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

Do Democrats Understand How An Economy Works?

I was hoping to go with a bit of lighter fare, a funny story about a guy bringing a barstool to a gunfight (guess who wins), alas, two other stories caught my eye, and highlight how clueless and inept Democrats are regarding jobs and the economy. Let’s start with The Cluelessness Of Obama

President Obama unveiled plans Thursday to double U.S. exports over the next five years in hopes of spurring job growth, an ambitious goal that may rekindle the battle over free-trade policy.

The president acknowledged the formidable barriers to his goal: doubts in Congress over new free-trade agreements, misaligned currencies that make Chinese products cheaper on global markets, and continued weakness in global demand, all problems that could dwarf efforts to promote U.S. products and services abroad.

But, Obama said in a speech, “in a time when millions of Americans are out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative.”

Pretty speech. Interesting idea. The only problem is, people have to be actually, you know, employed and producing products first. You can’t double exports on products not being produced.

Next up, we have the Senate’s $149 billion jobs bill (wait, didn’t we have one of those in February 2009?), which does virtually everything that doesn’t actually create jobs. It has plenty of tax breaks, but, not the kind that actually stimulate jobs production, as well as

• Extending unemployment benefits to Americans out of work for more than a year, providing for a total of up to 99 weeks in most states.
• Offering subsidies for unemployed workers in an effort to help pay for employer-sponsored health insurance.
• Adding an individual income tax deduction for sales and property taxes, and a business tax credit for research and development.
• Extending a variety of energy and alternative fuel tax credits.
• $1.5 billion to help farmers affected by heavy rains, floods and other weather-related disasters.

There are primarily, at the top end, three ways government can stimulate a decrease in unemployment

1. Put them on the government payroll (which is what we have primarily seen with Stimulus, and a good chunk of those jobs were temporary or “saved”
2. Providing long term tax incentives/breaks
3. Companies have confidence in what the government is doing

Even if the tax breaks were perfect, targeted, and long term, there are so many worries about what government will do in the future, companies are staying in a “wait and see” mode. Cap and tax, health system change, a potential for increased taxes, illegal immigration reform, you name it, companies are unsure what will happen. No one wants to hire someone they will not be able to potentially afford. Without confidence, unemployment will remain high.

Other tax breaks in the bill include a deduction for college tuition for couples making less than $160,000 a year, and one for teachers who use their own money to buy school supplies.

That helps the unemployed get a job how, exactly?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post