VOID

A Florida federal district judge found Obamacare's individual mandate to be unconstitutional, and argued that since the mandate was an integral part of the legislation, the entire bill should be declared void:

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The best part, though, is that Judge Vinson used then-candidate Obama's own words against his signature legislation (via the Washington Times):

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

As the kids say, 'aw, snap!'.

The feds have sworn to appeal the ruling (no doubt that isn't the only swearing going on), and so it is on to the 11th Circuit.  There have been requests to skip the appeals and take it directly to the Supreme Court, but the Dept. of Justice refuses to fast track the process.  Why skip to the final authority when we can spend millions of taxpayer and state dollars dragging this thing through the appeals process?   

A DoJ mouthpiece stated that:

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she added.

Well imagine that.  Repealing Obamacare will somehow stop SCHIP, Medicaid and Medicare from serving the people who need it.  How did that happen?  Or could it be that it's yet another straw man argument from the left in a desperate ploy to gin up support?  You know, scare all those old and poor people and parents into thinking they will lose SCHIP or Medicare/aid if Obamacare is repealed.   Well, it's time to call BS on this ridiculous line of thinking right now.  If this nightmare of a bill is struck down, those programs will continue on as usual - which still isn't good in the case of Medicare, but isn't as bad as with Obamacare.  Actually, repeal will save having $177 billion stripped from the Medicare Advantage program alone, which would have effectively done away with the popular program's perks.

Let's also address the spin about Obamacare "saving" over $200 billion in it's first decade, while we're at it. What a load of bunk.   Now technically speaking, it's true, because the law will be taxing us to death $800+ billion over the next 10 years, while the actual cost of Obamacare for those first 10 years will be about $600 billion - thus $200 billion in "savings".  Unfortunately, those $800+ billion in taxes will only be covering 6 years of the decade.  So how much will we be "saving" in the next decade and beyond?  Or will we only be offering 6 years of coverage per decade of taxation from here on out?

This law is a terrible thing for our country.  The few things that are good about it - no more preexisting conditions, for instance (which is easily regulated, no 'comprehensive overhaul' required) - are far outweighed by the things that are bad about it, like, well, $800 billion of new taxes, for starters, as well as the fact that the bill will now be forcing people to buy a good or service (not to mention it is so convoluted and byzantine that it will take years - and lots of lawsuits, no doubt - to figure out).  It would be far easier to repeal and replace than "fix" Obamacare.

What seems to have been lost in the debate is the fact that we are forgetting how we were originally sold the need for health care "reform".  Let's not forget that the original argument for comprehensive reform was because there were so many people uninsured namely because they couldn't afford it.  Well, all that has happened is that those same people still can't afford insurance, but now they face fines and penalties if they don't comply - enforced by the dreaded IRS, no less.  Not to mention the increase in rates since Obamacare passed means even more people can't afford insurance now.  Way to legislate, 111th Congress! 

Above and beyond all that, how good can the bill possibly be if over 700 companies, unions and even states have received waivers protecting them from it?  Many of those companies and unions were big supporters of the law while it was being shoved down our throats working it's way through Congress.  Now that they have to live under it and are seeing the real numbers involved, suddenly it's waiver city.  It's no surprise the unions got waivers - there was talk back during the making of this mess of a law to waive them from certain responsibilities.    Since they couldn't do it by the front door, they just snuck around the back. 

This decision was big, for a few reasons.  First, not only does Judge Vinson say that the mandate is unconstitutional, he also says the necessary removal of that unconstitutional clause makes the entire bill collapse, and as such, the entire bill should be struck down.  Second, his 78 page decision will be closely scrutinized by future appeals courts as well as the Supreme Court.   It is well reasoned and very thorough, and will present quite an obstacle for the DoJ in future appeals.  Third, this gives those in opposition to the law a second wind and affirmation that their argument is sound.  Oh, and the professional left is trying to say that the score is 2-2, which apparently in their world means it's some sort of judicial draw.  Unfortunately for them, the two findings in their favor are from lower courts, which means this finding, as well as the one preceeding it, both overrule the two earlier findings.  It's not about how many decisions go your way, it is the standing of the court that counts. 
Ultimately it is up to the Supreme Court.  Unfortunately, that could be years away.  In the meantime, this is a strong victory for supporters of repeal, and a big blow to the DoJ's case.  Good job, Bill McCollum, Pam Bondi, et al!

GUSHERS AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE

The Obama administration is in the midst of a series of crises that all have something in common.  They are all gushers, and the administration is slow to react and ineffective with all of them.

The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is the most physical  representation of this premise. The Obama administration was responsible for coordinating the cleanup and working with BP in partnership to deal with the disaster, while allowing BP to fix the well as quickly as possible (preferably with the help of a panel of industry experts, not congressmen).  Instead, he waited a ridiculously long time -  a month - to address the nation about the disaster, dragged his feet on requests by governors of the affected states and waited almost two months to talk to the heads of BP - on day 58, to be exact.  To make things worse, instead of working in partnership with BP to solve the problem and expedite the cleanup, the administration threatened litigation, demanded huge sums of money and demonized the company and the industry to the public in an attempt to garner support for their pet eco-legislation.  And here we are, more than 80 days later, and the oil is still gushing, the press are blocked from reporting accurately and the people are suffering.  The oil is still creeping towards our shores and the response has been sporadic and anemic.  It has been nearly three months - there should be a synchronized, well organized response worked out, but there isn't.  It seems sometimes that the primary objective of the administration is litigation and moratoriums, not making things right on the ground, where it counts.

Which brings us to our next political gusher.  Jobs.  There just doesn't seem to be any relief in sight, even with a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package, a huge increase in budgetary spending. and all sorts of porky little goodies in a myriad of other legislative actions.  The administration is trying to sell the public that they are pro-business, but the fear in the business sector over increased upcoming regulations and taxation and the demonization of corporate america tells a different story.  The drilling moratorium they are trying to force through the judicial system (they're on their third attempt already) seems to be more about scoring political points with their base, but will probably do more harm than good if successful, since there are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line - in a recession, in states that are already in deep distress from the loss of the fishing industry and tourism.  Every month we are told that we have turned the corner, and things are getting better.  But when the unemployment number dropped from 9.7% to 9.5% recently, it wasn't because of an increase in jobs, it was because over 500,000 people have given up and dropped out of the workforce.  That is not a victory. 

The third political gusher is the deficit/debt.  This country is hemorrhaging money at an alarming pace.  For every issue that has come up, the administration's answer seems to have been throwing enormous sums of money at it.  We are being burdened with new legislation that is going to cost north of a trillion dollars and wasted ten economically devastating months  The $835 billion stimulus was a bust, and so they have put forward a new whatever-you-want-to-call-it-just-so-its-not-'stimulus' bill, arguing that they just didn't go big enough the first time.  Really?  Nearly a trillion dollars wasn't enough?  The experts are advising an immediate end to spending or there is a possibility of a major crash.  Instead they are trying to pour more money into the system like it's going out of style, and, at best, we are stagnating; at worst we are going over a cliff.

The fourth gusher is in Arizona, where they have been plagued by a flood of illegal immigrants.  Most of the illegals are peaceful, hardworking people who just want a better life, but there is are many that are not, and they are wreaking havok on the state.  Above and beyond that, the peaceful illegals are still a burden on the state - a state that is facing a budget deficit of over a billion dollars this year and more than three billion next year.  The biggest problem, though, is that the mexican drug cartels have moved in with a vengeance.  The administration's response to the situation has been to sue the state over their immigration enforcement legislation and to put up signs declaring portions of the state to be too dangerous for americans.  Because nothing says 'effective governance' like forfeiting sovereignty of 80 miles of American land.  Obama has halted all building on a border fence and, although he has sent down national guard troops, it is woefully inadequate.  The administration seems content to allow things to continue as they have been, even though more and more americans are dying, and a major city, Phoenix, is becoming a violent no-man's land. 

For those who prefer to play the 'blame Bush' game, yes, many of these problems started under Bush. But the 2006 and 2008 elections were referendums against the Bush years. Obama and the democrat led congress ran on and were put in office specifically to change these things. The more things change, it seems, the more they stay the same.  Or, in this case, get worse.

Which brings us to the final gusher.  This is the one that has been caused by all the others - the deluge of political fallout.  And boy, is it a doozy.  From the drop in approval to the sinking polls, it doesn't look good.  This administration seems to have forgotten that they were ushered into power by citizens who were not so much voting for them as voting against the previous administration. They have dropped the ball on that mandate, and as a result voters are flowing in an ever increasing flood away from congressional democrats who, in turn, are starting to distance themselves from the president.  Others are even trying to sell themselves as 'outside the beltway'.  Um, if you've been in office for, say, 18 years, you're an insider.   This gusher started with a trickle of political goodwill last year, but now is approaching floodlike conditions.  Even the White House spokesman is conceding a possible loss of the House.  Here we are in mid-July, and reality seems to be suddenly dawning on those in power (but not all).  They are trying to staunch the flow by slinging mud and blaming others, but the other gushers have so seeped into people's consciences that it's unlikely they will be distracted.

In 2008, we were faced with an economic crisis that was worse than anything we had faced in decades, so we installed a government that promised change.  In a year and a half, we have added unprecedented spending, the worst oil spill in american history, a major crisis on the border and unemployment that went from 6.7% at the end of the Bush administration all the way up to 10.2% in Oct. '09, settling now to the current rate of 9.5%, with no end in sight.  All of these major crises have been backburnered by the administration in favor of passing health care legislation or attempting to push through amnesty comprehensive immigration reform and cap and trade in order to capitalize on them without ever doing anything concrete to solve the actual crisis.  With all of these crises, the administration has taken abominably long to act, which has, in turn, allowed them to get so much worse.

The final gusher is set reach maximum flow in November and, much like the other gushers, the administration is doing too little, too late, and this one looks like it, too, is out of their control.

THE ISSUE'S NOT THE ISSUE

Chris Horner, author of "Power Grab" was on Hannity tonight.  In his interview, he used, over and over, the phrase "The issue's not the issue".  This is the mainstay liberal/progressive tactic to a T, and he deserves a hearty thank you for tagging it as such.  It's quick, concise, easy to remember and right on the mark.  A perfect foil for the coming campaign clashes. 

In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda.  On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that? 

But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end.  For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it.  As Horner says, it's all about power and control.  The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue".  It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not.  The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.

This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back.  Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.

The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far.  The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet.  That is just the bill of goods we were sold.  That bill was all about consolidation of power.  It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power.  That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.

The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us.  It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health.  If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.

Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector.  Period.

The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush.  I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time.   Suggestions are appreciated.

The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections.  But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air.  It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).

The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation.  This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months.  Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs.  Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow.  Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser.  When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet.  Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance".  Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"

It's a brilliant strategy, really.  When you have no answers, start asking the questions. 

The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now.  You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea party member extremist out to slaughter some random government official(s).  The secret is, though, that Alinsky was right.  In Rule #7 he said that "a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag".  The rising opposition in the polls shows that the "issue's not the issue" tactic has become a drag.  It's time to start calling them out on it.

The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion.  It promises to be an interesting summer campaign.  The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue. 

It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.

HERE WE GO AGAIN Updated

I have mentioned many, many times how much I dislike my congressman, Alan Grayson.  I know that I am not alone in this feeling.  Every time I see that smug, smarmy face I cringe with embarassment, knowing he "represents" me.  I am in the midst of a bout with stomach flu and was not going to post for a few more days, but his latest antics have propelled me from my sickbed in protest.  

Mr. Grayson has yet again shown what little regard he has for basic American rights.  His first foray into squelching his fellow Americans first amendment rights was when he demanded Atty. General Eric Holder investigate, fine, and imprison a Clermont, FL woman for starting an anti-Grayson website.   Now he is demanding the investigation and possible revocation of a Mount Dora urologist's license.  Way to go, chump - after all, it's not like we're smack in the middle of a doctor shortage already.

Grayson claims that Dr. Cassell is in violation of his hippocratic oath.  This from a man who stomps all over the Constitution, which he made an oath to, on a daily basis.  Dr. Cassell is not in violation of his oath, because, contrary to Mr. Grayson's allegations, he has not turned down a single patient due to their political views:

"I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

 That is his choice, as he is a free man in a free country.  A concept that seems alien to Mr. Grayson.

As usual with the left these days, when there is no rational argument for their ridiculous agenda and demands, they turn to the race card for vindication.  Grayson is saying that Dr. Cassell's motivation for his anti-Obamacare notice is all about racism.  Mr. Grayson's attempt to make this a race issue shows that he has no leg to stand on, and thus must resort to bomb throwing.  Even Anderson Cooper wasn't buying what Grayson was selling:

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: ...What he's doing is no different from saying, "I will not treat a black person. I will not treat a Catholic."
I thought that we, as a country, has moved beyond that.

COOPER: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
I mean, I'm not taking a side. I'm not taking anybody's side in this, but, just for accuracy's sake, he has said nothing about race. And race is a protected category. I mean, there are -- it is illegal to discriminate someone based on race. It is not illegal to say you don't want to treat somebody because you don't like their politics. Politics is not a protected class.

GRAYSON: Well, in fact, where he lives, in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans.So, by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he's saying that he's not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in the community.

COOPER: Wait. So, you're saying race is at the core of this? Come on. There is no evidence of that at all.

First of all, Grayson is alluding that only blacks voted for Obama, and yet he won with 52% of the vote - the numbers just don't add up, Teacups.  He also alludes that blacks only voted for Obama, although there are those who would disagree with that idea.   His entire statement is just classic race baiting at it's worst.  Now, merely because there is a black presence in an area, any opposition to Grayson and the democrat's agenda can be called racist?  That is a mightly dangerous game he is playing at.  So, just how many of Mount Dora's residents are black, anyway?  Well, having spent a few pleasant Saturdays there, I can assure you, Compton it ain't.  To be more specific, the breakdown is this (via ePodunk):

White -7,277   77.3% 
Black or African American - 1,806    19.2%
American Indian and Alaska native 16     0.2%
Asian - 65    0.7%
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander - 5    0.1%
Some other race - 140    1.5%
Two or more races - 109     1.2%
Hispanic or Latino - 628    6.7%

According to WebMD, there are 28 urologists within a 25 mile radius of Mount Dora.  If a patient of Dr. Cassell's doesn't approve of his notice, they have 27 other urologists in the area to choose from, and Dr. Cassell is merely making them aware of his views so they are free to choose someone they agree with (if they can).  

Back in 2001, I was in the dentist chair and was treated to my dentist's opinion of Clinton and the right's "witch hunt" over the Lewinsky affair.  His opinion was that those crazy conservatives went overboard with the impeachment trials just because he was cheating on his wife.  My mouth was full of hands and drills, or else I would have reminded him that Clinton was impeached because he perjured himself in front of a grand jury, not because he cheated on his wife.  For normal peons like you and me, perjury would be a felony offense punishable with jail time.  Clinton was found to be guilty of perjury, not infidelity - a fine line that apparently the left is incapable of understanding.  Did I report my dentist for offensive political views?  No.  I found another dentist.  The  only thing worse than having your teeth drilled is having them drilled by a Clinton apologist who deifies the man as he drills.  It's a bit ironic, really - being drilled by a guy who worships a guy who loves to drill people....

But I digress. 

Honestly, I shouldn't even give Grayson a forum, but at some point, you just have to call BS on people.  One could argue that just about everything out of Grayson's mouth is BS, but this latest attack was particularly aggregious.  Even Anderson "Teabagger" Cooper couldn't get behind it.  No doubt Olbermann will be celebrating him as a great American - as if that really matters.
 
Hopefully more doctors will follow suit and state their displeasure with the government takeover of health care.  For those lefties who argue that the AMA endorsed Obamacare, please note that the AMA only represents less than 20% of American doctors.  The fact that 46% of doctors polled would consider quitting their practices says quite a lot - perhaps some of them should stand with their brother physician and state their displeasure more firmly.  Doctors, for the most part, have been a silent group in the health care "debate". 
 
Dr. Cassell could remain silent no longer, and I, for one, applaud him for his bravery.  Let's not forget - not only is he a doctor, he's also a small businessman who needs to protect his own interests and those of his employees.  The health care "reform" is going to cripple his business and potentially do far more harm to his patients than a notice on his door might do.  The bottom line is, if he offends a few people, so be it, it's his right.

UPDATE:  Good gracious, the man is an ass.  It seems to me the pressure is getting to him.  There are a dozen possible contenders for his job, and people now know that he is a far-left liberal "representing" a conservative district.  He is accusing the republicans at the Perkins meeting of "spying" on an Organizing for America meeting.  One wonders when he is going to start accusing squirrels of inflitrating the ranks....November just can't come soon enough.

TIME FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

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?

WHEN IN DOUBT, DEMONIZE

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?

CORRECTION

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 POLITICS OF DECEPTION

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.

WASHINGTON UPDATE

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. 

THE NIGHTMARE DRAGS ON

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.

OBAMARAMA

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.

OPERATION HOUSECALL REDUX

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.....

THE SLAUGHTER SOLUTION Updated

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.

Really.

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!

HERE WE GO AGAIN Update

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?

THE LAWYER WAY

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.

GAME ON

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?

CIRCUS RECAP

Well, the Circus is over.  The six hour health care summit stretched to seven hours.  The breakdown on speaking was Obama - one hour 53 minutes, Democrats - three hours 53 minutes, Republicans - one hour 50 minutes.  Yeah, that's bipartisan.  Hot Air's Allahpundit has a great rundown on what he calls the 'Freakshow'.

Obama came off a little snippy and, surprise, surprise, arrogant.  Republicans really brought their A game, in my opinion.  Not that they got a lot of floor time, but that was to be expected, and they really made the most of the time they were allowed.  They were on point talking about the differences between what the dems want and what they want.  The democrats relied on a string of sob stories and some wild statements like Harry Reid saying no one has been talking about reconciliation.  Really, Harry?  Really? 

Queen Nancy went at it from another angle - jobs.  Yup, you got it - this bill is all about jobs.  Four million of them.  Apparently 400,000 of them will be created immediately.  The thing is, as ridiculous as it may sound, she's probably right.  Unfortunately, all of those jobs will be created because of the giant behemoth government bureaucracy they are trying to set up, but, hey, a job is a job, right?  Of course, all those doctors retiring and/or quitting will change those numbers a bit, as well as all of the jobs lost when the insurance companies start closing down because they are being priced out of the market or crippled by overbearing regulations and artificial pricing.

The republicans were talking policy and trying to find the points of agreement and explain their opposition to other points, and the democrats were busy spewing one sob story after another, working that liberal guilt to within an inch of their lives, either unwilling or unable to explain their positions.  It was a little pathetic, actually.

I understand that there are people out there who are victimized by shady insurance policies; I know that people fall through the cracks.  But they are talking about reshaping an entire industry from top to bottom when things like simple regulation to prevent discrimination against pre-existing conditions would be sufficient.  The republicans were trying to point out that lowering costs by implimenting tort reform and interstate commerce, among other things, would enable more people to afford insurance, so more people would be insured -  without a government takeover of the health care system. 

The problem with that argument, of course, is that, for the democrats, the whole point of 'reform' is government takeover.  There is no middle ground on this, because the two sides are diametrically opposed.  The democrats are offering socialized medicine in the European model, and the republicans are offering free market solutions.  The democrats refused to even discuss tort reform and interstate solutions because they would work (well, and also because they don't want to tick off the trial lawyers - they're a goldmine for campaign contributions).

For all of Harry Reid's denials, reconciliation is on the table.  Before the democrats jump on that grenade, however, they should consider that it might possibly be the death knell of their party for a generation or more.  Disapproval for their bills have been holding steady at about 56% for the past three months.  Over 60% want them to start from scratch.  A majority oppose the partisan tactic of reconciliation, including, apparently, one of the creators of the process.  They proceed with it at their own risk.  But considering how incredibly tone deaf they have been so far, don't be surprised if they pull the trigger anyway. 

I have to admit that I was worried that the Republicans would fare poorly today, but they did great.  And if Obama's surly expression and attitude are any indication, he knows it - and so do others.

BEWARE THE CIRCUS

Am I the only one having a hard time buying the concept of Barack Obama inviting Republicans for a "bipartisan" "summit", when the run-up to it has been nothing by threats of 'nuclear options', intimidation and name calling?  (BTW - am I the only one who gets a faint whiff of a beery aftertaste whenever I hear the term 'summit' anymore?)

This whole media circus  is rather reminiscent of, well, a circus.  In the Roman tradition of Bread and Circus, of course - and boy, is there a lot of bread at stake over this circus. 

Thursday's show is shaping up to be a real crowd favorite - Christians vs. Lions.  The Lions are starving so they will grab at anything, and they have been poked at for weeks by the public, so they are really out for blood.  The Christians are wary, but have managed to smuggle in a few weapons due to the Emperor's remarkably unobservant watchdogs.

The crowd has been whipped up into a frenzy by the aggressive posturing and antics of the Lions.  The Lions have already managed to scored a few victories over the Christians with their conquests of Omnibus Maximum and Stimulus Minimum.   These 'victories', however, have only caused the Christians to become more set in their resolve against the gluttonous Lions.

The Lions constant roaring about the Christians being unarmed but for their cries of 'No!" has distracted them and allowed the Christians to arm themselves with a few weapons of their own.  The Lions are aware of these weapons, but feel that their constant loud roaring is enough to combat that particular threat.

Tomorrow is the big day.  Tomorrow, the Lions and the Christians face off, and it is ostensibly up to the crowd to decide - thumbs up, or thumbs down.

Not that it really matters what the crowd wants.  The Lions have the keys to the dungeon and, regardless of tomorrow's outcome, have repeatedly threatened to lock the Christians out so they can continue to run amok.  Perhaps they assume that their new $15 billion infusion of bread will calm any ruffled feathers in the crowd and pave their way to a new season of Circuses next year.

A word to the wise on this tactic of Bread and Circuses - even they could not keep the mighty Roman empire from crumbling under the weight of it's own excesses.  Appeasing the crowds with a glut of meaningless showmanship will only go so far.  As they distract themselves with spectacle, the Barbarians are at the gate, and they will not be distracted.  The Lions, in their arrogance, fear not these Barbarians, for they do not carry torches and pitchforks - they merely carry tea and voter registration cards.

The Lions would be wise to sheathe their claws, stifle their roars and focus on the Barbarians as the Christians seem to be doing.  That is the pathway to redemption and success, and it cannot be reached through the Circus Maximus, no matter how 'media savvy' it may be.

cross posted at Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots

BEWARE THE TRAP Updated

I was quite skeptical of the 'health care summit' proposed by President Obama.  Considering the sneaky, backdoor dealings of this administration so far, I figured it was just a trap. The more I hear about it, the more I think my first instinct was right.  I had hoped that the democrats had seen the writing on the wall and were tacking to the center, but, as usual, it seems to be all smoke and mirrors. 

This whole things smacks of  a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration.  The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise.  If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan.  Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats.   Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.

It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it?  Why bother with this meeting?  This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.

Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk.  Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass.  This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.

This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.

Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing.  They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist.  They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration.  They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats.  They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people.  They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening.  So, please 'obstruct' away!

This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves. 

Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey).  The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings. 

We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over.  In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004.  In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country.  The result?  A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush.  But that wasn't enough.  They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well.  They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama.  But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that.  They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.

Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.

I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit.  It's a trap, pure and simple.  I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan.   They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.

UPDATE:  Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:

“And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.
“And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we’ve seen in modern political history.”

The exit quote for Cook's interview is fantastic:

But if I had a choice of the Republican Party's problems right now or the Democratic Party's problems, I think you could triple the Republican Party's problems and I'd still rather have their problems than the problems facing Democrats.

Amen, brother....