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.
The cat poop sandwich (surprisingly, no video of that scene from Anchorman) they are showing is not the same cat poop sandwich they will ask you to eat, as the American Spectator points out
Shortly before midnight on Sunday, Democrats released a 2,309 page health care bill that will start the process of reconciliation — but don’t let that fool you, it’s not the actual reconciliation bill with all the changes you’ve been reading about. Instead, as Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member on the Budget Committee, explained to me last week, this is just the “shell” bill — the vehicle that Democrats need to get moving on health care. Once the bill gets approved (likely Monday), Democrats will send this phantom bill over to the Rules Committee, where it will be stripped, and then they’ll insert in all of the actual changes that they’ve negotiated.
Why all of the theatrics?
Well, under the reconciliation rules in last year’s budget, any reconciliation bill would have to have been submitted to the Budget Committee by October 15, 2009. It just so happens that earlier versions of health care legislation cleared the Ways and Means and Education and Labor Committees last year. So Democrats just dusted that legislation off, and are using that as the vehicle to begin the reconciliation process. That’s why, for instance, if you look through the 2,309 page bill that was released Sunday night, you’ll find a public option, which leadership has indicated would not actually be in the final bill. (Interestingly, the student loan bill is also tacked on at the end.)
Just a “simple up or down vote,” remember?
Constitutional democracy? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitutional democracy.
Michelle Malkin has a taste of the table of contents, at least prior to the Democrats getting around to inserting in all the provisions not in the bill. The Democrats are expressly attempting to thwart the Will Of The People, as John Boehner points out
“Democrats may run Washington, but the American people are in charge of this country,” Boehner said. “The moment a majority forgets this, it is writing itself a ticket to minority status.”
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.
The Guardian, official mouthpiece of Britain’s pointy-headed establishment Left, can’t help but admit that the Nobel Prize-bedecked Al Gore is a figure of fun. Referring to the Goracle’s recent desperate rant in the friendly New York Times, Guardian contributor Dan Kennedy (a Boston journalism professor) laments that Prince Albert
has not only spent his political capital, but is running a deficit. Mocked by the right every time he pops up, he is no longer in a position to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced — especially when he writes for our most liberal daily newspaper.
It started, of course, with the vicious lies told about Gore during the 2000 presidential campaign, the most notorious of which was that he claimed to have “invented the internet” … the smear campaign that almost certainly cost Gore the presidency.
You don’t get much more vicious than poking fun at a blowhard politician for indulging in excessive self-promotion. It’s almost as mean as saying that skunks stink.
The hate stirred up by that effort has long since congealed into conventional wisdom. Now, whenever Gore speaks out on climate change, he is subjected to withering, fact-free scorn. It has its effect on those trying to figure out the truth. Go ahead. Feel the hate:
“Do you think of your breathing passages as spewing sh*t?” sneered Ann Althouse, referring to Gore’s use of an “open sewer” metaphor.
And Andrew Breitbart’s notorious Big Journalism site ran a commentary by Kyle-Anne Shiver, who said of Gore, “His life as a jet-setting, Nobel Peace Prize-sharing, Oscar-brandishing celebrity is on the line. Without the people’s diehard faith in his religion of global warming, Al will be forced to trade his lifestyle of the mega-rich-and-famous for an ignominious and expensive defense of never-ending lawsuits brought by enraged sucker governments and private investors.”
Not to worry, moonbats. Another hero has arisen to take up the burden of rescuing the polar bears from our freedom and prosperity:
But if Gore’s effectiveness as a climate-change activist has expired, there is nevertheless reason to hope. Because there, in the same edition of the Sunday Times, just a few inches away, was columnist Tom Friedman’s interview with the ghost of climate change present, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham—living proof that it is possible for a conservative Republican not only to be sane, but to work toward real solutions to actual problems.
Grahamnesty is praised for wanting to shut down Club Gitmo (which would be a big propaganda coup for Muslim terrorists and their liberal enablers), for backing racist radical Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, and most of all, for conspiring with the disgraceful Hanoi John Kerry to drive millions of jobs overseas in the name of the global warming hoax with Tax & Charade. They might also have mentioned his support for shamnesty, his denunciation of those who want our border defended as “bigots” who need to “shut up,” his alliance with sinister hard left financier George Soros, the delight he took in Dems taking over the Senate, and his support for leaping toward communism by nationalizing banks.
With uncharacteristic understatement, the Guardian admits that Goober is “well to the left of many South Carolina Republicans.” Fortunately, Tea Partiers are on to Graham; as is the Republican Party of Charleston. Less fortunately, there’s nothing voters can do about him until 2014. Maybe he’ll pull a Specter by then.
On a tip from Floccinaucinihilipilificator. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
The Philadelphia Inquirer published a reader feedback opinion editorial from reader Stan Isaacs that is as outlandish as it is indicative of the disregard for the American process that liberals all too often exhibit. It is proof once again that tradition, law, and any effort at legitimacy is wholly outside a liberal’s field of interest. Winning is all they care about, voters opinions and the rule of law be damned.
What sparked Mr. Isaacs’ interest is when he somehow stumbled upon the fact that the number of U.S. Supreme Court Justices is not set in stone in the Constitution. We now have nine justices but in the past have had fewer. What intrigued him is that the number of justices fluctuated because of politics. “Political issues accounted for the changes,” Isaacs gleefully reported.
In keeping with these “political issues,” Mr. Isaacs lit upon the ideal way to help Obama finally push his left-wing agenda. He advised President Obama to add three new justices to the SCOTUS, justices that will mindlessly adhere to the grand vision of the age of Obama and will rule accordingly. This is necessary, Isaacs thinks, because the court has proven an impediment to Obama’s grand socialist design. Worse, Congress has balked at Obama’s wholesale destruction of America and has resisted his attempts to turn America into a weaker, less free version of Europe. Issacs, you see, demands a recount.
Sadly, Isaacs doesn’t seem to have the first clue why Obama’s re-design of the United States hasn’t already barreled ahead unhindered. Worse, he doesn’t seem to care.
Now this Isaacs fellow is not a consequential figure. He seems to be interested mostly in the prosaic world of sports and even at that he wrote less than 50 articles in all of 2009, most of them about sports. So we most certainly cannot point to this man as a Constitutional scholar, an expert on history, or a knowledgeable source on politics. But, his very pedestrian status easily qualifies him as a typical liberal — uninformed, yet oh, so self-assured. He is, therefore, worthy as a source on that level.
After a short history lesson on the history of the SCOTUS, Isaacs delivers his pronouncement that Obama should pack the court with compliant yes men. After rehashing FDR’s mistakes in trying to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, Isaacs says that Obama could easily avoid FDR’s mistakes.
Obama can give himself a fighting chance by changing the rules of the game, just as they were changed for other presidents in the 1800s. He should forget bipartisanship and work with congressional Democrats to name three new justices to the court to meet the challenges he faces.
It would be a tumultuous fight, but it would be for a change we could believe in.
If your jaw is not dropping to the floor in shock, it should be. Isaacs is no less than suggesting that Obama should ignore the voters, ignore Congress, ignore our very system by simply “changing the rules” in order to get his destructive agenda forced down our throats.
And proving his political ignorance, Isaacs misses the elephant in his own rhetorical room. Congress isn’t helping ram Obamaism upon the nation because Congress itself is feeling the heat from the voters who don’t want Obama’s complete makeover of the United States to succeed.
If Congressional Democrats were in such a position to allow Obama to pack the court, Obama wouldn’t need to pack the court because he’d have the political support to push his agenda through to fruition! The reason many of Obama’s most cherished socialist plans are stalled in Congress is not because Republicans are saying no, it’s not because of that mean ol’ Supreme court, it’s because not enough Democrats are standing behind the president’s plans.
Apparently Isaacs is unaware that the Democrat Party has majorities in both houses of Congress and, if they were completely consolidated, could do anything they wanted to do. But that is just it; they aren’t completely consolidated. And why is that? Because a large number of them come from conservative leaning districts where voters are unappreciative of Obama’s Euroesque plans. These politicians are, therefore, obligated to vote against Obama’s agenda because their voters back home insist they do so. That’s the “representative” part of our representative democracy.
Now, let’s take a moment to realize exactly what this Isaacs fellow is advocating. Like most fascist leftists, Isaacs is demanding that moderate Democrats from conservative districts ignore their voters and side with people that those voters dislike. Isaacs is saying the voter’s will doesn’t matter.
Then he is suggesting that we turn the courts into a political arm instead of a judicial arm. He is saying that the law should be nothing but an extension of presidential power, wholly owned and directed by the executive. So, why have a court at all in this case, Mr. Isaacs? In fact, why have a legislature? If Isaacs’ idea prevails we will have the United States of Obama where all “57 states” will be under the thumb of Barack the Red, supreme ruler of all he surveys.
Now, Mr. Isaacs may like this idea. He may have no problem with a supreme ruler sitting benevolently in Washington D.C. As for the rest of us, I think we like our democratic republic. I think we like having a judiciary that isn’t told what to think by an all-powerful leader. I think we like having a body that legislates, one that acts the executive, and one for jurisprudence. We like our Constitution and our rule of law.
Sadly, Mr. Isaacs’ hatred of our very American system makes him a typical liberal. But it also makes him very shortsighted. One wonders, after all, what this misinformed man would be say if a Republican had advised one of his presidents to act in such a haughty, self-indulgent, and dictatorial manner? One guesses that such as Mr. Isaacs would be none too happy, eh? Apoplectic might be the word. I guess the Biblical of “do unto others” doesn’t resonate with this one.
Finally, I have a bit of advice for Mr. Isaacs. If Isaacs still persists in this delusional thinking, perhaps he might see his way clear to move to Venezuela, or Cuba where the system he dreams of currently exists. Of course, we certainly wouldn’t miss his kind should he avail himself of his rights to find a country more in keeping with his tyrannical ideas but he might at last feel at home.
