Democrat Transparency Behind Closed Doors
Jan 5, 2010 Political
Henry Waxman and many of the top Democrats have returned to DC to start working on reconciling the House and Senate versions of the health care overhaul. The House does not reconvene until January 12th and the Senate after that. The reason that these slugs are gathering is so they can work on an end around with the White House.
The House and Senate leaders are working on ways to keep from using the reconciliation process properly to merge the bills. The game will involve bouncing amendments back and forth and working out more back room deals in a fashion that does not allow Republicans to participate and because the normal process would require 60 votes each time the Senate had to vote. They had to bribe a lot of people to get 60 the last time and they do not want to go through that mess again.
This will also allow Pelosi to provide cover for some Democrats in the House but Republicans are not the only ones who are being screwed in this game. Democrats who have certain items they will not waiver on will not be able to ensure what they want is included. Pelosi will likely have the votes she needs and Reid will not have to do anything ethical like follow the Senate rules.
It was Pelosi who promised the most ethical Congress. It was Obama who promised transparency and all Democrats have thrown that word around quite a bit. They were not transparent during the initial work on this disaster and they are even less so now. These slugs are hiding behind closed doors and working on stuff out of the eye of the public.
They are hiding like the cowardly vermin that they are. This is no way to run a government and one can be sure that if the parties were reversed the liberal bloggers and the Democrats would be having a cow and talking about how the process was being hijacked.
Regardless of how one feels about the health care bill there are rules and procedures that must be followed if we are to maintain a legitimate government. This closed door stuff is more in line with Russia, China and a host of other nations that rule in a manner that was never in our design.
The Democrats and their leader Obama have completely shredded the Constitution and the rules that govern the House and Senate. They are hiding like cowards and pushing what they want regardless of the will of the people and regardless of the desires of some of their own members.
Now is the time for a Joe Lieberman to step up and say he will vote against final passage if this is not done properly.
Now, more than ever, we need the Republican to win Ted Kennedy’s seat in this month’s special election. We need these things now because our Republic has been hijacked by a bunch of cutthroat thugs who are moving closer and closer to iron fist rule of the Communists and less in accordance with the Republican form of government we were promised by our Founders and that is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
I know that the Democrats think losing what they have in numbers is acceptable as long as they get what they want now. That is their choice to make and as foolish as it is, they are moving full steam ahead.
They will have a bloodbath in the next election but are they looking for more than that? Are they begging people to walk into the Capitol and throw them out onto the street and put in place a new government? Are they begging us to overthrow them by force? We have a solemn duty to cast off the bonds of oppressive government. We have a duty to get rid of any government that does not follow the rule of law.
We have elections to do that but it seems as if these morons are begging people to enter the Capitol and kick their asses out.
Nothing would make me happier than seeing them in shackles on a plane to Gitmo but I am content to wait for the next election.
What will come first, the next election or the tipping point?
Source:
US News
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, corruption, health care, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, usurping
A Party Of One
Oct 31, 2009 Political
Apparently that is as many as you need to get minority legislation passed in favor of yourself, so you can feel entitled and good about yourself, and as I understand it, this is necessary to life- it’s probably a “right”, right? I mean, if feeling good about yourself isn’t a right, it should be, because we are a minority, and we are entitled.
What bullcrap- nowadays, we have been hijacked by a plethora of “minorities” or “oppressed” peoples, each with their own litany of complaints and demands, like a spoiled child who needs his backside warmed to remind him that he is NOT the center of the universe.
This used to be the country where the majority ruled- because it makes sense to go in the direction that the most people are headed. But we are compassionate people. We have, in the past, accommodated others who might not be of the same faith (other than Christian), of the same dietary needs, people who are, let’s face it, the minority. These are people who make the tapestry that is America much richer for their contributions.
But in recent times- say the last twenty- five years or so, we have bent over backwards to assist others in assimilation into this society, with the aim that they would begin to conform more to the majority in behavior.
Instead, we have begat a segment of society that does not care to assimilate, and doesn’t want to compromise, as if it is they, and not us , who are in the majority. What arrogance on their part. Here’s an example:
The lovely-looking restaurant and bar The Breslin begins lunch service tomorrow, and co-owner Ken Friedman (The Spotted Pig) is planning on serving alcohol despite objections from the Masjid Ar-Rahman mosque across the street. Earlier this month the mosque’s leaders called a meeting with Friedman at The Ace Hotel, where The Breslin is located, and asked, “Can you move the bar?” Friedman’s response makes us want to hurry over to The Breslin right now for a dram of Laphroaig to show our support (and drown out the voices):
I said, “This is the United States of America and we’ll do whatever the f*ck we want.” He said the mosque had suggested it couldn’t control the behavior of “a few bad eggs”; i.e., we could get a brick through our window.
gothamist.com
These muslims sincerely believe that our citizens should conform to their standards- what gross stupidity on their part, but it does illustrate how horribly skewed our society has become when these types of “entitled” spoiled brats actually think they can do this. Our compassion at this point begins to dry up when confronted by supercilious attitudes such as these.
Friedman notified police of the threat, but just to show he’s not a hard-hearted man, that it’s not all dollars and cents, he agreed to put a curtain over the windows so devout Muslims wouldn’t be corrupted by the sight of infidel inebriation. But the curtain hasn’t arrived yet, so over the weekend he actually taped paper over the windows to hide a gay wedding. A volunteer at the mosque says city law forbids serving liquor within 200 feet of a place of worship and that “not more than 200 feet is between the mosque and the bar.”
But Ace Hotel developer Andrew Zobler tells The Observer, “The law is clear that in order for that to apply it has to be an exclusively dedicated house of worship, and at their space they have both residences and a restaurant, so basically, because of those uses the law allowed there to be a bar within 200 feet. Everyone was aware of that when the liquor license was granted.” And Friedman adds, “They can threaten, but they can’t really stop us.” Yeah, heh, what are these devout, pissed-off Muslims gonna do?
gothamist.com
What are they going to do indeed? One never knows, but the greater question is who the hell do they think they are? Granted, I would never think of wandering into their mosque sipping a bottle of Bushmills Black label (although I have heard that it is a rather out of this world experience when you sip enough), because I do care somewhat about their sensibilities- at least enough to be polite, but when spoiled people try and dictate their whims to the majority, they begin to act like children in need of discipline, or worse, like liberals.
The solution to either is the same- slap the snot out of them- it will set them on the road to sanity, and in twenty years or so, after they have grown, they will thank you for that guidance.
And perhaps they will have a mature outlook with which they deal with people.
And, for God’s sake not whine so much about non existent “rights”.
If you want rights, look in the Constitution.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: alcohol, constitution, entitled brats, Muslims, rights
Obama Cannot Accept Nobel Without Congressional Approval
Oct 28, 2009 Political
Three members of Congress have written a letter to Barack Obama asking him to demonstrate his devotion to the Constitution by obtaining Congressional approval to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.
In a letter to Obama delivered on Monday, Brown-Waite, R-Fla., along with Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, claim the president is obligated under the Constitution to obtain Congress’ approval before he formally accepts the prize.
Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, states: “And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.” Topix
The three members claim that the Nobel Committee, which is elected by Norwegian Parliament, constitutes a group representing a foreign state.
Barack Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution (not that you could tell) so he should seek the approval of Congress in order to accept the Nobel. If he requests the approval he will certainly get it as there is no reason for the Congress to reject the request.
One can argue that Obama is not worthy of the prize but that is not for Congress to decide. The decision was that of the Nobel Committee and they awarded it to him.
It is up to Obama to request approval and it is up to Congress to grant it.
Obama swore to uphold the Constitution. Let’s see if he does.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: constitution, foreign state, nobel, Obama
The Constitutional Abuse
Oct 25, 2009 Political
Well, I have looked very carefully at Article one, Section eight, better known as the Interstate Commerce clause, although the enumerated powers delineated therein are more extensive, and specific than the simplistic “title” might suggest. Indeed, there’s quite a bit there, installing and regulating post offices, militias, establishing a uniform set of regulations between states (where this article derives its name) so that states are competitive with one another- a lot in a little space in our Constitution.
But Nancy Pelosi can’t answer a simple question from a reporter on the Constitutionality of Healthcare, specifically the mandate to buy it.
When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi’s press secretary later responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews.com by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
directorblue.blogspot.com
Uh, yeah- the liberal’s bolthole when it comes to legislation they want to shove down our throats- to be fair, both parties have used this when it suited them, but to be fair, there’s not much difference these days between the parties themselves- witness Lindsey Graham or John McCain- neither one truly represents more than the squishy middle, where ideals are watered down to virtually nothing, and the status quo is protected, meaning their jobs.
But back to the clueless Pelosi- I have long held that the botox needle went too deep on her, and hit the brainstem, because she couldn’t even begin to enunciate the reasoning behind the mandate. It was up to the aide to try and explain just how the mandate could even be legal. As usual in politics, he was, and is wrong- but at least he tried.
Nan just had the deer in the headlights look- in other words, looked as she normally appears.
Pelosi avoided answering the question, probably because she doesn’t have an answer. Her spokesman said that it was “not a serious question,” but if so, one would presume that Pelosi or her office could provide an easily-corroborated answer. After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority. It’s not exactly a lengthy document. How difficult is it to cite the clause that enables Congress to impose a mandate on its citizens to spend money on anything but a tax?
Well, as it turns out, pretty darned difficult. The interstate commerce clause doesn’t apply because Congress doesn’t allow for interstate commerce in health insurance. The “general welfare” clause has never applied to individual mandates, which is why neither Leahy or Pelosi will invoke it publicly. If they trot that out in front of the Supreme Court, they’ll essentially be arguing that the federal government has the authority to impose any kind of mandates at any time on anyone in the country, which makes the limitations of power in the Constitution meaningless — and by extension, makes the Supreme Court meaningless as well.
themoderatevoice.com
Yes indeed- there is not, nor can there be, a mandate that legally compels me to buy insurance- by their argument, they could compel me , or anyone else, to do pretty much whatever the government chooses for you or me to do, and that is a dictatorship, plain and simple.
If I do not buy insurance, I am not breaking the “Interstate Commerce” clause, because I am not engaging in commerce, interstate or otherwise. If I self pay my doctor, I am not falling afoul of the clause either- both the doctor and I are in the same state. My purchase or not of insurance doesn’t “promote the general welfare” of anyone- period.
Much of the reasoning that is centered around this healthscare bill is torturous, convoluted and wrong. The politicians who want this bill to pass are destroying the Constitution.
Obama had it right in one respect when he said in a speech, that the Constitution is indeed a “negative” document, in that it tells you what you cannot do with respect to the states, and what the states cannot do with respect to the people.
The Constitution is a “People’s” document, one that was drafted to protect the people, not the politicians.
Perhaps Nan the flounder face should read the Constitution.
At least try, Nan.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: botox of the brain, constitution, nancy pelosi, stupidity
Commie- Czars
Oct 14, 2009 Political
Or commissars, whatever you think the term most fits- the administration is riddled with them, much like termites eating their way through your home, so are they busy munching their way through our Constitution, our Rights, our lives.
We need Terminex, or the equivalent that gets rid of these governmental leeches.
There are just so many of them- and all of them with a negative agenda, when it comes to our Constitution.
Eric Holder — Attorney General of the United States. A handpicked Obama/Jarrett selection, who earlier this year referred to the United States as “a nation of cowards” on race relations, Mr. Holder is a shiningly despicable example of everything wrong when politics and personal ambition dictate the parameters of American justice.
Prior to grasping the brass ring of the department where he’d toiled during the Clinton Administration, Mr. Holder was responsible for these widely-reported miscarriages of justice: (1) He streamlined the Clinton Administration’s pardon of fugitive billionaire Marc Rich by steering Rich’s representatives to a former White House counsel, then helped lobby the President to pardon Rich (“an unrepentant fugitive wanted on extensive fraud, racketeering, and trading-with-the-enemy charges”). Holder did so for personal gain, later admitting he hoped this would help him become Attorney General in a Gore administration. Mr. Holder concealed the pardon negotiations from other prosecuting and investigative agencies to prevent their opposition. Mr. Rich’s wife was a generous donor to both President Clinton’s library as well as his legal-defense fund.
(2) “In 1999, over the objections of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and prosecuting attorneys, Holder supported Clinton’s commutation of the sentences of 16 FALN conspirators. These pardons – of terrorists who even Holder has conceded had not expressed any remorse – were issued in the months after al-Qaeda’s 1998 U.S. embassy bombings…. The commutations were nakedly political, obviously designed by Clinton to assist his wife’s impending Senate campaign by appealing to New York’s substantial Puerto Rican vote.”
(3) Holder was also instrumental in the “stealth pardons” of two Weather Underground terrorists, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans (both closely associated with President Obama’s terrorist friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn). Rosenberg and Evans had been serving decades-long sentences for bombings targeting American government facilities. Again Holder helped circumvent the pardon process and evade objections from prosecutors regarding the terrorists’ jail terms.Just this summer, now-Attorney General Holder dismissed prosecution of an obvious case (it was filmed) of voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panthers, while also instigating prosecutorial investigations into CIA interrogation techniques of terrorist combatants. Attorney General Holder is a strong advocate for the release of the Islamofascist enemy combatants currently held at Guantanamo Bay.
americanthinker.com
Yep, that is one- and he is the Attorney General, is supposed to uphold the law, not circumvent justice as he does routinely, a communist trait- favor the leftists
Then there is John Holdren, our proud nation’s Science Czar- Really??? Science? This is a comedy sketch, right?
John Holdren Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Other than Mr. Holdren’s well known and oft repeated morally relativistic denial of American exceptionalism, one and only one thing need to be said here about President Obama’s “Science” Czar – he is Barack Obama’s twin on the matter of abortion and has advocated compulsory abortion. Here it is again: President Obama searched for, reached out, and chose as his chief “science advisor” a plasma physicist who advocates compulsory abortion.
As John Griffing wrote of Holdren in “Enough is Enough,” for American Thinker
...for a true outrage, consider new Czar of Science, John P. Holdren, who, in a stunning display of unabashed evil, has actively advocated compulsory abortion
There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.
If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, consider his words, “All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons.” Let that sink in: an American official supports forced abortion and the death of “grown persons.” We know what that looks like. It has been official policy for years in Communist China.
americanthinker.com
But the person who may be the most influential in how we live, and under what restraints, is our Resident’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein.
Cass Sunstein — Administrator of the White House Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs. He is a Harvard Law School professor and newly-minted husband of President Obama’s Senior Director, Multilateral Affairs, National Security Council, the Israel-phobic Samantha Power (one of several husband-wife teams in the Obama White House). Mr. Sunstein’s belief structure could understandably be called “Leftist kook” or “fringe” if not downright lunatic. Herewith:
In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein called for banning all hunting in the United States. All. Everywhere.
He actually put in writing, in his 2004 book, Animals that, “Animals should be permitted to bring [law] suit, with human beings as their representatives….”Were Mr. Sunstein to succeed as President Obama’s head regulator of all things American, what might happen to those millions of hunting rifles and shotguns he doesn’t want gathering dust in your cabinet?
Mr. Sunstein is a reputed “1st Amendment scholar.” Having attended law school myself and actually practiced law for a quarter century rather than retreat to the head-swelling-brain-shrinking environs of academia, I can assure you that if he is, America is in very deep trouble. President Obama has made clear his White House Masterregulator is intended to regulate virtually every aspect of American’s lives – including the environment, healthcare, finance, and the economy – regardless of your feelings about such matters much less your freedom and liberty. Sunstein has argued in his prolific literary works (one bookstore tour de force was a whopping 84 pages) that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.
A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government… Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.
americanthinker.com
And this guy is a 1st Amendment scholar? Really? I mean, in the theoretical world of Narnia, perhaps- but the first Amendment has no boundaries other than the common sense ones, (cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater, etc.), but to limit freedom of speech? And that is just one part of this equation. Religion and freedom of the press are mixed in there also, and under fire just as surely.
This is a guy who believes that our Resident should be the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional- and that judges need not weigh in.
The interpretation of Federal Law should be made not by judges but by the beliefs and commitments of the U.S. president and those around him, according to President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein.
“There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him,” argued Sunstein.
This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein’s 2006 Yale Law School paper, “Beyond Marbury: The Executive’s Power to Say What the Law Is.” The paper, in which he argues the president and his advisers should be the ones to interpret federal laws, was obtained and reviewed by WND.
Sunstein debated the precedent-setting 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, which determined it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
wnd.com
Yeah- no I don’t think that our Resident should act like a King (which he is not) and interpret the laws- that is precisely what we have courts for- and indeed, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, have ruled satisfactorily on this issue, but apparently, not for Mr. Sunstein. But to even postulate otherwise is rather traitorous, given that this would treat the Constitution as an “Inconvenient” piece of paper- and it is much, much more than that.
The crux of our problem with Mr. Sunstein is that he will be writing the regulations that will be governing our lives, taxing our money, and curtailing our freedoms. These will encompass many of the freedoms we take for granted now, not just freedom of speech, but through his regulatory powers, he will be able to have a disproportionate say in our lives, all facets, and all the little nooks and crannies. No Amendment would be safe.
Now, I am sure that there are some on the left, who relish constrained freedoms- they will gladly trade their freedoms for a nice, womb-to- tomb controlled existence- much like that traitor character in the Matrix, there are some who can’t stand to live on their feet, using their talent to get ahead. No, these people are scared-
And they are more than willing to live on their knees.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: communism, constitution, czars, Holdren, Obama, servitude, sunstein