How To Slander

Democrats can teach us lots of useful things. Here's one example: Slander. Watch this video.



Did you catch the part where they said "Paul Ryan actually voted to abolish Medicare..." Under the picture of Ryan in the video, the DNC cited the source legislation. Curious what the legislation stated, I looked it up.

Here is the record of the vote.

Here is the search result at the Library of Congress.

And finally, here is the amendment which Paul Ryan proposed. What follows is the legislative text.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute numbered 4 printed in House Report 111-73 which seeks to spend $4.8 trillion less than the President's budget over 10 years; sets spending levels which are 20.7% of GDP; freezes non-defense/non- veterans spending; borrows $3.6 trillion less than the President's budget over 10 years; seeks to hold debt to 65% of GDP; and puts forward a long-term budget to bring debt under control. The substitute also seeks to permanently extend 2001 and 2003 tax relief; permanently fix the Alternative Minimum Tax; create 2.1 million more jobs than the Democrats' budget; suspend capital gains taxes through 2010; and reduce the corporate tax rate to 25% from the current 35%. The amendment also seeks to provide $5 billion over the President's budget for Defense; $540 million over the President's budget for Veterans; to save $50 billion annually for war or unmet defense needs; and provide for health and retirement security by reforming programs to ensure they provide benefits for future beneficiaries.

My reading comprehension may be suffering, but I do not see where Mr. Ryan suggested or voted for the abolition of medicare. Ryan was offering an amendment to the Congressional Budget for 2010. In the end, Ryan voted no on the budget, but voted yes on the amendment. Where did he 'vote to abolish Medicare' again?

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Idiot Politicians

I may well be the last to the table with this revelation, but at least I showed up. I am hard pressed to find any intelligence on the left. Especially from their elected officials. Sure, sure; the republicans have dome some extremely stupid crap here lately. However, they've not suggested that an expanded military presence on an island would cause a defying of physics, or that the restriction of use of a seasoning would reduce health care costs. Let's take a look, shall we:

First up is Congressman Hank Johnson who replaced Cynthia McKinney. Yes, that Cynthia McKinney. You know, now that I think about it, maybe this is the best that that congressional district has to offer... This may well be their best and their brightest. Take it away, white hoods Hank.



The look on the face of the military officer is hysterical. Rest assured, however, that if for some reason, the laws of physics somehow become moot, and this island were to 'tip over and capsize,' it would be the result of global warming... and the marines. Keep in mind that Hank Johnson has a job, and my wife who has an MBA from Fresno State does not.

Our next video entry comes from the liberal utopia of New York City. More accurately, Brooklyn. Felix Ortiz is an Assemblyman who is making an effort to ban that evil nemesis that we've all grown to hate; salt. Wait... what?!



Wow. You know you're batshit crazy if you beat out the politicians who made a woman cover up a snow sculpture rendition of the Venus de Milo because it was nekkid. Is it just me, or are the mentally handicapped breeding?

Buy salt in bulk, and hide it. Even though it poses no health risks to people who are not already at risk, the idiots in power will continue to seek its demise.

Intelligence is a precious commodity, and apparently a commodity that is dwindling. Keep yours and help pass it on to the next generation before it is lost for eternity.

Damn, I hate Democrats.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Tell Them How You Really Feel

Fair warning, you may need to employ earmuffs. Or eyemuffs as it were.

So, let's take a poll: Would you say that you generally pleased with the outcome of the 'health care reform' bill and process? Or, would you say that you're f#cking pissed and you want blood revenge. Well if you chose the later, then you're feelings are in line with about 98 percent of the country judging from these headlines at Memeorandum.

Democrats care about few things, but one of the those things which they treasure above most others would be power. They know that by creating a new entitlement, they have in effect created a more dependent society which will be less likely to desire the overturn of the welfare that has been given them. This also means that when it comes time for elections, the numb, fat and dumb voter is more than likely going to choose the Democrat candidate versus the jerk that's trying to cut his medicare, welfare, health care, etc.

Back to the present and the overwhelming anger aimed at Democrats, over which they are indignant. From Politico:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

The Maryland Democrat said more than 10 House Democrats have reported incidents of threats or other forms of harassment about their support of the highly divisive health insurance overhaul vote. Hoyer emphasized that he didn’t have a specific number of threats and that was just an estimate.

TheFederal Bureau of Investigation, Capitol Police and sergeant at arms briefed Democrats behind closed doors today about the incidents of violence — the most high profile of which have been toward Democratic Reps. Thomas Perriello of Virginia, Steve Driehaus of Ohio and Louise Slaughter of New York.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34953.html#ixzz0jAWkL1EM

From The Hill:

House Democratic and Republican leaders have conferred to discuss a response to a "significant" number of threats against lawmakers.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that he, along with Democratic and Republican leaders, have discussed new security precautions that lawmakers should take after a spike in threats to lawmakers following a controversial healthcare vote this past weekend.

"Any member who feels themselves at risk is getting attention from the proper authority," Hoyer said during brief remarks on Wednesday.

From The New York Times:

Democratic lawmakers have received death threats and been the victims of vandalism because of their votes in favor of the health care bill, lawmakers and law enforcement officials said Wednesday, as the Congressional debate over the issue headed toward a bitter and divisive conclusion.

Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, said at least 10 House members had raised concerns about their personal security since Sunday’s climactic vote, and Mr. Hoyer characterized the cases as serious.

At least two Congressional district offices were vandalized and Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a senior Democrat from New York, received a phone message threatening sniper attacks against lawmakers and their families.

Ms. Slaughter also reported that a brick was thrown through a window of her office in Niagara Falls, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, said Monday that her Tucson office was vandalized after the vote.

Are you beginning to get the picture here?

From CNN:

Democratic congressional leaders Wednesday demanded Republicans join them in condemning a spate of threats and vandalism that has followed Sunday's vote on a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system.

More than 10 Democrats have reported trouble since the weekend vote, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters. Windows have been smashed at Democratic offices in at least three states, and federal agents were investigating whether a cut gas line at the home of a Virginia congressman's brother was related to the lawmaker's yes vote.

Democracy "is not about violence," Hoyer said at a news conference with South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the No. 2 Democrat in the House of Representatives.

And on, and on, and on...

The American people have not been so unitedly against something since, damn I dunno, Prohibition. Yet the Democrats are proud enough of this legislation as to wear it as a badge of honor. Excuse me if I don't just jump down and kiss your feet as you walk by because you've decided how my health care should be provided, by whom and at what cost. Oh, and fuck you for driving good, honest people out of business because of your damn burdensome, redistributive taxes, ass monkeys. As if it wasn't hard enough to find a job in this goddam economy. I'm very tempted to grab a brick.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Boehner's Wikipedia Page Defaced UPDATED

In the wake of the 'health care reform' bill being passed in the House, someone has defaced House Minority Leader, John Boehner's Wikipedia page:

Defaced

The added text at the top of the page reads:

IM A BADASS WHO LIKES TO YELL HELL NO IN CONGRESS AND I SHOULD OF VOTED FOR HEALTHCARE REFORM NOW I'M SCREWED!!!!!!!

Wonder how long until Wikipedia takes it down?

---

Update:

Wikipedia has taken the defacement down. Below is a screen grab of the edit history to the page, along with IP address of the offender.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

BREAKING: Health Care Reform Passes In House

Hot Air has the vote count.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

David Frum Still Doesn't Get It

Don't tease, David!

David Frum, former Bush speach writer, and current self-loathing Republican has a post over at 'The Frum Forum.' In it, he lays a significant amount of the blame for the passage of health care upon Conservatives:

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

The causes which Frum fails to blame for the legislative loss are many, here are a few.

1. The Democrats held, for most of the process, an insurmountable super majority.

The Democrats had huge majorities in both chambers of congress, allowing them to craft a bill with no input from the minority party. They also used tactics rarely seen in Washington, including locking the minority party out of negotiations on the final iterations of legislation.

2. Democrats in Congress, absolutely refused to listen to their constituents, and the citizenry of the United States.

As mentioned previously, the Democrats engaged in behavior seldom seen in Washington, DC. The Democrats knew from the moment they achieved the dramatic majority in both houses of Congress, and the Presidency what thier objective was. It mattered not whether, or how much, their constituents were against the legislation. This has been referred to in times past as taxation without representation.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that we all lost.
It does not matter your politics, the nation as a whole lost when the 'Health Care Reform' bill was enacted. Government control, increased bureaucracy, rationed care, reduced access to treatments, etc. These are the reasons that we all lost, David.

Without Frum's sharp wit, where would this party be? Considering that no one has been listening to him for the last 5 years, I'd say our prospects in November look pretty damn good. Wouldn't you?

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Stupak Holds All The Power, Maybe...

Once again, it comes down to the anti-abortion coalition within the Democrat party, headed by Bart Stupak (emphasis mine):

There have been various reports on Sunday that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other anti-abortion lawmakers have agreed to an abortion deal involving an executive order from the Obama administration. However, Stupak's office are strongly denying those reports.

Even though several Democratic leaders said they had the votes on Saturday, Stupak said on Sunday he and others were involved in intense negotiations with the White House late on Saturday night. The Saturday night talks strongly suggest Democrats are short of the 216 necessary.

On Sunday morning, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said Democratic leaders did not have 216 hard commitments.

Some believe there are a few lawmakers on The Hill's Firm No, Leaning No, Likely No list who could vote yes, including Reps. Marion Berry (Ark.), Rick Boucher (Va.) and Mike McMahon (N.Y.) and perhaps others.

The problem for Pelosi is that is she gets Stupak on board, she may lose abortion rights legislators, such as Rep. Mike Quigley (Ill.).

Keep praying to the G_d of free markets and private medicine, this thing ain't over yet.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Costa IS Costing Ya

You know it's bad when your own party wants to toss you...

Representative Jim Costa (D-Fresno) announced that he will vote for the Senate version of the health care bill. Costa shot to national attention this past week over allegations that he and another Valley Democrat, Cardoza (D-Modesto), were being bribed with water in order to secure a yes vote.

Costa joined Cardoza and a third valley Dem, Jerry McNerney of Pleasanton, in ending the "will they or won't they" speculation Saturday saying they were satisfied with the proposal after reading the bill's fine print.

"For me, it boils down to this: Who makes the important health care decisions in our country - patients, their families and their doctors, or insurance companies?" Costa said in his release. "I was not willing to make a final decision on my vote until I saw the actual language in the bill to protect patients from losing their insurance coverage, from having their rates jacked through the ceiling, and from being denied coverage by insurance companies."

The language satisfied his concerns, he said.

He said 28 percent of the constituents in his district are uninsured and this bill, which he called "fiscally responsible," is first step to bridge that gap.

Apparently the NYT and the WAPO were able to sniff out the discrepancies in the reported numbers from the CBO, but Costa couldn't. But then again, we only elect the best and the brightest to Congress, right Alcee Hastings?

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

11th Hour Reprieve?

Slaughter Solution, slaughtered?

Is this a sign that Obamacare is headed for the trash heap? Or is it a sign that Pelosi feels she now has the votes that she needs on both bills to get them to pass separately?

Top Democrats confirmed Saturday that the House would hold separate votes on the Senate healthcare bill and the reconciliation bill, making fixes to it.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), one of the chief deputy whips, Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), all of whom said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) won't use the tactic of deem and pass for healthcare reform.

The move effectively kills the "deem and pass" strategy Democrats had been eyeing to make changes to the Senate bill through a rule on the bill, which at the same time would have deemed the original Senate healthcare bill to have passed the House.

The House appears set now to move toward an up-or-down vote on the Senate healthcare bill, as well as a separate, up-or-down vote on the series of changes to that bill. There will still be a vote on the rule, as there always is for a piece of legislation, though it will not package the two bills together.

Democrats moved toward separating the votes after several members, including Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), had said they could not support the procedural maneuver.

Cardoza confirmed the change in position by House leadership during a Rules Committee meeting Saturday afternoon.

Several on the right are optimistic that this could mean an end to the House adopting the Senate bill. However, there is speculation swirling that Pelosi has enough support for both bills separately to get the votes to pass the bills. Ed Morrissey, however, believes that this gives Pelosi an out:

...remember that DemonPass was intended to protect Dems opposed to the Cadillac Tax and other issues in the Senate bill. The politics of the bill have only become more fraught since they floated that strategy, which could mean that Democrats now think it won’t pass — and need a reason for its demise other than a failure of Pelosi to whip the count.

It will be interesting to see if there is enough time left to get a vote count before the actual vote is taken. I am trying not to be pessimistic, however, that is my nature...

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Something Stinks: NYT and WAPO Admit CBO Numbers Don't Pass Smell Test

Pretty sure this is not the CBO that NYT or WAPO were referring to...

Via Yid With Lid:

The WAPO analysis, pointed out that it is just an estimate and no one really knows for sure how the bills costs will really shake out and his particular estimate is more shaky than usual.

Budget experts generally have high praise for the work of CBO analysts, the non-ideological technocrats who crunch the numbers to estimate the fiscal impact of legislation. But their work is often more art than science, and although the forecasts that accompany legislation are always filled with uncertainty, this one contains more than most.

For example, the legislation contains subsidies for those who would not be able to afford health coverage on their own — but the cost of those subsidies could vary a lot depending on how much other elements of the legislation change the price of health insurance, such as through provisions requiring minimum coverage levels.

The New York Times goes even further, pointing out that there was no way the CBO report was going to show numbers that did not work out in favor of Obamacare:

Congressional Democrats have spent more than a year working with the nonpartisan budget office on the health care legislation, and as they fine-tuned many of the bill’s various provisions in recent weeks, they consulted repeatedly with its number-crunchers and the bipartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. In other words, the overall numbers were never going to miss the mark. Whenever the budget office judged that some element or elements of the bill would cause a problem meeting the cost and deficit-reduction targets, Democrats just adjusted the underlying legislation to make sure it would hit their goal.

In other words the bill precise language of the bill was written in a way to make the numbers look good, whether they actually do or not is another story all together.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

CA Senate Race Tightening: Boxer Suddenly In Trouble

Senator Ma'am

In a piece over at Hotline On Call, Steven Shepard breaks down the latest poll numbers in the CA Senatorial race:

A day after Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) camp announced that Pres. Obama would be traveling to Los Angeles for a joint fundraiser next month, a new Field Poll shows Boxer locked in tight races with each of the GOPers vying to challenge her in Nov.

...

General Election Matchups
Campbell 44% (+6) Boxer 45% (-5)
Boxer 43 (-5) Fiorina 44 (+9)

Boxer 45% (-6)
DeVore 41 (+7)

...

In a possible sign of Dems' concern over Boxer's re-election, the Boxer camp announced late yesterday that Obama would attend a joint fundraiser for their camp and the DNC in mid-April, though details have not yet been finalized.

How to tell when a Congressman is completely detached from reality: When they bring out Leadfinger Obama to hold a fundraiser for their reelection. Brilliant move, ma'am.

It's important to note that all three of the Republican challengers are within the margin of error, indicating that anyone with a pulse is considered a threat to Boxer's reelection campaign. That's saying something, when California's liberal senators are in trouble, you know the Democrats are going to have a rough November.

Possibly related, the comedy gold that is 'Hot Air: The Movie.' If you haven't seen Carly Fiorina's latest sketch comedy campaign video, here it is for your enjoyment.



Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Inevitable End To Constitutional Abortion

The Hill has the story:

In a 222-203 vote, Democrats beat back a GOP resolution offered by Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.) that would have forced lawmakers to vote on the Senate healthcare bill separately from the series of fixes they hope to make to that legislation.

All Republican lawmakers who voted opposed the measure, which had the effect of ending the GOP's effort to force a vote. They were joined by 28 Democrats, who broke with party members on the vote.

Two hundred and twenty-two Democrats supported the measure, though — enough to proceed. Three members of either party did not vote.

Michelle Malkin has the blow by blow:

You’ll recall that House Republicans unveiled a resolution two days ago that would force a vote on the Slaughter Solution and call out the Deem-and-Pass-ocrats.

The vote on that resolution had been anticipated at around 12:30-1pm Eastern this afternoon. The time came and went.

...

Final vote 222-203 with six not voting. Remember in November.

Michelle also has a roll call of the votes.

Sounds to me as though it's time to flood congressional offices with another mail in item. Perhaps, we should send them copies of the constitution since they seem to be unfamiliar with it? Here is a website where you can order copies of the US Constitution for $1.00 or less plus shipping and handling, depending upon copies ordered. We've shut down the phone board, now it's time to clog the Congressional mail room. Make them know we are serious!

Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Reconciliation Bill Details

She has reason for that face shattering smile...

Politico has published details of the House Reconciliation Bill. Below are some details from the bill. The full text is available over at Politico.

The 153-page bill makes a number of changes to the Senate bill. The highlights:

--Increases the tax credits for middle-income families who buy insurance.

--Reduces the penalty for not buying insurance from $750 to $695. But the bill also requires some people to pay a share of their income as a penalty and that number was raised from 2 percent to 2.5 percent.

--It closes the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage by 2011 and gives seniors who fall into the gap this year a $250 rebate.

--It eliminates the Cornhusker Kickback and covers 100 percent of the increased Medicaid costs of all states until 2016 and decreases each year thereafter.

--Requires that doctors that care for Medicaid patients be reimbursed at the full rate.

--Spends $250 million to fight waste, fraud and abuse.

--Delays and blunts the tax on high-end insurance plans in keeping with the deal Democrats struck with the labor unions. However, it does lower the index at which plans will be taxed, making it likely that more plans will be affected over time.

--Imposes a Medicare tax on unearned income for families making more than $250,000.

--Includes student loan reform.

'Health Care Reform' is not dead. As a matter of fact, several news sources are reporting that it's got new life and is uncomfortably close to having enough support to get passed. If you have not already, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES NOW!

Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

NRSC Ad: Most Honest, Ethical Congress In History

The NRSC continues their effort to swing the tide in favor of a Republican takeover in November. Their latest ad is called 'Broken Promises.' Watch below.



It'll be interesting to see what Republicans do with the Sestak and Andrew Romanoff situations amidst assertions by Darrell Issa (R-CA) that the offers were illegal.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

What Is 'The Filibuster?'

CBS Sunday Morning News did a small spot regarding the history of the Filibuster. Senate rules, as laid by the founders, require that the upper house gain no less than 2/3rds support for any legislation before the legislation can be passed. Why is this? It helps to prevent simple rule of the majority. There are extremely few circumstances where a simple majority can pass legislation, this is referred to as the nuclear option or reconciliation. Reconciliation is only considered applicable when attempting to pass a budget, as congress is constitutionally mandated to perform this task. Any and all other legislation must pass with the 2/3rds majority. Filibustering is a procedural tactic that can be used by the minority party within the Senate to delay or prevent a vote on certain legislation. At any time where the controlling party within the Senate has 2/3rds of the seats (known as a super majority) and attempts to pass legislation, they do not need to garner support from the opposition party to do so. The only means left to the minority party to prevent the passage of the bill is what is called a filibuster. Rules within the Senate allow a senator to speak as long as they wish on any subject unless 3/5ths of the voting body brings debate to a close under what is called cloture. Often, the minority party will use the filibuster in the form of prolonged debate in order to prevent the passage of a bill to which they are adamantly opposed, but do not posses the required voting members to defeat.



The filibuster has gotten a bad name, and fortunately has not been required during the attempt to pass 'health care reform.' Keep in mind that until the special election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the Democrats had a super majority in the senate. This means that the Republicans did not posses the voting members to prevent 'health care reform' legislation from passing. However, the senate never brought the legislation to a vote because Democrats could not gain enough support within their own party to pass the legislation. If and when the 'health care reform' legislation is defeated, it will be because the Democratic party could not capitalize on it's super majority within the senate to pass the bill.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

To Support And Defend The Constitution of The United States

Congressional Responsibility... not intended to be an oxymoron.

If you've been paying attention to the news recently, it should come as no shock that Democrats in congress are considering passing the Senate version of the 'health care reform' bill without voting on it. It seems to me that this is at odds with not only the oath of office, but the very Constitution itself.
Article I Section VII of the United States Constitution (excerpted):

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

Congressional Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

So, how then do Democrats propose getting around the constitutional requirement?

Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill.

It's a tactic that has been used by both parties and having been reviewed by the court is considered constitutional. However, guess who took the case to court, petitioning against the self-executing rule? Funny you should ask:

But put aside the present for the moment and step into my time machine. Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists.

...

And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs:

Nancy Pelosi

Henry Waxman

Louise Slaughter

It's important to point out that there is a fundamental difference between what the Democrats are attempting now, and what the court ruled on in the case mentioned above. At issue was a text correction to a bill which had been passed through congress. The GOP attempted to use the self-executing rule to confirm the correction of the text, without having to vote on the amendment. Again, the legislation went on to be voted upon by the entire body when the GOP attempted to use the procedure. Not so with the Democrats:

It's important to be clear that the issue before the court was whether a minor text correction was sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement that both chambers of Congress must pass the exact same bill. In this 2005 case, the court ruled the minor correction was acceptable.

The deeming of an entire bill to have been passed without a prior recorded vote goes far beyond a minor text correction, so the constitutional principle clearly would be violated by the Slaughter Solution.

The Slaughter Solution is unconstitutional and should be challenged on such grounds. As the Democrats are fond of reminding us, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Congress is required to vote on legislation: fact.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Comment Link adjacent to the Post Title.

1st Amendment Rights For Me, Not For Thee

New York Institute for Special Education, Class Picture 2009

Surely if you've been living above ground for the last three weeks you recall the utter conniption the lefties had when the Supreme Court overturned the McCain Feingold legislation banning unregulated donations to the national parties. The law also explicitly denied the ability of large corporations to directly donate to candidates and advertise in an election for or against any candidate or issue. Democrats decried the court's decision as allowing corporations (including foreign) to spend without limit to influence elections here in the United States. This is of course a claim which has no basis in the actual understanding of law. Quoteth I from ABC News, emphasis mine:

Under current law, foreign nationals cannot donate to political candidates or pay for campaign ads. Concerns that other countries might try to influence American elections are not merely academic. In the late 1990s the Justice Department and congressional investigators uncovered efforts by foreign donors to infiltrate the American political system through donations to the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton. Among those implicated was Johnny Chung, a Clinton fund-raiser who told Federal investigators that a large part of the nearly $100,000 he gave the Democrats in the 1996 campaign came from China. According to published reports, Democrats had to return another $1.6 million brought in by another prominent Clinton money man, John Huang, after questions were raised about the source of the funds.

So, you're saying that the only ones to ever exploit the system in place by accepting donations from foreign companies was the Democrats?! Say it ain't so! Anyhoo, looks as though the party of law breakers found another loophole to exploit. From Hot Air:

"...the New York Times reports today, one select group of Democrats have had no problem cultivating corporate influence, and doing so by working around the McCain-Feingold restrictions their party claims to champion:

When the Congressional Black Caucus wanted to pay off the mortgage on its foundation’s stately 1930s redbrick headquarters on Embassy Row, it turned to a familiar roster of friends: corporate backers like Wal-Mart, AT&T, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Altria, the nation’s largest tobacco company.

Soon enough, in 2008, a jazz band was playing at what amounted to a mortgage-burning party for the $4 million town house.

Most political groups in Washington would have been barred by law from accepting that kind of direct aid from corporations. But by taking advantage of political finance laws, the caucus has built a fund-raising juggernaut unlike anything else in town.

It has a traditional political fund-raising arm subject to federal rules. But it also has a network of nonprofit groups and charities that allow it to collect unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.

From 2004 to 2008, the Congressional Black Caucus’s political and charitable wings took in at least $55 million in corporate and union contributions, according to an analysis by The New York Times, an impressive amount even by the standards of a Washington awash in cash. Only $1 million of that went to the caucus’s political action committee; the rest poured into the largely unregulated nonprofit network. (Data for 2009 is not available.)

Now, consider that $55 million in light of the outrage expressed over the last few weeks over the court’s Citizens United decision.

Color me completely shocked. Be sure to read the rest and watch the attached video. The effort here is to keep the status quo, in other words allow Democrats to continue to collect large sums of money from corporations to fund their political activities, while explicitly denying corporations from donating to groups and individuals with differing ideologies. Keep in mind that the Congressional Black Caucus is the same group of morons who visited Fidel Castro in Cuba last year and proclaimed him a great and compassionate leader.

Please take the time to comment!

Which Party Had More Representation in the "Ten Most Corrupt Politicians" for 2009 List?

I recommend you head over to Judicial Watch to read the entire post, but here for your enjoyment are a few of the top ten.

1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.


3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow “forgot” about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: “The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently ‘wrangling’ other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.” Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That’s why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.

Be sure to read through the entire list to see the lone Republican and highest elected politician in the land. It stands to reason that because the Republicans are out of power, they hold fewer spots (read: one) on the list. Why attempt to buy off a politician who doesn't have much of anything to give you?

Please take the time to comment!

H.R. 666, Hunger Obstruction and Restriction; Starvation Halting Initiative Tenets

Borrowed from EGOPNEWS.com

If Health Care is a right, then surely Food is a Right...

Whereas, all residents of the United States are created equal; and Whereas it is the responsibility of the Congress of the United States to provide for the common defense and welfare of the residents of the United States; and Whereas from each according to their ability, to each according to their need; it is proposed this day, the 28th of December in the Year of 2009, a bill, H.R. 666, to provide for the sustenance of all residents of the United States.

H.R. 666
Title: A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and distribute foodstuffs and nourishment for the purposes of reducing and preventing hunger as well as shafting taxpayers, to amend the United States Department of Agriculture Code of 1946 to provide incentives for food redistribution and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual hunger relief, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Rep Socialisme, Pierre J. [WI-7] (introduced 12/28/2009) Cosponsors (124)

Division A: Emergency Hunger Reduction - Hunger Obstruction and Restriction; Starvation Halting Initiative Tenets (hereinafter HORSHIT) Title I: Emergency Hunger Reduction - Unrestricted Redistributive Sustenance Collection Ratification and Withholding Directive (hereinafter URSCRWD) Authorizes the Secretary of the USDA (Secretary) to establish URSCRWD to collect foodstuffs from production locations, in accordance with the terms, conditions and policies set forth in the HORSHIT bill; and redistribute the sustenance to parties determined to be deserving as established in H.R. 6362, YOUGAVEUPYOURSOVEREIGNTYWHENWEENACTEDTHEQUALITYAFFORDABLE
HEALTHCAREACTALONGWITHANYHOPEOFOVERTURNINGDIRECT
SOCIALISMINTHEUNITEDSTATES act.

Directs the Secretary to establish within the Office of Domestic Fulfillment of the Department of Agriculture an Office of Hunger Eradication and Contentment Stability, through which URSCRWD shall be implemented.

Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) designate family and corporate farms as public enterprises and agents of the federal government; and (2) establishes commodities to be seized, held and redistributed as well as designate new debtors.

Directs the Secretary to prevent unjust enrichment of involuntarily participatory family and corporate farms, including any sale of a foodstuff or commodity (with no exceptions) to any entity outside of the United States Government.

(Sec. 1963) Requires the Secretary, once URSCRWD is established, to create a public entity to seize all wealth generated as a result of foodstuff and commodity production prior to the enactment of the HORSHIT act.

Title II: Director Appropriated Mandates and Directives (hereinafter DAMN) - (Sec. 1917) Requires all information gathered by the Secretary in connection with activities authorized under the HORSHIT act, be used against any private enterprises attempting to enter the market as a for profit entity.

(Sec. Woodstock) Requires the Secretary to report to the Justice Department any free market enterprise which resists the HORSHIT and URSCRWD acts, and establishes punitive fines for any such entity in the amount of $250,000 for each violation.

Title III: Tax The Hell Out Of Them Provisions - (Sec. Marx) Provides for extraordinary income or loss treatment of gain or loss from the exchange of any applicable foodstuff or commodity by any applicable public family or corporate farm entity. Defines 'any applicable foodstuff or commodity' as anything we damn well choose.

(Sec. Teddy Kennedy) Provides for the taxation of any business, individual or entity not listed or described in this legislation, at the rate of 150% of every U.S. Dollar earned so that the collective wealth may be redistributed to ACRON, COI, United States Green Party, and The Nancy Pelosi Plastic Surgery Foundation

(Sec. Stalin) Specifically prevents the closure, dissolution or bankruptcy of any family or corporate farm in existence at the time of the authoring of this bill, and relegates the ownership, employees and 'help' (both paid and non-paid) of these family and corporate farms as indentured servants for the remainder of their natural born lives, unless they choose to become registered Democrats, donors to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Moonbat activists for the remainder of their ambulatory existance.

Title IV: Repealment - There ain't none, and repealment is expressly prohibited.

Call your Congressional representation and Senators to urge their support for the HORSHIT bill and the DAMN URSCRWD act of 2009.

Please take the time to comment!

Creamer; Another Obama Scandal?

What the hell sort of unholy furor would have been brought down upon the Bush Administration had they allowed a convicted felon into a state dinner?

Believe it or not, I do not own a TV. As such, I do not ever catch the Glenn Beck program. Hell, I have to drive across town to catch football at my Dad's place. That being said, I ran across this article at Big Government.

While in prison—or “forced sabbatical,” he called it—Creamer wrote a lengthy political manual, Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win (Seven Locks Press, 2007).

The book was endorsed by leading Democrats and their allies, including SEIU boss Andy Stern—the most frequent visitor thus far to the Obama White House—and chief Obama strategist David Axelrod, who noted that Creamer’s tome “provides a blueprint for future victories.”

In the book, Creamer draws lessons from decades of experience on the radical left, including the teachings of arch-radical Saul Alinsky, and several episodes from Rep. Schakowsky’s political career. He also lays out a “Progressive Agenda for Structural Change,” which includes a ten-point plan for foisting universal health care on the American people in 2009:

* “We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”
* “We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
* “Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance.”
* “We need to systematically forge relationships with large sectors of the business/employer community.”
* “We need to convince political leaders that they owe their elections, at least in part, to the groundswell of support of [sic] universal health care, and that they face political peril if they fail to deliver on universal health care in 2009.”
* “We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus.”
* “Over the next two years, we must design and organize a massive national field program.”
* “We must focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community.”
* “We must systematically leverage the connections and resources of a massive array of institutions and organizations of all types.”
* “To be successful, we must put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined.”

Creamer adds: “To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion—fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.”

Republicans have recently been accused of all manner of naughty things, including but not limited to; being in the pocket of health insurance companies, being in the pocket of big tobacco, having happy feet in a Minneapolis men's bathroom stall. However, no one, at least to my memory, has ever accused the Republicans of having their proposed legislation written and proposed by a convicted felon.

The husband of an Illinois congresswoman pleaded guilty Wednesday to tax violations and bank fraud for writing rubber checks and failing to collect withholding tax from an employee.

Robert Creamer, a political consultant married to four-term U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, could face four years in prison on the two felony counts when he is sentenced Dec. 21.

Seriously, what else? What else can we possibly learn about this corrupt, illegal administration? Most recently it's been Spit or Swallow Jennings, and now this.

Keep an eye on this one, I suspect it's going to get much more interesting. Oh, and if you're interested in the Beck video, part one is here and part two is here.

Please take the time to comment!