Big payoffs to unions, free healthcare to illegal aliens, death panels for Americans, limits and rationing to Americans… it’s ALL in the bill (HR 3200).
And remember, folks. We get taxed immediately but none of these wonderful “benefits” actually kick in for FOUR YEARS! So even if you liked this communist paradise you won’t get it for almost half the decade. It makes you wonder… how many dead people will Democrats be responsible for since this bill doesn’t kick in for so long, eh?
These are the things that Democrats want in a nationalized healthcare bill. These are the things that WILL end up passed if ANY part of Obamacare is passed.
This will materially alter the relationship between citizen and government and will put a tombstone over what was the United States of America. If Obamcare passes, the U.S.A. is dead.
Brace yourself. If President Obama rams through health care with tactics that circumvent the Constitution, obliterates checks and balances and ignores the will of the majority of the American people, be prepared for the same bully tactics to be used in other critical upcoming legislation. If voters think the health care debacle is ugly, expect it to get uglier based on the President’s planned agenda. Health care reform is not the ultimate objective. Devising “the formula” needed to get it passed is. Unlocking the formula to open the floodgates to enact whatever future legislation Obama wants, is the goal. Once the formula is in place, then the Obama administration has the key to do to America and Americans whatever it wants. It won’t matter how Americans vote in the mid-term.
Senate leader Harry Reid revealed that legislative checks and balances were neutered when he said the reason he is pushing so hard for Obamacare is because, “the President wants it.” Democrats supporting a Democrat President is expected, but to do so to the point of rewriting rules and ignoring Constitutional guidelines in order for the President to get his way, eviscerates the legislative branch and empowers the executive branch with unchecked powers. It is dangerous. Our founding fathers warned of its dangers.
The President desperately needs to ram through health care to allow him to use the same tactics to ram through Cap-and-Trade, nationalizing illegal immigrants, education reform, takeover of the airwaves, and more, in a blitzkrieg of legislation. The President’s plan has been laid-out in his own words or in the words and actions by his administration.
Trial balloons were first sent up to gauge the sentiment of the American people so Obama’s team could refine its strategy. Upon receiving negative blowback after demeaning Town Hall attendees, describing returning military as a danger to society, suggesting Americans spy on their neighbors and report “fishy speech,” attacking conservative media, seeking to separate Americans on issues of “clinging to their guns and religion” (implying that doing either was a negative), devaluing the unborn and seniors as dispensable, team Obama stopped wasting their time with an unsupportive public and decided to play hard ball.
President Obama said that he believes the U.S. Constitution, that protects Americans from government tyranny “is fundamentally flawed,” and essentially said in a 2001 Chicago NPR interview that the Constitution should not so much “protect” people, but “provide” for them, thereby turning it into a wealth redistribution welfare document. Obama created a vast shadow-government of Czars, reporting only to him, effectively diminishing the relevance of both the Cabinet and Congress. Media Czar Mark Lloyd opted out of the Fairness Doctrine for the more effective idea of “a 100% tax on operating cost” that could, if implemented, tax private conservative and religious radio out of existence. President Obama diminishes the nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage as laws are passed to legislate God out of society. The President is adamant that he wants control of the Internet during crisis and plans to establish a civilian militia as well funded and powerful as the U.S. military under the oversight of the White House. Some see it as an enforcement arm of the Presidency at the will of Obama to assure compliance to all of the above. Obama’s own words and actions have spurred the mistrust welling up in America.
The amount of damage that can be done to the country by executive order and “reformulated legislation” between now and the November elections may be insurmountable. Is that why Obama has said so cavalierly that the matter can be taken up at the ballot box — after the fact? Conscience is required for Congress to understand the ire of the American people and the cost of standing against this great nation. In this period of our nation’s history with leaders who have demonstrated a willingness to sell-out — the buck, this time, stops with the American people. The time is now, not tomorrow, to let Washington know there will be consequences for their actions.
Sharon Sebastian (DarwinsRacists.com) is an author, writer and contributor for various forms of media including broadcast, print and online websites. Her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, addresses the global “evolution vs. creation” debate highlighting both the impact of Social Darwinism on America’s culture today and its influence on current policy coming out of Washington. Website: DarwinsRacists.com
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…
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.
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.
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!
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…
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.
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.
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!
A radical environmentalist of the 1700s wrote in the Temple of Nature that man should eye with tenderness all living forms, including…his brother-ants and sister-worms. That man was Erasmus Darwin, a virulent anti-Christian Pantheist who was grandfather to Charles Darwin. As revealed in the book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (DarwinsRacists.com) — influenced by his grandfather’s writings, Darwin conceived the theory of evolution. It is a “theory” that replaces God as Creator and worships the god of nature or natural selection. It is hardcore environmentalism and is being taught in schools across America today.
Indoctrination by environmentalists in America’s schools is girded by Darwin’s “theory” of nature, which continues today to lack empirical scientific data to support it as fact. Yet, as with global warming, advocates like to insist that the debate is over. Though man-made global warming is heavily tainted with fraud, the United Nations and radical environmentalists are now desperate to discredit the scandal that discredited their “scientific data” as a scam. But, the word is out making it a hard sale even to the most gullible. Nonetheless, hundreds of millions of dollars, donated to the U.N., are funneled into school systems to indoctrinate students in support of Climate Change. Persuading or frightening young minds is vital, because much is as stake.
The U.N.’s Green Charter, based on a radical environmental agenda reliant on “global panic,” seeks to transfer world power to a world body, such as the U.N. It sets out to “redistribute global wealth” from the wealthier nations, such as America, to less developed nations. It advocates creating “green jobs” through abandoning coal, oil and gas in favor of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. It seeks to elevate the rights and protections of animals, fish and insects in their natural habitat above that of humans. It seeks to nationalize lands and seize personal property, including farmlands.
The strategy to take down America, as we know it, is spelled out in the U.N.’s Green Charter. Crucial to the Green Charter’s goal to accommodate underdeveloped countries is to overhaul, to effect a “change,” to America’s system of government and economic prominence. In short, Americans’ hard work, innovation, creativity and initiative undermine countries that have not kept up. Those who support the U.N.’s Green Charter seek to dissolve individual rights through health care regulations, to control and allocate energy resources to individuals through government control via mechanisms like Cap-and-Trade, to control individual ownership and rights to property through processes like imminent domain, and take control of middle class lifestyles involving food intake, health decisions, size of families, use of appliances, use of air conditioning at home and at work, and restrict single family housing in favor of a stack-and-pack plan.
The Green Charter warns that America’s “refusal to act now on global warming would represent a crime against present and future generations.” In other words, America would be considered a criminal enterprise if it did not respond to the threat of man-made global warming. The ecological fly in that ointment, however, is the damning revelation of climate-gate’s bogus data. It should be noted that the U.N.’s Green Charter as drafted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 was a guideline for Al Gore’s documentary film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The Rio Earth Summit demanded that industrialized nations must ante up 600 billion dollars to underdeveloped countries as penance for their sin against nature and the environment. If history is any indication, accountability for and application of the $600 billion may easily disappear through the sieve of the U.N.’s notoriously inbred corruption. World power is the bottom line, a Teutonic shift to take down America as a dominant economic leader to a nation answerable to the demands of concentrated global control in the hands of an elite few. That the U.N.’s Green Charter consists of an almost identical blueprint as Barack Obama’s Health Care and Cap-and-Trade plans is undeniable and highly problematical.
Consider that members of Congress may need to be bribed or promised sought-out committee appointments or comfortable ambassadorships to accomplish the deconstructing of America. The President has taken action that weakens both Congress and his Cabinet’s relevance vis-à-vis his power-laden Czars. That he already “ignores” the very Constitution he swore to uphold, seems to be lost on members of Congress as they jostle for bones being tossed by the White House. The success of the U.N.’s Green Charter (available online) is based on Climate Change, control of energy resources and control of health care. It diminishes America’s power and surrenders it to global interests.
Every one of us is an environmentalist who wants cleaner air and cleaner water for all people who share the globe. But, Americans recognize a scam, even one of global proportions, especially when they are the primary target. That our multi-national companies and leaders in the upper echelons of our government are positioning themselves to cash-in at the expense of American liberty and sovereignty is a crime against this great nation and the people who have worked and died to build and protect it. America did not elect a president to oversee its decline.
Sharon SebastianDarwinsRacists.com is an author, writer and contributor for various forms of media including broadcast, print and online websites. Her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, addresses the global “evolution vs. creation” debate highlighting both the impact of Social Darwinism on America’s culture today and its influence on current policy coming out of Washington.
