an incredibly fluid day.  It was thought that Bart Stupak had negotiated a deal with Pelosi, but after he cancelled his 11am presser, word leaked out that he is "done with Pelosi" and his vote stands at no. 

Let's hope the Tea Partyers have some luck persuading their reps to vote no. I have to admit that there is a little tiny part of me that is hoping that the no votes that flipped to yes did so only to get Pelosi off their backs, and that they are still planning to vote no (well, except Kucinich, who is voting yes because he's been assured that single payer is just a few bills down the road).  I know it's silly and unrealistic, but I really am an optimist - I just can't help myself.  Besides, I know I'd say almost anything to get Pelosi out of my hair, and I'd just figure that the promise I made to her is just as binding as the promises she and Obama have made to the country.  Which is to say, not binding at all.

Uh-oh.  The One has decided to descend upon the Hill to persuade his party to do the right thing and save his  presidency.  It's all about the O, after all.  So here's the big question - is this speech by Obama to rally the troops, or is it a convenient way to get them out of their offices while the Tea Party people are roaming the halls?  It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they would do something like this to keep their caucus from speaking to their constituents - that's why they keep trying to pass this mess before major holiday recesses, after all.

The long and short of it is, tomorrow is going to be a very long, tense day. 

Thursday, March 18, 2010


Demon pass is officially the rule of the land.  I feel a little dirty; do you?

There are numerous challenges lining up in case the swamp thing passes on Sunday.  Let's hope some of those constitutional challenges gain traction, because our Dear Leader has indicated that he's so thrilled with how demon pass is working out for him that he's probably going to use it on immigration and other things.  If you don't feel dirty yet...you will.

Fred Barnes of the Wall Street Journal wrote a great op-ed on the future ramifications of Obamacare passing - especially if it passes with demon pass.

America will be in a constant health-care war if ObamaCare is enacted. Passage wouldn't end the health-care debate. Rather, it would perpetuate ObamaCare as the dominant issue for decades to come, reshape politics, create an annual funding crisis in Congress, and generate a spate of angry lawsuits. Yet few in Washington seem aware of what lies ahead.

This bill isn't just a nightmare, it's a nightmare you just can't wake up from.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010


It's Obamarama Day!  All Obama, all the time - just the way he likes it!  In honor of Obamarama Day, I just had to share this with you before we get down to business, so check it out!  Gotta love Pelosi's crazy eyes and the Barry Soetoro exec. producer credit at the end.  Did you ever think America would have a president with an a.k.a.?

The Bret Baier interview was pretty good, in that although there was no new information (shouldn't the president know more about what is and isn't in the bill?) it was rather revealing:

“I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate,” Obama said.

You don't say.  That news flash isn't just the quote of the day, it's the quote of the year.  Isn't that also Rule #3 in the Alinsky's Means v. Ends handbook? 

On a side note, in my hunt for a link to Rule #3, I came across this post, and it struck me how much of it pertains to our current situation.  The post was written back in September, but if you read it, you will see that there are a few correlations to what the administration is saying right now.  It discusses calling any  opposition immoral (siding with insurance cos./hate poor and minorities) or cowardly, and special attention should be paid to rules #3, 8, 10 and 11.

Back to the interview.  Obama was quite defensive, and Baier was surprisingly aggressive, but respectfully so.  He interrupted a lot, which the lefty blogs will most surely be all over tomorrow, but it was because his questions weren't getting answered, not out of disrespect.  Time was short; Baier (and America) wanted answers.  Too bad he didn't get any.

As usual, the President painted with a broad brush - you're either for their utopian vision or you are against humanity:

And if they don’t, if they vote against it, then they’re going to be voting against health care reform and they’re going to be voting in favor of the status quo.

It's either all or nothing with these people (see the above referenced post for more insight).  If you don't vote for this stinking carcass of a bill, then you don't want any reform at all.  This is the same response the Republicans got when they presented him with their proposals, which included free market principles, minor regulation and tort reform.   That doesn't sound like the status quo we keep hearing about, does it?

And who's really in bed with the insurance industry - the ones who want to increase competition in a free market way, or the ones who are handing over some 30 million hostages mandated to purchase not just insurance, but comprehensive (read: more expensive) insurance?  Let's not forget, too, that those who are already minimally insured will have to purchase more coverage to meet the new mandates. 

Obama also said:

“What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.

There are two things wrong with this statement.  The vote taken in the House will not be a vote for health care.  Nor will it be a vote for the nationalization of the student loan system.  It will be a vote for a rule.  But, following his logic, if it is a vote for health care, then he is saying the people who vote for it will have to own up to it.  So why the subterfuge?  Yes, whoever votes for this is going to have to answer for it, whether it is passed by a direct vote or whether it is passed as a rule. Is the reason for technically not voting for it because there some way they can 'take it back' under demon pass if the Senate doesn't pass the reconciliation measure?  That seems pretty unlikely, so democrats in the House just need to trust the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill that is acceptable to them and  "man up" and own the vote - and that means actually cast one.

All in all, this was more damaging to Obama than helpful.  He was definitely not in control of the interview, he didn't have any answers (or at least refused to give them), he was spewing the same old talking points, and was insincere and unconvincing. 

The last ditch, hail Mary (hail Obama?) pass most definitely did not end with a touchdown.  The problem with this bill is that it only appeals to the indoctrinated - mainly because they don't question.  They should have waited another 20 years - you know, get another generation or two through the public school indoctrination system.

Unfortuantely for them, they miscalculated silence for acquiescence and jumped the gun.


It's time to do your part and call your congressperson.  It will be difficult, because the phone lines have been notoriously busy, but it's worth it.  Let your voice be heard.  But remember - be polite, be concise, and be firm.

If you can't spend an hour or two hitting redial, send them an email.  You can only email the congressman who directly represents you.  You might also want to try the local offices for your representative in your state.  Burn up their phone lines, too.  Word will get back to them, fear not.

To email your congressman, click here.  You will need your zip code and four digit zip code extension in order to email the right representative.

Here is the US Capitol switchboard number - (202) 224-3121.  Ask for your representative by name.  Be prepared for a busy signal, but don't lose hope - people are getting through.

You can also check out Congress.org's congressional directory.  You can enter either your zip code (it might ask you for a street address if you live in a county with split districts) or your reps name.  A page will come up with the representative's name and vital stats.  There are tabs at the top of the page - the second tab is for contact information.  You can connect with his/her congressional website to leave an email, or contact their D.C. office or their local offices via telephone.

Operation Housecall is in effect again.  It's time to do our civic duty and remind our representatives that they work for us.  At least, for now.....


Is anyone surprised that Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) changed his vote on health care to yes?  I know - you're shocked - shocked - to hear the news, aren't you?  After his magic carpet ride with The One, there really was no doubt that he would switch.  Today's press conference to state his change of heart was just an exercise in self-importance - a naked ploy for press coverage and national attention.

The man is as far left as possible.  The reason he voted against the original House bill is because the public option didn't go far enough.  All  the Chosen One had to do was assure Kucinich that this bill was just the beginning and that full-blown single payer was just a few steps down the road and Denny-boy was all over it like a rat on a moldy piece of cheese.

This whole spectacle was a waste of time. 

Monday, March 15, 2010


The Supreme Court recently ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that corporations, lobbyists and unions could freely donate to political campaign advertising.  You would think that the democrats would be thrilled at the prospect, because this frees up their beloved unions to more fully support their campaigns.  And out in the open, for a change.  Although daylight might be the last thing the union heads want, bloodsuckers that they are.

Instead, the democrats are in an absolute tizzy about the ruling and even had the audacity to announce they would try to pass a Constitutional amendment to bypass it.  Good luck with that.  President Obama, in one of his less than presidential moments, even scolded the Court publicly during his State of the Union speech.  Justice Samuel Alito silently mouthed the words "Not true" as the liberals in Congress stood up and cheered Obama on.

Chief Justice John Roberts finally made a statement on the whole episode last week.  He called the scolding "very troubling" (via the New York Times):

The chief justice painted a harrowing picture of “one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless.”

This has reignited a firestorm about the decision, and once again the liberals are freaking out.  It's a bit surprising, though, considering their beloved unions and lobbyists will now have free rein.

The real problem is that corporations are also being given free rein, and that includes insurance companies and Wall Street banking firms.  Wall Street was a heavy supporter of Obama during the campaign, but one would imagine that they are having a change of heart after the past year's confiscatory taxation and demonization.  A leading indicator of their disaffection is the fact that they are already switching alliegances

The basis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a dispute over a film about Hillary Clinton that Citizens United wanted to air during the campaign.  The film would have been highly damaging to her campaign and was slapped with a lawsuit to stop its release.  The Supreme Court's ruling opened the doors to future films in future campaigns. 

I can't imagine why President Obama is so passionate about overruling this.  It's not like there are any highly placed politicians whose pasts have been shrouded in mystery during the last election cycle or anything....

Sunday, March 14, 2010


The left's desperation over ObamaCare is getting to be quite revealing.  They are willing to make just about any promise, grease any palm, to get this thing passed. 

They will offer up an amendment for abortion that they promise they will pass - eventually. But House dems have to vote first - just take the Senate's word for the whole amendment thing - they're good for it.


They are willing to turn a well respected, 92 year old Senator into a hypocrite for the cause.  They are even willing to offer your brother a judicial appointment if that does the trick.  If those persuasions weren't enough, there is always a little arm twisting to get you to see the light.

The dems have been shut down at every turn, though. so now they are pulling out all the stops, and legality apparently isn't a necessary requirement anymore.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, has come up with a solution to Pelosi's dilemma.  Madame Speaker is short on votes and no matter how she tries, she's just not able to win them over.  At least her method of pushing out the dead weight has helped her a little.  Unfortunately, she still can't manage to cross the finish line.  That's where the Slaughter Solution comes in.

In a nutshell, the House will pass a rule that says they 'deem' the Senate bill passed by the House - without actually voting on and passing it in reality. 

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Isn't it nice that in the land of unicorns and rainbows in which our congress now lives wishes really do come true? 

It seems that all Pelosi has to do now is wish for health care to pass, and presto! consider it done.  This goes beyond bending the rules.  Would someone please check out the trash bin behind the Capitol and see if the Constitution is in it?  Maybe the Dalai Lama has seen it. 

They have actually resorted to trying to pass the bill without a vote.  In the Constitution is very clearly states how a bill becomes a law (emphasis mine):

First, a bill must pass both houses of Congress by a majority vote. After it has passed out of Congress, it is sent along to the President. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law.

Please note the very first thing that is required is for both houses of Congress to pass the bill by a majority vote.  Rep. Slaughter must have a case of Clintonitis, but instead of wondering what the definition of "is" is, she is wondering what the definition of "vote" is.   Let me give you a clue, madame chairwoman - "deeming" something does not constitute a majority vote.  Unless, of course, Queen Pelosi has somehow managed to turn our constitutional republic into a monarchy/dictatorship.

Radio host Mark Levin (formerly a constutional lawyer) is calling for Slaughter's expulsion.  He calls this effort "brazen" (via American Thinker):

Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.
...It would be government by fiat... meaning there would be no law... the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us... at the brink. At the brink.

This really is a frightening step.  This is in violation of everything this country was founded on. 

There is a tiny part of me that wants them to pass this epic piece of manipulation, graft and backroom deals they call a bill this way.  There's no way in hell it will pass the sniff test with the Supreme Court.  It will get thrown out and we will be rid of it forever.  Maybe we'll get a twofer and get rid of the progressives, too.

Oh, and if the bill isn't bad enough as it stands, the House is also talking about adding in the nationalization of student loans for good measure.  After all, if you're going to send out a nice big "screw you" to the american people, you may as well double down.

As a bonus, Obama's trip to Asia has been postponed and all congressional hearings have been cancelled to focus on health care. Aren't these the same people who ridiculed John McCain for delaying a debate and suspending his campaign to deal with the financial crisis?  What was it they said?  Something about multitasking and grandstanding, wasn't it?  The economy and unemployment can wait.   After all, health care is number...um...eight on the public's priorities list. 

The stench of desperation is getting rather cloying these days, isn't it?

UPDATE:  Former Bush appointee Judge Michael McConnell weighs in (via The Volokh Conspiracy):

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

With all due respect, I beg to differ on one point.  The Slaughter Solution attempts to allow the House to pass three bills with a single vote - don't forget the nationalization of the student loan industry that they have tucked into the reconciliation. 

Aside from that, bravo!

Wednesday, March 10, 2010


Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have come up with a dilly of a plan to deal with illegal workers.  This new plan will require all US workers to have federal ID cards.  These cards will be biometric, which means you will have to be fingerprinted in order to get one.  In order to get a job, you will be mandated by the federal government to have a card. 

Perhaps I'm just becoming more and more paranoid, but I have visions of being asked for my "papers", much like Europe in the 1930's and 40's (via The Wall St. Journal):

"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."

On top of that, it seems that the "immigration reform" they are hammering out is more like amnesty.  According to Chuck Schumer,

The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. "If you say they can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it."

That statement, to me, spells amnesty for the upwards of 12 million illegals currently in the country.  Why would there be another wave of illegals after the legislation is signed if not because the previous wave was given amnesty?  (What do you think the odds are that someone will try a discrimination challenge to the law for allowing a previous group to come in but not the next?  Follow-up question - What do you think the chances are they will win?)

This bill seems to be all about amnesty and tracking US workers.  What I haven't heard about it is how it will address border security and illegals who work under the table.  When are we going to stem the flood of illegals flowing over our borders?  That isn't just about jobs, guys, it's about national security. 

No amnesty, no federal ID cards.  Back to the drawing board.  Secure our borders, and if they came here illegally, they should be unceremoniously sent back.  The only amnesty I'd support would be for those who came here legally but overstayed their visas, and even then, they need to be put through the process, not just automatically given citizenship.  If someone sneaks into this country illegally, in my opinion they are automatically 'undesirables' and should not be given any breaks. 

Tens of millions of people have legally emigrated to this country, my own ancestors included.  They went through the rather degrading process at Ellis Island and then went on to become taxpaying, voting, contributing members of society, no worse for the wear.  My paternal grandmother refused to speak polish because that was not the language of her country.  They left Poland because they wanted to be Americans - and not Polish-Americans, either.  Just Americans. 

I hear all this talk from the left about fairness - how is it fair that those millions upon millions of people had to jump through hoops and meet the requirements for citizenship, become contributing members of society and integrate into the fabric of this country, and yet others are just given a pass on our laws and procedures, can't be bothered to learn the language (and don't really need to anymore), are catered to by our government and allowed to create their own ethnic enclaves to keep themselves separate and apart?

Am I anti-immigration?  Hell no.  This country was created by immigrants, my own family included.  I'm proud of our Melting Pot society - it made us vibrant and innovative and unique in all the world.  But I am very much anti-illegal-immigration.  We allow in millions of legal immigrants every year from all over the world and we have numerous programs to help those emigres become productive members of one of the greatest countries the world has ever known.  There is no excuse for breaking our laws upon entering our country.

Perhaps there should be some talk about making it easier to emigrate from places like Mexico to the US.  But, then again, considering fully one-third of the country would emigrate if they could, perhaps relaxing the requirements might not be such a good idea - that's an awful lot of people to integrate, no matter how you slice it or where they come from.

The point is, this proposed legislation is a mess.  Granting amnesty (again) won't solve the problem, and neither will punishing law abiding legal citizens by forcing them to carry around federal documentation of their legal status.

Our government's bipartisan PC efforts to make sure they don't alienate the illegal aliens at the expense of legal citizens is no surprise.  That Lindsey Grahamnesty is the power behind it is no surprise, either.

Want to know another not surprising thing?  The public outcry against this idiotic plan.

Monday, March 8, 2010


Hey, guess what?  The Campaigner-in-Chief is on the campaign trail again for ObamaCare.

What a surprise.

As usual, his "town hall" is by invitation only.  I wonder if the union member audience is getting paid to sit and listen to him, and do they get a bonus for bringing their pre-printed, SEIU/OFA approved 'handmade' signs, or is this one on the house? 

I'd report it if he had something new to say, but, of course, it's the same old talking points.  Evil Republican obstructionists, status quo, time to decide, simple up or down vote, blah, blah, blah.  I'm surprised he still needs a teleprompter - I could give his speech off the top of my head.

The reports on yea or nay votes has been varied and confusing, but I think it's safe to say they just don't have the votes yet.  After all, if they did, you know Pelosi would call for a vote immediately, no matter the time or day, just in case someone came to their senses.  This is a very fluid situation, however, and you just never know who is going to flip.

Pelosi has even, according to Rep. Massa (D-NY), resorted to making up scandals in order to toss out 'no' votes and bring herself closer to the magic number.  That whole mess is a head scratcher all the way around - it's just generally unsavory and the morals and ethics of all parties involved are questionable, at best - but the point is that, whether artificially engineered or not, it does bring her one vote closer to victory.

Whether the bill passes or not, I, for one, will be permanently scarred by the imagery of Rahm Emanuel viciously dressing down Massa with 'Little Rammy' swinging in the breeze.  Ugh.  It all just makes me wish even more for an end to this "debate".  Could it possibly sink any lower than it already has?

We have nine days to kill this thing for good, provided Obama actually sticks to his deadline of March 18th (I'm not holding my breath on that).  Well, hopefully it can be killed - this thing has more lives than a cat.  Actually, that is doing a disservice to cats.  This thing is like Ryan Reynolds' character "Deadpool" at the end of the X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie.  Just when you think you've killed it and the end credits are rolling, suddenly its laserbeam eyes open and its headless body rises again.  And, much like the movie version of Deadpool, this legislation is sure to disappoint.

I'm not surprised that some democrats might be changing their vote - even I sometimes wish they would throw in the towel if it would make this nightmare end.  Luckily, horrific visions of life under the legislation snap me out of it right quick.

Enough already, people - aren't there more pressing items that need attention?

UPDATE:  Here's a fun game for you (via KeithHennessey.com).  I got ten right - how did you do?

Saturday, March 6, 2010


One of the main problems with the health care takeover this administration is attempting is a shortage of doctors.  Adding 31 million people to the rolls will put quite a strain on our system, and we can't just retask, say, the plumbers union.  It takes more than a decade to make a doctor - longer for a specialist.  So why are they plunging willy-nilly into a system that is inadequite and unprepared?

Well, that opens up an interesting line of thought.  We can all agree that Washington is a nest of lawyers, right?  The democrat party, in particular is just chock full of legal eagles.  Yes, the republicans have lawyers in their ranks, too, but not to the level of the current democrat party.  

Have you ever been to one of those really successful law firms?  Maybe availed yourself of their services?  There are a few partners and junior partners, but the bulk of the office consists of legal assistants, clerks and paralegals.  Those are the people doing the work, researching and putting the case together.  The partners are there to present in court, meet with clients and give final approval.  It's a good formula, and it seems to work for them, aside from the fact that it is like a legal factory, pumping cases through as quickly as possible or dropping them altogether if they aren't profitable enough.

Unfortunately, the lawyers in Congress who are reshaping one-sixth of our economy through our health care system are doing it in their own image.  The problem is, the system that works so well for them just won't work for doctors.

There's really only one reason this system doesn't work for doctors, but boy, is it a doozy - lives literally hang in the balance.  To me, that's a pretty big reason.  If a paralegal cites the wrong case, people don't die.  Nurses and PAs are great at screening out and dealing with basic or minor cases, thus reducing the case load for the doctor, but their skills only go so far.  Vastly increasing the case load without increasing the doctor pool will force the use of nurses and PAs for cases beyond their training.  Casualties will be inevitable.

Perhaps if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had listened to the doctors in Congress, they might have created  different bills.  (While they were at it, they should have had the doctors fix their tone deafness...)  Predictably, they went it alone - Nanny Pelosi knows best! 

Maybe I'm overthinking this, maybe not, but it certainly deserves debate.  Everyone is caught up in process and cost right now, but we need to look at the effects of this bill as well.  This is a very big point, and something that will be effecting us fairly quickly and very personally.  The reforms start to go into effect in 2014, so there would have to be incentives to persuade students to switch their majors, but even then, the reforms will be in full swing before those candidates become full-fledged doctors.

When you add in how many doctors may be retiring or quitting upon signing this legislation into law, that means trouble.

The odds are pretty good, too, that eventually they will want to cap earnings for doctors to keep down costs, so I can't imagine that would be a big incentive for future generations of doctors.  Nothing like holding someone's life in your hands for minimum wage. 

When do we get to cap the lawyer's salaries?  Oh, that's right - never.

So, while I don't mind having a paralegal take care of my basic legal needs, when I go to the doctor, I want to see a doctor.   I went to a gastroenterologist a few years ago and was seen by his PA.  He was a nice guy, and seemed quite capable, but my case was beyond his expertise and he told me as much.  I appreciated his candor, but ended up having to find a new doctor, because it was impossible to get in to see the doctor himself, either due to surgeries or a lack of available appointments - they kept trying to get me in to see the PA instead. 

Luckily, I was able to find another doctor who had a smaller practice and was able to see me himself.  As a matter of fact, I don't believe his office even employed a PA.   My ability to find a doctor who could cater to my needs will be a thing of the past if the health care reforms pass.  I know they keep insisting that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", but how in the world do they expect to stretch the depleted doctor pool to cover 31 million more people?

Which brings me back to my premise.  The system lawyers have developed has enabled them to spread their resources in a way that allows them maximum profitability and effectiveness.  But that system just won't work for the medical field, because medicine is about more than just profitability and effectiveness - it's about people's lives.  The lawyers in Congress need to start waking up to that reality.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010


The race is on to ge the votes to pass reconciliation.  Let the arm twisting and bribery begin.

Not only do we need to remember that the Senate bill includes the 'Louisiana Purchase' and the 'Cornhusker Kickback', but that they will be adding to it, as well.

I'm sure there will be plenty of arms twisted, if push comes to shove, but the preferred method these days
is 'sweeteners' - you and I would call them bribes.  And you know what?  Since we're footing the bill, we get to name it.  It't time to start calling things what they are, so 'bribery' it is.

The first one to pop up is quite a doozy.

Congressman Jim Matheson's (D-UT) brother has just been nominated for a federal judgeship.  What a coincidence.  I don't know what's worse - the obvious vote buying going on, or the country's blase attitude about it.  The sad part is, the brother is probably a good judicial candidate, but now he may be sullied by the whole affair and may end up paying a career price as well.

It will be interesting to see what else is being bartered and how successful those graft attempts are once the sun shines in.

This whole situation is, at best, an embarrassment - they are behaving like some third world country.  I'm waiting for someone to throw a chair, followed by a mass brawl.  At worst, this is highly unethical.  Not that that means much of anything anymore.

Hopefully this will be the only post about outright bribery, but the pattern of ethics that has been established so far by this Congress points in the other direction. 

So what do you think the odds are that this story will get picked up by the neo-pravda media?


MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been having a bit of a hard time lately.  His father is extremely ill and, after six extremely difficult months has, apparently, asked his son to kill him.  Olbermann has used this horrible situation as a 'learning experience' about 'death panels'.  He has decided to attack Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as well (why change now?) in his recent Special Comment, and he has coined the term 'life panels' in a bid to change the perception of the legislation and make it more palatable.  The death panel issue is a bone of contention for the democrats, and they are desperate to spin it, as it has gotten a certain amount of traction with the public.

The problem is, he is talking about end of life counselling, not death panels.  This is when the doctor speaks with family members about making a plan to assist in helping a terminally ill patient finish their days in comfort and dignity.  I think most people would agree that end of life counselling for a terminally ill patient isn't such a bad thing.  Difficult, yes, but unfortunately necessary sometimes.  There were those who protested the end of life counselling, but what they were protesting was the mandated frequency of it, whether you were terminally ill or not -  not the necessity.

The so-called 'death panels' have nothing whatsoever to do with end of life counselling.  The death panels refer to the bureacrats who will be measuring your illness on the scale of "quality adjusted life years".  Under the death panels, Keith Olbermann's dad would have gotten a pain pill and cabfare home to die months ago.  The myriad tests run and procedures tried that have kept him alive to this point would never have been offered because the senior Mr. Olbermann, due to his age and obviously bad health, would have been deemed a waste of resources. 

The answer we need, Keith, is whether all that was done for your father was worth the few extra months you have been blessed to share with him.  Because the death panels in those bills aren't about end of life counselling - it's about ending your life when you're no longer viable. 

It's about being 65 years old, getting a stage four cancer diagnosis and being given morphine instead of chemo.  It's stage four, you're at retirement age - why waste the chemo when the odds are so long and you wouldn't add much to the collective if you do somehow manage to recover?  Those decisions aren't made by you and your doctor, they are made by bureacrats who create a generic actuary table on human viability and productivity.  What you have put into the system in the past doesn't matter, what counts is if you will offset the current costs.

Your 'life panels', Keith, are about you and your family making choices.  The 'death panels' are about the choices being made for you by bureacrats in Washington  with a budget.  Your father wouldn't have been given the treatment that reduced his white blood cell counts by two-thirds, he would have been given pain killers to keep him comfortable until he died.  There is no second opinion.  There is no chance of a miracle cure.  There are no more brave fights that beat the odds.

There is only the nameless, faceless bureacracy deciding your fate without ever even meeting you or your doctor.  The only way to keep this behemoth 'deficit neutral' is to keep down costs.

The wonderful new treatments, the expensive alternatives, the innovations would all be gone under the heavy weight of bureaucratic oversight.  Bureaucracies don't like experimental treatments - they are not cost effective.   Your life is merely an equations calculated by a spreadsheet - nothing more, nothing less.  Considering how tone deaf our government has become, that is a really scary prospect.

It's too bad that Keith Olbermann has decided to publicize his father's illness to make a political point,  but that is his prerogative.  It would have been a better thing to highlight the fantastic work our doctors, nurses and hospitals do, even in difficult, complex cases such as this.  Instead Mr. Olbermann has decided to climb on his soap box and use the situation to push a (erroneous) political point of view while simultaniously using his father's illness as a shield against any criticism of his stance. 

One can only hope that eventually Olby will realize the gift he was given with the six month extension of his father's life, and perhaps he will someday grasp that, if the health care legislation had been passed, he would not have had that gift.

But, after all, this is Keith Olbermann we are talking about, so don't hold your breath.

Monday, March 1, 2010


When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she swore to 'drain the swamp'.  Apparently that only goes for the right side of the swamp.  Charlie Rangel's admonishment by the House Ethics Committee on his unethical corporate-funded vacations should be enough to demand he step down from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee, but apparently Queen Nan doesn't agree.  She has said that she wants to wait until the committee has investigated all of the charges against him. 

Considering how long it took for them to investigate this small part of his alleged wrongdoing, and how many other charges there are, from questionable fundraising efforts to rent-controlled apartments in Harlem to hundreds of thousands of dollars in unreported income to his failure to pay taxes on a vacation home in the Dominican Republic, it will take months, if not years to investigate it all. 

Just the fact that there are so many issues being investigated, combined with the fact that there is already a finding of wrongdoing which resulted in an admonition should be enough to force him to step down from his chairmanship.  A man with that many tax issues should not be chairing the committee that writes the tax code, period. 

But Nancy needs every vote she can get, no matter how corrupt.  Actually, scratch that - the more corrupt the better, because the better the odds are that they can be 'persuaded'.

The first apartment we got when we moved to South Florida was situated on a 'cypress preserve'.  It sounded lovely, and when the complex told us they had a nice, quiet apartment next to the preserve, we took it.   It didn't take long for us to realize that the picturesque 'cypress preserve' that was so enthusiastically sold to us was really a mosquito-infested, racoon-ridden swamp.

Pelosi is trying to sell us a cypress preserve, but believe you me, this is a swamp, and Charlie Rangel is the biggest slime-covered toad in the bog.