Some Great Videos on Obamacare

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Has Disney Taken Over Management Of The White House?

Perhaps President Obama was replaced with one of those animatronic figures they have in the Hall Of Presidents (there really is one of him). Though, and I dearly hate to put it this way, based on the way the White House is acting, they might be an extension of the Pirates of the Caribbean ride (maybe I should start using some of those old POTC graphics I used as headers a few years ago?)

President Barack Obama’s pollster said the healthcare bill will win over public support once it becomes law despite polls showing Americans against the plan.

The argument by Joel Benenson, Obama’s lead pollster, rests on a chunk of Americans who now oppose the bill supporting it after it’s passed. Benenson said that group — which is anywhere from a tenth to a third of Americans, according surveys by CNN and Ipsos — is skeptical of the bill because it doesn’t go far enough.

Uh huh

• “Here, drink this whole bottle of Jagermeister, you’ll love it once you’re done.”
• “Stick your tongue to the metal poll, you’ll love it.”
• “Elect Stalin/Hitler/Kim Jong Il! You’ll never look back!
• “I have syphilis. Let’s have sex.”
• “Eat the cat poop sandwich. You’ll thank me for it”

OK, the last one was extremely gross, but, that is where 44% of the people are, with 48% against eating poop.

Doug Ross: What’s their endgame? Even a simpleton or a Democrat (but I repeat myself), would admit that it has nothing to do with health care. It’s a political calculation: Democrats are willing to lose Congress in November if they can create a brand new unfunded entitlement that will cement the power of government over the citizen.

Another Black Conservative: I have to hand it to this administration though; they can say the craziest things with such a straight face. After they are shown the door in 2012, they should all look into theatrical jobs. Provided there are still some theatrical jobs left by then, if not, Obama can just create or save a few.

Dennis the Peasant: So, in effect, what we have here is the Herpes Argument: You may not have wanted it, but now that you actually have it, you might as well learn to love it…

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Constitutional Crisis: House to Pass Health Care Reform Without Voting on It

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…

Democrats say, Constitution be damned!

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!

Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, “They’re going to present a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didn’t?”

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…

According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and attention to this clause in the Constitution.

Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.

This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were… They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President…

This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.

And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.

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 is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution’s words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.

This is a crucial lesson for those of you who… aren’t sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren’t sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, …openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.

Mark Tapscott:

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have never before been asked to pass legislation by “deeming” it approved under a House rule instead of following the process required by the U.S. Constitution in which they actually vote on the proposal itself, according to a senior aide to House Republicans.

The procedure – dubbed by critics as the “Slaughter Solution” – is the brain-child of House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, who, at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, is trying to fashion a rule that would allow the House to move toward passage of a health care reform bill without a recorded vote on the Senate version.

Like the Senate, which adopted its health care reform measure on Christmas Eve, the House passed its version last year. But there are major differences between the two measures, especially concerning federal funding of abortions. The Senate version includes billions of dollars to fund new health care clinics that would offer abortion services. The House bill was passed only after Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment barring federal funding for the procedure was included.

Slaughter’s approach would bring to the House floor a reconcilliation(sic) bill to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of health care reform with the rule deeming the House to have approved the Senate version. The GOP aide, who requested anonymity, said a search of the House archives failed to reveal any previous use of the Slaughter Solution.

The slaughter option will slaughter the Constitution. I’m with Mark Levin, the GOP needs to call for Slaughter’s expulsion and bring wide attention to the underhanded recklessness of the Democrats.

Like Allahpundit points out:

Which means that, for probably the first time in U.S. history, the president will be signing into law a bill that never received its own vote on the House floor. The “what if a Republican did it?” meme is overused, but clear your mind and try to imagine the media reaction if the Frist/Hastert Congress tried something like this for, oh, say, social security reform. If ever you’re tempted to agree with idiots on the left who think the press is balanced, let that thought experiment be your corrective.
As for Levin’s idea: Yes, of course the vote will fail along party lines. So what? The only arrow left in the GOP’s quiver is to make sure the public knows precisely how obnoxious, illegal, and underhanded the Democrats’ behavior is. The media simply will not make this an issue unless Republicans drag them to it kicking and screaming, so start dragging.

Start contacting Republicans and tell them to expose this to the public and get as much attention as possible. The light needs to shine on these rats before they destroy our Republic and democracy. Michelle has the list of contact info you will need. So, what are you still doing here? Go!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Constitutional Crisis: House to Pass Health Care Reform Without Voting on It

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…

Democrats say, Constitution be damned!

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!

Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, “They’re going to present a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didn’t?”

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…

According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and attention to this clause in the Constitution.

Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.

This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were… They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President…

This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.

And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.

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 is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution’s words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.

This is a crucial lesson for those of you who… aren’t sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren’t sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, …openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.

Mark Tapscott:

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have never before been asked to pass legislation by “deeming” it approved under a House rule instead of following the process required by the U.S. Constitution in which they actually vote on the proposal itself, according to a senior aide to House Republicans.

The procedure – dubbed by critics as the “Slaughter Solution” – is the brain-child of House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, who, at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, is trying to fashion a rule that would allow the House to move toward passage of a health care reform bill without a recorded vote on the Senate version.

Like the Senate, which adopted its health care reform measure on Christmas Eve, the House passed its version last year. But there are major differences between the two measures, especially concerning federal funding of abortions. The Senate version includes billions of dollars to fund new health care clinics that would offer abortion services. The House bill was passed only after Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment barring federal funding for the procedure was included.

Slaughter’s approach would bring to the House floor a reconcilliation(sic) bill to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of health care reform with the rule deeming the House to have approved the Senate version. The GOP aide, who requested anonymity, said a search of the House archives failed to reveal any previous use of the Slaughter Solution.

The slaughter option will slaughter the Constitution. I’m with Mark Levin, the GOP needs to call for Slaughter’s expulsion and bring wide attention to the underhanded recklessness of the Democrats.

Like Allahpundit points out:

Which means that, for probably the first time in U.S. history, the president will be signing into law a bill that never received its own vote on the House floor. The “what if a Republican did it?” meme is overused, but clear your mind and try to imagine the media reaction if the Frist/Hastert Congress tried something like this for, oh, say, social security reform. If ever you’re tempted to agree with idiots on the left who think the press is balanced, let that thought experiment be your corrective.
As for Levin’s idea: Yes, of course the vote will fail along party lines. So what? The only arrow left in the GOP’s quiver is to make sure the public knows precisely how obnoxious, illegal, and underhanded the Democrats’ behavior is. The media simply will not make this an issue unless Republicans drag them to it kicking and screaming, so start dragging.

Start contacting Republicans and tell them to expose this to the public and get as much attention as possible. The light needs to shine on these rats before they destroy our Republic and democracy. Michelle has the list of contact info you will need. So, what are you still doing here? Go!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Latest AGW Scaremongering: Harms Women The Most, Causes STDs

Like I, and so many others have stated, as we run into the warm season in the Northern Hemisphere, the Climahysterics start emerging from their burrows like so many hibernating skunks (the comparison might not be fair to the skunks), and we end up with

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 9 (IPS/TerraViva) – The negative fallout from climate change is having a devastatingly lopsided impact on women compared to men, from higher death rates during natural disasters to heavier household and care burdens.

In the 1991 cyclone disasters that killed 140,000 in Bangladesh, 90 percent of victims were reportedly women; in the 2004 Asian Tsunami, an estimated 70 to 80 percent of overall deaths were women.

And following the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in the United States, African-American women, who were the poorest population in some of the affected States in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, faced the greatest obstacles to survival, according to the New York-based Women’s Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO).

The 2007 Human Development Report, issued by the U.N. Development Programme, points out that women are particularly affected by climate change because they are the largest percentage – accounting for about 70 percent – of the poor population.

Because massive tropical systems never occurred before Man started messing up the climate. And we see the “climate change causes earthquakes idiocy” again. Uh huh. Another explanation would be that, and I’m sure I will be called a misogynist or something, too many women become pregnant at a young age, receive no education, and basically become Welfare Queens.

Climate change is apparently also responsible for women’s health problems, a loss of basic civil rights, reduced education, sexism, and…

In neighbouring Uganda, the food crises associated with climate change have been linked to higher rates of early marriage for girls, as they are exchanged for dowry or bride price.

These “famine marriages” – as they are called – not only lead to girls dropping out of school, but also make them vulnerable to sexually transmitted infections and related reproductive complications.

Double “uh huh.” Because there were never marriages like that before. Face meet palm. How is it possible to take climate alarmists seriously when they keep trotting out silliness like this?

Hat tip Tom Nelson

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post