Pelosi Whines About Process Over Substance (Plus St. Paddy’s Pinups)

Apparently, Queen Nancy was nipping at the green beer a day early

Democrats are considering using a complicated process to avoid a direct vote on the Senate-passed bill, which is unpopular with House Democrats. Instead, they would declare the Senate bill passed once the House votes to approve changes it wants.

Republicans said the strategy was designed to protect Democrats in November’s congressional elections by camouflaging their vote. “There is no way to hide from this vote,” House leader John Boehner said. “You can run but you can’t hide.”

Democrats noted Republicans used the process when they controlled the House and accused them of trying to change the subject. “If you don’t want to talk about substance, talk about process,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Republicans.

Let me ask you something, Nance. Can I call you Nance? If the substance is so utterly, wildly, madly awesome, then why are you having to go through this process? Why not just call for an actual vote, as “deemed” by the Constitution? What’s that? You don’t have the votes, and you want attempt to protect elected Democrats from the backlash? Strange.

Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic House campaign committee, said the procedure was “perfectly appropriate” and he was not concerned about a political backlash.

“At the end of the day, what the American people are going to look at is what this bill does to affect their daily lives,” he told reporters.

If that was the case, Chris, Democrat House leaders would just call for an up or down vote. But, you are correct: what the American People are going to do is look at how badly this legislation affects their lives. Sucks to be you.

Here are your St. Patrick’s Day Patriotic Pinups

I’m not sure who created the first one. There are about 5 different pinup painters it could be. The second is by Peter Dribben. For those not aware, every Sunday for years now I have been posting a Patriotic Pinup post, plus on special holidays, at my personal site, Pirate’s Cove.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Is The Public Option Back?

The public option was dead and had a stake through its heart but now, like Jason, it appears to be back. The Democrats have passed a shell bill and will insert items into it. Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs reports that this language is now part of the bill:

Subtitle B—Public Health Insurance Option

SEC. 221. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—For years beginning with Y1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) shall provide for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (in this subdivision referred to as the ‘‘public health insurance option’’) that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this subtitle. In designing the option, the Secretary’s primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care.

I have no idea if this was ever in the Senate Bill but I am pretty sure the title of Public Health Insurance Option and the the last sentence that states it is the Secretary’s PRIMARY responsibility to create a low-cost plan pretty much means that this is a public option.

The Democrats are using unconstitutional methods to pass the bill, are using sleight of hand to get things in the bill and are lying to the American public. This is how they roll and we cannot trust them. We cannot trust anyone who would usurp the Constitution in order to impose his will on us.

This bill must be defeated and it must be defeated badly.

I am not sure about all of this but I think tomorrow at 10 am we might have a better idea. Dennis Kucinich is scheduled to announce how he will vote on the bill. He has been a firm NO vote all along because there was NO public option. He has been courted and, at the same time, shamed by Obama and now the once adamant Congressman is silent about his plan.

If he announces that he will vote YES then we will know for sure that the public option is back in play.

Never, ever, trust a Democrat.

Big Dog Salute to Jasmine

Share on Facebook

Constitution Slaughters The Slaughter Solution

By now anyone with a head and who is not trying to rewrite history over this issue knows that the Democrats are working full speed ahead to pass unpopular legislation in order to take control of our lives by controlling our health care. They want to vote for Obama’s signature legislative item but they are worried about the ramifications of passing unpopular legislation especially in an election year.

It is a double edged sword because they need to pass it now because they will lose too many seats to pass it next year. But if they pass it now they will lose even more seats and Obama will have no future agenda because Republicans will not allow anything he wants to pass. It won’t get considered. This will be the price for ramming legislation through without following the Constitution. I bet then we hear Democrats scream about being left out of the process and how ham handed the Republicans are.

Anyone who complains should be locked in the basement so we do not have to hear them again. This would include Obama.

The most recent idea coming from Democrats is to consider a bill voted on and passed if another piece of legislation is passed. This is a way to avoid voting on the unpopular bill but getting what they want passed.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law! Doug Ross

According to Constitutional Attorney Mark R Levin, this rule is unconstitutional. The House and Senate must vote on a bill and it must be sent to the president to be signed into law. So far, so good because they are voting on a bill but they are not voting on the bill that will become law and they are not voting in accordance with the Constitution:

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively… [emphasis added]

In ALL cases the bills shall be voted on by Yeahs and Nays. They cannot vote on one rule change and say it means they voted on another bill. Every BILL (singular) must be voted on with yeahs and nays. Our Founders set this up for a reason.

Of course the Constitutionality of something has never stopped Democrats from doing what they wanted but I am pretty sure there will be a lot of legal challenges to any process that does not follow the Constitution and the legal process in accordance with the law.

Note to Democrats, just because you change the rules does not mean the rules adopted are Constitutional.

Here is a link to the US Constitution for those who are challenged in this area. It would be particularly nice if Politicians read this.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out because the left is worried about the interpretation of the Senate Parliamentarian when it should be worried about the Constitution.

Can they use reconciliation to fix a bill that has not been agreed upon by both chambers? Don’t know but they cannot vote for a rule and say it counts as voting for a bill.

The other interesting thing that I see is Joe Biden has a big role in this as President of the Senate. This is the guy who scolded Dick Cheney and cited the wrong part of the Constitution when discussing the role of the VP. Seems that Biden was unaware that the VP has Executive and Legislative responsibility and that this is spelled out in the Constitution (it really helps to read it).

In any event, Biden might get a chance to learn what the VP is allowed to do.

Now it would be funny to see them do all of this only to have it nullified as unconstitutional, or declared not a law because they did not vote on a BILL. They would be back to square one and a lot closer to the election. They would never get another chance and that is a good thing.

Share on Facebook

9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules “Under God” Constitutional. Wait, What?

Remember, the 9th is the most liberal Circuit court in the country, and has previously ruled against the use of “Under God” vis a vis the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (reversed by SCOTUS) in Newdow v. U.S. Congress. Among other activist and crazy decisions. So, how the heck did they come up with this?

A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

Dude!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Tom Mullins: Adam Kokesh is an internet celebrity and a war protestor who makes poor choices

Yesterday, I wrote about Adam Kokesh and his anti-military, anti-American actions which would make him a poor representative for New Mexico. He’s running as a Republican in the primary, which is interesting considering his many affiliations with Marxist and liberal organizations, like CODEPINK, A.N.S.W.E.R., and of course, the Iraq Veterans Against the War. He’s a liar and a phony who has been arrested multiple times and encouraged soldiers in Germany to go AWOL. Yet now, he parades himself as some kind of Constitutional crusader.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Tom Mullins is also running as a Republican to represent New Mexico, and unlike Adam Kokesh, he’s the real deal: a Reagan Republican who certainly has never paraded around in a Marine Corps uniform holding an upside-down American flag, defacing public property, or staging “die-ins” in Washington D.C. the way his opponent has.

I had the chance yesterday to speak with Tom about Adam Kokesh, as well as ask him a few questions about where he stands on the issues.

Cassy Fiano: What are your thoughts on Adam Kokesh’s anti-military activities?

Tom Mullins: I disagree with Adam’s positions regarding our military. I support Guantanamo Bay being open. We are not occupiers. Adam’s activities offend the many veterans, including my father, that I have met. We are not the world’s policeman. We have a volunteer military. Our military men and women deserve support from our elected officials and all members of the American public. I don’t understand how Adam’s actions are “Constitutional”. Adam is nothing more than an Internet Celebrity and a War Protester. I don’t believe New Mexicans agree with his views or his methods to share or voice them.

CF: What would you say the primary difference between yourself and Adam is?

TM: My faith, knowledge, experience, good listening skills, and my good judgment. My faith grounds me and I will stand for innocent life. My knowledge of the energy industry the most important industry in New Mexico is a big difference as well. My life experience growing up as a military brat, traveling around the country, putting myself through college working multiple jobs, building my business from scratch with hard work, perseverance, and luck, being a father of two wonderful girls and raising them, and serving my community. I have been paying my taxes, creating jobs and wealth, which allows our government to function. I don’t think Adam’s even held a job since leaving the Marine Corps.

My good judgment sets me apart. As an engineer, I solve problems. We have problems in Washington that need an Engineer’s skill set. I have the character, the competence, and the compassionate record of making good decisions. I think we are all defined by who we associate ourselves with. I am proud of my actions and my decisions. That includes who I have associated myself with. I don’t know if my opponent’s associates give confidence to the voting public. I ask that New Mexico voters get to know their candidates, their prior words and actions, as well as their associations. I am a grass roots candidate with my grassroots support from right here in New Mexico. I have not been anointed by the political elite. The short answer is that I am qualified to serve as a Congressman, and I don’t think Adam is qualified. He’s a great public speaker, I’ll give you that. So if you’re looking for an unqualified guy who looks pretty and can speak well, then Adam’s your guy.

CF: Do you feel that Adam is an electable candidate?

TM: No.

CF: What made you decide to run for office?

TM: I have never run for nor held public office. I have watched silently as our country is being destroyed. I became more active in the past few years… but became frustrated. When asked what I could do, I decided the most important thing I could do would be to take away the job of the person making these decisions and responsible for holding the executive branch accountable. This is personal. My children’s future and our nation’s future is at stake. I’ve already served as a Tea Party organizer, and now is the time for me to serve our country and New Mexico as its next Congressman.

CF: What would you say the most important issue facing the country today is?

TM: Jobs, economy, and energy. We need private sector jobs and affordable energy to fuel these jobs and our economy. Ben Ray Lujan, Jr. is living in a false utopia, and is out of touch with the citizens of New Mexico. I plan to reduce the size and role of the Federal Government to allow private sector companies to create private sector jobs. That is the solution. Allow for energy development which will allow for private sector manufacturing, which will create meaningful direct jobs and all the associated service industry jobs.

CF: If you were in office, would you have voted for the stimulus package?
TM: No to the stimulus and no to government bailouts.

CF: Would you vote for the health care bill?
TM: No.

CF: Do you approve or disapprove of the abortion funding in the bill?
TM: I disapprove of abortion funding. The government should not pay to murder innocent life. I will stand for innocent life at every opportunity.

CF: What is your position on energy? Would you support offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR?
TM: We need affordable energy. Yes, drill offshore and drill in ANWR (Sec 1002). Being a petroleum engineer and having constructed my own passive solar home. I understand energy. I support Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Natural Gas, Oil, & Coal. Nuclear energy due to its energy density will be our nation’s saving grace in the future. Natural gas is the fuel of now. It should be promoted. Rep. Lujan has voted against New Mexico’s important natural gas industry repeatedly.

CF: Would you support repealing DADT?
TM: I believe that our volunteer military must have standards. The commanders and leaders of our men and women in combat need to make this decision, not Congress. There is no right to the job to serve our nation. It is an honor and a blessing. It is a shame that we politicize this issue.

CF: What is your position on gay marriage?
TM: No to gay marriage. Marriage is sacred and is between one man and one woman. I support the Manhattan Declaration.

CF: And finally, why should voters vote for you instead of Adam?
TM: I am qualified to serve as our next Congressman. I will protect the Constitution, stop the out of control spending and bring common sense to Washington. I have no baggage in my past. I have made good decisions and judgments so far in my life. I believe past performance is a good indicator of future performance. I am a solid qualified candidate who can win this seat for the people of New Mexico. This is not about me. I want to serve them and have been blessed to be at this point in my life where I can serve them. Adam has made poor choices in the past and shown that he has bad judgment. When you put someone who makes poor choices and has bad judgment into office, I think you’ll find that the results will be at best chaotic.

CF: Tom, thanks for taking the time to talk with me.
TM: Thank you!

After speaking with Tom, I feel like the choice is obvious. The Roniacs have come out in full force for Kokesh listing all of his so-called “conservative” credentials, but what about his past? What about his anti-military and anti-American activities? What about his associations with Marxist, liberal, and communist groups? Even if he did somehow change his mind and see the light, so to speak, does that mean that we should just ignore all of that? The problems with Kokesh are problems that any rational American can’t just ignore. Tom Mullins is just as conservative, and frankly, seems much more genuine to me than Adam Kokesh. And unlike Adam, Tom Mullins doesn’t have a history of anti-American and anti-military activities in his background.

Help Tom Mullins defeat Adam Kokesh in the primary. Get the word out, and donate to his campaign. We need real representatives who love this country, not a false prophet claiming to fight for the Constitution.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post