Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘health care bill’

REPEAL OBAMACARE, SAY MOST AMERICANS

Posted by Andrew Roman on May 24, 2010

Liberals have no interest in what Americans really care about. Rather, they are interested in telling Americans what they should – nay, will – care about. The needs of their constituencies are irrelevant to them, because, for the most part, they don’t believe the people they are charged to represent really know what they need. It’s because buried deep within the soul of the modern-day American liberal, stuck to their DNA like Nutella to a butter knife, is that inherent tendency toward totalitarianism. Whether it’s someone in the thick of the liberal stew like New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who says he actually fantasizes about what it would be like in America if we were like China for just one day, to entertainment icon Woody Allen, who says that a few years of an Obama dictatorship would be good for this country, they are liberals, and they know best.

Just ask one.

Ever since Arizona passed its illegal immigration law, a majority of Americans have been in favor of it. In fact, in some polls, support for the law has actually increased. Meanwhile, Obamacrats continue to speak out against it – including those who haven’t yet read it – demonstrating how out-of-touch with the country they really are.

The same can be said for Obamacare.

According to a new Rasmussen poll, a convincing six in ten Americans believe that Obamacare should be flat out repealed.

That’s right … repealed.

That’s the highest level ever.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.
Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.

Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.

The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.

While opposition to the bill has remained as consistent since its passage as it was beforehand, this marks the first time that support for repeal has climbed into the 60s. It will be interesting to see whether this marks a brief bounce or indicates a trend of growing opposition.

Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters now believe the health care plan will be good for the country, down six points from a week ago and the lowest level of confidence in the plan to date. Fifty-five percent (55%) say it will be bad for the nation. Only three percent (3%) think it will have no impact.

This can be filed under “Why Elections Matter.”

We are a little over five months away from, arguably, the most critical non-Presidential election in America’s history. Key components of ObamaCare really don’t start to kick in until 2014. For a repeal to actually happen, Republicans must come away winners in November and then take back the White House from the jaws of destruction in 2012.

One step at a time.

But it isn’t that one-dimensional.

Republicans cannot just run on repealing ObamaCare. They must put together sensible reforms as part of a repeal package.

That’s how a roadmap to repeal could work … “on paper.”

Unfortunately, the fear is that once the “benefits” start flowing, only the most steadfast conservatives will not cave.

Supreme Court, anyone?

wordpress statistics

Advertisements

Posted in health care, Polls | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

WE SHOULD BE THANKING HIM

Posted by Andrew Roman on April 16, 2010

Can we end this hallucinatory delusion that President Obama wants Democrats and Republicans to “come together” on anything? Can we toss that enchanted notion into the same receptacle as the “Pro-Life Democrat” and “post-partisan America”? When a big league leftist like Barack Obama says he wants people to “come together,” what he really means is that he wants Republicans to give in and come over to the Democrat side. The word “unity,” in Obama-speak, means everyone should think as he does.

For instance, a large portion of Americans are either part of, or sympathetic to, the Tea Party movement. These people have, without any national organization or leader, “unified” all across the country to speak out in opposition of Obama’s out of control growth of government – folks from all walks of life.

I’ve been to these rallies.

I’ve seen it first hand.

In the not so distant past, when dissent was as American as taking Betty Sue to the prom, Obamacrats would have applauded such a movement – provided the words “Bush lied” and “people died” were squeezed in somewhere. In those days, libs would have been the first to say that there is nothing more American than a wide-spread, coast-to-coast, non-violent grass roots movement by citizens with genuine concerns. Had it been a liberal movement, it would have been dubbed “a revolution.”

The President, however, doesn’t approve of that kind of unity. It’s not Obamacratic unity. And because it isn’t all about him, it isn’t real unity.

The man who is President of all these United States has cornered the market in a new kind of dismissive arrogance. In that head-tilting, superior-than-the-rest-of-us way of his – with a disapproval rating growing like caffeinated cancer cells – the Chief Executive has declared that the Tea Partiers should be thanking him.

Why?

Because he cut taxes, of course.

Erica Werner of the Associated Press writes:

President Barack Obama said Thursday he’s amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day. Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he’s cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.

“You would think they’d be saying thank you,” he said.

At that, many in the crowd at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts stood and yelled, “Thank you!”

How dare the President of the United States ridicule average Americans with genuine grievances. It is the Constitutional right of every American to assemble and peacefully protest against the actions of their government, whether those petitioners be dope-smoking, insect-infested, anti-war hippie-types or flag-waving defenders of liberty.

Unfortunately, the reality is abundantly clear: When liberals do it, it’s an act of patriotism, but when conservatives do so, it’s right-wing hate-mongering.

This “unifier” has gone out of his way to openly deride those who have the nerve to oppose him. It’s his version of a hissy fit. It may not be technically unconstitutional for him to do so, but it is embarrassingly and incalculably inappropriate for the President to exercise such contempt for the citizenry of his own country by unabashedly scoffing at them for opposing his policies. It is tremendously unpresidential, immeasurably childish and divisive beyond words.

How dare the President look down his nose at those Americans who took part in yesterday’s Tax Day protests. The ObamaCare bill that just passed – without a single Republican vote – is a veritable smorgasbord of tax increases, is it not? At some point, that bill we be coming due.

“Thank you?”

For what, pray tell?

For alienating and insulting fellow Americans? For implementing a plan that will cost Americans – both living and yet-to-be-born – unheard of amounts of money? For increasing government spending to unsustainable levels? For peddling the largest chunk of political excrement anyone’s ever heard by telling Americans that adding thirty million people to the insurance rolls will not increase costs? For letting the Bush tax cuts expire – which, by definition, is a tax increase? For quadrupling the deficit in a year?

There’s just so much to choose from.

That sound you hear is Barack Obama’s far left base high-fiving each other.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama Bonehead, Taxes, Tea Party | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

YOU CAN’T DO THAT, DEMS

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2010

Too bad for the Dems.

It must truly stink when your efforts to be as underhanded as humanly possible hit a snag. It has to be heartbreaking when, despite your best efforts to bask in grand deceit, there just isn’t enough “bend” available in the process of warping the rules to get your way.

For what it’s worth, things just got a little bit tougher in the Democrat quest to pass the entirely unpopular, thoroughly unwise and profoundly misguided health care reform bill.

What some pro-health care Obamacrats wanted to do was have the House of Representatives pass the original $871 billion Senate bill – complete with all of its bribery and pro-abortion language – and then have that bill sent back to the Senate for further modifications (reconciliation) before it went to the President’s desk for his signature.

But it doesn’t work that way, according to the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office.

If the House approves the original Senate bill as is, that bill must be signed into law by the President before any reconciliation can take place. In other words, the bill that passed the Senate – the one with the abortion funding provisions; the one that included the “Louisiana Purchase”; the one that included the “Kansas Kickback” – must be okayed by the House of Representatives without any changes and sent to Barack Obama for passage before “reconciliation packages” can be crafted to modify it.

In short, it must already be law before anything else can be done to it.

David M. Drucker of Roll Call writes:

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

The problem, of course, is the House does not like the Senate version of the bill. And House Dems will have to trust that once it becomes law, the Senate would be willing to revisit it and work on those elements that dissatisfy Pelosi’s gang.

That’s alot of blind faith.

In other words, it comes down to having to trust Democrats.

I don’t think Democrats can even do that.

But fear not.

This is the Democrat Party we’re talking about. They have not yet begun to cheat.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Democrats, health care | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

WEINER GIBBERISH – A LIBERAL CLASSIC

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2010

Congressman Anthony Weiner

I live in New York, so I am well acquainted with the bellicose sniveling of Congressman Anthony Weiner. If ever there was a quintessential poster child for a New York Democrat, Mr. Weiner is it. To Weiner, the self-sufficient among us are involuntarily obligated to carry the load for everyone else through incentive-raping taxes and government-led smackdowns of free enterprise. Corporations, big businesses, wealthy people and, of course, conservatives are to blame for everything wrong in society and need to be roundly punished for whatever successes they’ve amassed. After all, achievement is largely a matter of luck, inheritance, and successful cheating, right? 

On the floor of the House of Representatives, pulling out his “corporations are evil” card, Weiner called Republicans a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the insurance companies. Granted, it wasn’t a particularly intelligent or original thought – he is a liberal’s liberal, after all –  but because he happens to be quite good at class warfare rhetoric, I thought it was worthy of mentioning.

After some objections, Weiner decided to revise his comments by being less general in his assertions, saying that every Republican he had ever met is wholly owned by the insurance companies.

Gee, that was better.

That Weiner and all Democrats are wholly owned by the teacher and labor unions is probably largely irrelevant.

That Weiner and the Democrats are wholly owned by enviro-fascists, pro-abortionists, the race-baiting left and the New York Times probably means nothing.

And despite the fact that the cost of a college education has gone through the stratosphere in recent years – and no one on the left seems to be  complaining about the out-of-control education industry – the fact that Weiner and the Democrats are wholly owned by big education probably  should be overlooked.

Just ignore the man behind the curtain. 

“Wholly owned by the insurance companies”? 

In what way? 

How exactly? 

What in the world in Weiner talking about? 

I honestly believe that liberals do not know what it is they’re actually saying. They’re like Slinkies. They just reflexively move along – alone or in pairs – until they can’t anymore. 

I know this is a difficult point for leftocrats to comprehend, but I’ll try to write in small letters …. Dems like Weiner can blame the Republicans all they like, but up until a short time ago, it was the Democrat Party that had super majorities on both houses of congress. They should have been able to pass through a peptic ulcer with that kind of power. They blew it – not the GOP.

That the Dems couldn’t get anything passed for President Obama’s salivating pen has nothing – repeat nothing – to do with Republican dissent.

Not a damn thing. 

Other than Republicans are on the right side of the issue, of course.

wordpress statistics 

Posted in health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THIRTEEN AGs SAY “NOT SO FAST” – LET’S TALK CONSTITUTION

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009

One can predict some of the words and phrases Obamacrats will use: obstructionists, partisans, ideologues, Obama-haters, so on.

No soothsayers needed. Pretty standard stuff.

Defenders of the Constitution will be attacked as corporate marionettes, accused of bending over for insurance companies and pharmaceutical interests. Republicans in general will be (and have been) accused of viciously and callously standing in the way of fundamental human decency by endorsing what will undoubtedly lead to the deaths of billions and billions of Americans. The bodies of the uninsured will litter the streets of the United States as heartless right-wing fat cats step around their rotting corpses, laughing the sinister laugh of the victorious, as they visit their own doctors where all the real medicine is kept.

Left-wing blogs will explode with mendacious outrage and rice-pudding indignation. The words “Nazi,” and “corporate shill” and “desperate” (among others) will soak up enormous amounts of bandwidth as pajama-clad basement-dwelling blogosphere leftocrats rat-a-tat away, condemning the patriots who fight to bury Obamacare by standing up for the Constitution.

It’s what so many of us who have questioned the absurd claims of ObamaCare have been waiting for. It’s what so many of us who have questioned the constitutionality of it all have been hoping would come to fruition.

It’s a very good first step.

As many as thirteen state Attorney Generals – all Republicans – have said that the Nebraska sweetheart deal won by Senator Ben Nelson in exchange for his support of this health-care reform monstrosity is unconstitutional and must be removed from the bill.

From the Associated Press, via Fox News:

Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska’s political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

“We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed,” South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision,” they wrote.

There is also a great deal to explore regarding the constitutionality of mandating citizens to purchase a free-market service or good – in this case, health insurance – from a private entity, as presecribed in the bill.

One thing at a time, though.

The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.

Last week, McMaster said he was leading several other attorneys general in an inquiry into the constitutionality of the estimated $100 million deal he has dubbed the “Cornhusker Kickback.”

Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina raised questions about the legislation, which they said was amended to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s support.

“Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation,” the attorneys general wrote.

Here’s the funny part … House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina called the letter was “a political ploy.”

Damn right it is.

“This threat stinks of partisan politics,” he said in a statement. “If Henry McMaster wants to write federal law he should run for Congress not governor.”

If it stinks, I like the smell. I hope it comes out in a candle.

I can’t even begin to tell you how comical it is to hear a Democrat decry “partisan politics.” What on earth could be more partisan than having a holdout Senator or two vote for a bill not on its own merits, but as a result of party-unifying bribery? (Is anybody in there, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu?)

Surely Mr. Clyburn is aware that all Senate Democrats voted for the bill. By definition, isn’t that partisan politics?

Clarity, please.

Clyburn needs to think before he speaks. He snidely remarks that South Carolina Attorney General McMaster should run for Congress if he wants to “write federal law.”

Clever.

Perhaps Clyburn ought to think about actually representing the people – you know,do his job – if he wants to remain in Congress.

At last look, nearly six in ten Americans don’t want this bill passed.

Nice work, Pubs. Don’t let up.

See what happens when they actually set their minds to something?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Democrats, Economy, Harry Reid, health care, Nancy Pelosi, Political Corruption | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

DAVID FRUM – GOOD GOD, MAN, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 28, 2009

Frum = dumb?

On Christmas Day, while most Americans were celebrating the holiday with their loved ones, columnist David Frum – so-called conservative – had an article published at The Week Online that probably would have served him better had it gone unnoticed. It was his attempt to explain why Obamacare is, in fact, constitutional, despite assertions by some Republicans (Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign, specifically) that it is not.

I derive no great pleasure in pointing out how embarrassing Frum is on this issue, or how stupid he makes himself sound. I get no kick out of saying how ill-informed and weak this article is, or how laughable he makes himself out to be in the name of “conservatism.” It doesn’t do my heart any good to highlight his intellectual vapidity.

Frankly, I happen to believe passage of this bill would be unconstitutional, but that is not my over-arching point here. Rather, this is about the carelessness of Frum’s assertions and his egregious misstating of facts. This is about an opinion piece from a so-called “conservative” perspective so badly done, it would almost have to be a parody. It’s about a poorly constructed, terribly presented, ill-conceived joke of an article coming from someone who should have stayed away from his word processor last week.

I’ll focus on two small passages.

Frum writes:

DeMint’s and Ensign’s argument against the constitutionality of the Obama-Reid health reform rests upon the ancient theory of enumerated powers. Under this theory, Congress may do only what the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to do. Since (for example) the Constitution speaks only of a Supreme Court, Congress has no power to create lower federal courts. Since the Constitution does not mention a national bank, Congress may not charter banks.

To begin with, the Constitution does grant Congress the power to create lower federal courts – in the plainest of English (Article III, Section I):

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

This is one of those “gotcha” moments that is so obvious, so conspicuous, so void of any challenge in counter-arguing his allegation, that it isn’t even fun to take the time to point it out.

Not exactly hidden in the eminations and penumbras, is it?

As far as the Constitution not mentioning a national bank, Frum is absolutely right. In fact, Thomas Jefferson took what would today be called the “strict constructionist’s” position in opposing Alexander Hamilton’s initiative of establishing the First Bank of the United States. Hamilton argued that the “Necessary and Proper Clause” of the Constitution authorized the federal government to execute already existing powers enumerated in the Constitution – taxation, in this case – and thus, allowed for the establishment of the bank (later upheld in McCulloch v. Maryland –1819).

But what Constitutional passage authorizes the federal government to compel its citizens to purchase health insurance?

What already enumerated power grants the federal government such authority?

Where in the Constitution can it even be suggested that Congress shall have the power (enumerated or implied) to force citizens to purchase anything?

A fair question, no?

And as far as Frum’s “ancient theory of enumerated powers” remark is concerned, I must ask … is it possible for one person to be as blatantly wrong as he is arrogant? Does the word “stupid” fit?

Did Frum put any thought into his piece at all?

While no one can deny that a “limited powers” argument – at least in terms of the Framers’ interpretation – is a difficult one to make in today’s day and age of endless entitlements and endless bureacracy, how can he contend with a straight face that enumerated powers are an “ancient theory?”

Are there no boundaries then on what Congress may do? Is there no whim or agenda beyond restraint?

If Congress can, essentially, do whatever it damn well pleases, as Frum’s argument seems to suggest – even under the authority of the “Necessary and Proper Clause”  – what would be the point of acknowledging enumerated powers to begin with?

Why recognizee them at all? Why not just make it up as they go along?

Mr. Frum seems to believe that today’s conservative should just roll over and concede that ever-expanding government is a foregone conclusion. It’s just a matter of pushing back a little every now and then to keep things honest. Those antiquated “limited government” principles are quaint and all, but they have no relevance today.

He also writes:

The federal government already requires every American to purchase health insurance. That’s what Medicare does. The difference now is that everyone will be required to buy a private plan to cover them up to age 65 in addition to the government-run plan they are compelled to buy to cover them after 65.

This may be the most embarrassing paragraph of all.

Let’s be clear … Medicare is a tax. American citizens who earn income via wages are required to pay this tax. The money collected from this tax is intended to be returned in the form of government benefits (i.e., Medicare). That’s how it is set up to function. Simple really.

ObamaCare, by contrast, makes it illegal not to purchase a free-market good from a private entity. It literally requires one to buy something or else be punished. The fines from such a punishment would then be collected as a tax. Jail time is a possibility, too.

How in the world is that constitutional?

Congress has never mandated that its citizens purchase anything at any time.

There is no precedent.

Recall that President Franklin Roosevelt tried to initially peddle Social Security as a compulsory insurance plan. It didn’t fly. Eventually, it was sold as a mandatory tax.

But even Alexander Hamilton did not believe that Congress’ charge to “provide for the … general welfare” gave it the power to do as it saw fit. He actually sounded much like Jefferson and Madison on the matter when authoring his Federalist essays. While he believed the First Bank of the United States was a constitutional venture because it was necessary in the federal government’s function to “collect taxes” as enumerated in Article I, Section VIII, he still took a very narrow view of providing for the “general welfare” – far different than today’s big-government, liberty-crushing Obamacrats see it.

In arguing against the Bill of Rights in Federalist 84, for example, Hamilton wrote:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.

This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

These sound like the opinions of a man who would, today, be called a “strict constructionist” – even though he was a Federalist (the opposition party of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans).

To Frum, the thoughts and interpretations of the “ancient ones” – those who who were actually there at the Constitution’s creation – have little relevance today.

Kind of like Frum in the arena of ideas.

 

wordpress statistics

Posted in Constitution, health care, RINO, Taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

AND IF THIS WERE A REPUBLICAN HIT-AND-RUN …

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 24, 2009

When Harry met Nancy

The function of a journalist long ago metastasized from being one that reports what is happening in as objective a manner as possible to one who fancies himself (or herself) a kind of modern day crusader, desirous of righting the wrongs around them, revealing injustices, and saving the planet from second-hand smoke, greenhouse gases, God, and conservatives (quite possibly in that order).

Interesting is how the glossy veneer of the mainstream media’s troubling charade continues to remain uncompromised – amongst themselves. Their facade of impartiality is still foisted onto the American people daily, but because they exist primarily within their own forest, they almost always miss the trees. They distinguish themselves as straight down the middle, detached from affiliation, objective purveyors of whatever they deem to be news, ready to involuntary activate the “neutral” switch when the situation calls for it. (Recall the famous line attributed to theater critic Pauline Kael in 1972 after Richard Nixon’s landslide victory: “How could Nixon have won? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Whether the quote is apocryphal or not is irrelevant, because the sentiment, as it pertains to the relationship between the main stream media and the rest of the country, is spot on). Media bias is not self-evident primarily because the mainstreamers find themselves in a fraternity that is overwhelmingly liberal (i.e., normal).

The concept of mainstream media objectivity is certainly pleasant enough – much like calorie-free milk chocolate or world peace – but not very realistic.

Some can adhere to it.

Most cannot.

Think of how the mainstream media would be covering this wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am health bill that passed the Senate earlier today if Republicans were in charge. Try and imagine the level of outrage and indignation that would be leveled at GOPers had a bunch of sweetheart deals been brokered for Republican pet projects in order to get this unread, unreviewed, two-thousand page legislative atrocity passed. How many times do you think the word “tyranny” would have been tossed about by the punditocracy? How often would the American people be hearing about “the least transparent administration in history” or the “cloak and dagger” way the President is running his ship? Would the media stand for it? Or bend over for it?

Now that reconcilliation is next on the docket, how, pray tell, would the media handle a not too far-fetched scenario being suggested by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, where the tag-team tandem of Pelosi and Reid all but thumb their noses at the process of trying to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference, sidestepping protocol, tradition and accountability? How would the mainstream media report on GOP attempts to breach every code of conduct, foregoing the normal process of coming up with a compromise between the two houses, so that a bill could be rushed through to passage without the opportunity for the American people to know what’s in it?

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes:

Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.

Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn’t require the House to swallow the Senate’s bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. “We have to defer to the bigger picture,” explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children’s health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate’s version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been “cut off at the knees” but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way — without appointing an actual conference.

Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were “ping-ponged” — i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. “We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue,” said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.

But serious dialogue isn’t what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a “ping-pong” game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.

Now that the Democrats have got their Senate bill passed, just in time for turkey and mistletoe, be prepared for a cavalcade of lies about how “the American people want this change,” and “Last November, the American people chose to move in a new direction,” and whatever else they’ll say to stir the stomach acids of a bamboozled American public. Brace yourself for a whole lot of nauseating “blah, blah, blah” and gut-churning “yada, yada, yada.” Expect to hear the word “historic” a few thousand times, and waist-deep-in-the-fertilizer deceptions about how the deficit will actually be lowered thanks to the eventual passage of this disastrous bill into law. Get ready for dancing Democrats to find their way to every camera within spitting distance, sporting that look of sweet victory, claiming that the American people are the real winners. (Barf bag manufacturers might make a killing over the next few days).

It will be as disgusting a display as one could imagine – donkey faces all aglow in the fleeting hours before Christmas as they move that much closer to grabbing 16% of the American economy and crushing our liberties.

Merry Christmas, indeed.

There isn’t a device in all the world capable of measuring how utterly unfathomable and unAmerican Congress’ actions have been up to this point in getting this bill passed.

It is stunning.

Absolutely stunning.

The most transparent administration in history?

Horse crap.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Harry Reid, health care, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SWEETHEART DEALIN’ FRAUDS

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009

Senator Dodd - $100 million for a hospital

There is no question in my mind that many of the sixty Senators who will be voting to pass this monstrosity of a health care reform bill – and thus, voting to strip Americans of their liberty – genuinely do believe that what they’re doing is good for America. I have no doubt that a sizeable percentage of Senate Dems actually believe in their hearts – where all liberal policy-making emanates – that the government takeover of 16% of the American economy is a positive thing. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that anyone with a reasonable mind could actually look at this bill and feel good about its potential to live up to the fairy-tales Dems are peddling, but there are many who genuinely do. 

Some of them get in front of cameras and burble about how critical it is to make insurance more affordable for everyone. Some truly subscribe to the notion that only government is capable of such a thing. Others cackle about the moral imperative in passing it – how it’s the right thing to do. Still others ramble on about this bill’s fiscal soundness and how deficits will actually be lowered over a period of years, blah, blah, blah. 

Senator Nelson - Everyone else pays for Medicaid

Profoundly misguided as this group of Senators is – and as dangerous to this country as they are – these people are not the truly despicable ones. Indeed, there can be no doubt that passage of this who-did-it-and-ran bill would be disgraceful and immeasurably damaging to this nation. But those who really believe this unprecedented expansion of government and liberty-eroding power play will work are not nearly as contemptible as those who allowed their vote to be bought.  

Two questions I used to regularly ask of man-made global warming zealots was: If the world was, in fact, warming, and it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human activity had absolutely no role in it whatsoever, would it still matter to you? And if, indeed, rising temperatures are as much of a threat to the planet’s well-being as you claim, does it matter what’s causing it? 

Indeed, the political game is played by brokering deals, shoveling promises, and bribing the fence-sitters. No can deny that. 

Mary Landrieu from Louisiana scored $300 million for her state. 

Ben Nelson from Nebraska sold out the unborn and made the other forty-nine states foot his state’s Medicaid bills. 

Senator Landrieu - $300 million for Louisiana

Chris Dodd from Connecticut secured $100 million for a hospital. 

But this bill is unique in that it is set to transform forever the American economy and health care delivery system on a scale no one could have imagined even one year ago. It is slated to increase government involvement in our lives in a way that has not been seen or conceived of before. It will, for the first time, mandate that Americans purchase a specific product or else be subject to penalties. It will promise fines and even jail sentences for those who do not comply. It is a bill that has been hotfooted through the Senate – a bill that wasn’t even seen by the public until Saturday of last week – so that some arbitrary Christmas deadline can be met. It is a bill that has garnered less scrutiny and discussion time than some railroad crossing bills have, yet it will seize for the federal government nearly one fifth of the American economy. 

Two questions for all of those who were promised goodies in exchange for their vote: If it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ObamaCare would cripple this nation financially and cause the quality of health care to decline, would you then turn down the goodies promised your state? And if, indeed, America is really suffering from a health care crisis of epic proportion as you claim, why is a sweetheart deal necessary to bring you on board to fix that crisis? 

Democrats, if I may … Is doing the right thing dependant on what you can get in return? 

wordpress statistics 

Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

UNCONSTITUTIONAL? MAYBE, MAYBE …

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 22, 2009

Senator Lindsey Graham

Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, wrote precisely what I was thinking about South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: “For once I can wholeheartedly agree with Graham.”

It does sound funny to say, I admit.

To be fair, Graham was quite good – great, in fact – in questioning Attorney General Eric Holder not too long ago about President Obama’s decision (and make no mistake about it, it was Obama’s decision) to try the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in civilian court.

Obviously, it isn’t unheard of that Graham would say something that makes sense. It just doesn’t happen as often as it should.

For instance, on Sunday, he was definitely on his game when he said that the agreements reached with various Senators leading up to the passage of Harry Reid’s  “manager’s amendment” was the result of “seedy Chicago politics.”

Spot on.

Today, Graham was even better.

Earlier, Graham said that the deal given to the State of Nebraska in exchange for Ben Nelson’s support of ObamaCare (or ReidCare, if you prefer) may be Constitutionally unsound.

Susan Jones, Senior Editor at CSN News writes:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is blasting the deal Democrats made with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) in exchange for Nelson’s vote to advance the health care bill.

In exchange for Nelson’s critical 60th vote to cut off debate early Monday morning, Sen. Harry Reid agreed that the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the tab for the planned Medicaid expansion in Nebraska – forever.

“Legally, I think other states can make a constitutional challenge,” Graham said in an appearance on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning.

Instead of negotiating in public, there was a back-room deal, Graham said. “It goes sort of like this,” Graham said, imitating Democratic leaders:

“What do you need, Ben, for this last vote? Well, I tell you what, Medicaid’s expanding under this bill for everybody in the country…Ben, what would happen if we let Nebraska expand their Medicaid enrollment and the federal government pay for it?’”

“Done!’” Graham said, imitating Ben Nelson.

Graham recited a list of things that are not fair about the Democrats’ health care bill – including the unfairness of giving a special deal to the people of Nebraska to get one senator’s vote “and not share that deal with the rest of the country.”

One can make the argument – and a damn good one – that Ben Nelson’s sweetheart buy-out does not pass the constitutional smell taste. The notion that one state should be singled out for non-emergency preferential treatment under a federal law (unlike disaster relief after a hurricane, for example) at the expense of other states might prompt some sort of constitutional challenge. In effect, the feds would be commanding other states to foot Nebraska’s bill for Medicaid. It might be enough to get some eagle-eyed constitutionalists wondering if such a thing doesn’t violate the tenth amendment. Maybe even the fourteenth.

Earlier today, on his talk radio program, Dennis Prager was speaking with Martin Gross, bestselling New York Times author of such books as “National Suicide: How Washington is Destroying the American Dream” and “The Government Racket: Washington Waste From A to Z”:

Gross: [The federal government is} now telling the states that they have to pay for Nebraska. All the Republicans have to do is have an emergency call of the Supreme Court and point out that it’s a “crisis,” and have the Court, within a week, give a decision. And the Court – unless they’re illiterate in a judicial sense – they’re going to say it’s unconstitutional to get Nebraska off the hook when you have a health care bill.

And the Republicans should do it very rapidly, get a decision, and the bill will be dead, because it is plainly unconstitutional. It violates the federal and state compacts of the Tenth Amendment.

Prager: I will pose this question to Senator Kyle tomorrow.

Gross: Good. Good. Good.

Prager: have you posed this to any Republicans in office?

Gross: This is the first time I’ve mentioned it.

Prager: With all your knowledge, you do not know of a precedent of a federal bill – a congressional bill – that isolated a state?

Gross: Never before in history. They’re giving [Louisiana Senator Mary] Landrieu the $300 billion because of the disaster in New Orleans. That might pass or it might not pass. But the Nebraska thing is a pure anti-Constitutional violation of the Tenth Amendment which specifies federal and state opportunities and obligations. You cannot take from New York and Connecticut and give it to Nebraska – not only for an emergency period – this is forever.

Another point of constitutionality could be in the fact that this bill requires people to purchase health insurance. Earlier today, Nevada Senator John Ensign said, “”I don’t believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

And while there is obviously nothing in the Constitution requiring American citizens to purchase anything, ObamaCare proponents will fall back on the old stand-by of citing the Commerce Clause as its reason for annexing 16% of the American economy.  (You knew that was coming).

What doesn’t the Commerce Clause cover in lib-world? It is the justification for everything leftocrats feel they need to be in control of for the betterment of the nation. It gets more of a workout than Tiger Woods’ wood. (Golf club, I mean).

And for those who like to use the requirement of automobile insurance as a means of validating mandatory health care, the comparison is painfully flawed. First, the main purpose of auto insurance is not – repeat not – to make sure drivers themselves are covered. It’s to make sure that other drivers are covered in the event of an accident. Second, auto insurance is only required if one chooses to drive. Third, auto insurance is not a federal issue. It is a state issue.

Assuming that a health care bill eventually does become law – after what will be, at the very minimum, a whole lot of screamin and yelling between House and Senate Dems – and these constitutional challenges do, indeed, make it to the Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear why it is absolutely necessary to elect the right people to the Presidency (literally and figuratively).

It is the Chief Executive who appoints justices to the Supreme Court.

If, for instance, the moderate John McCain would have won the election last November, and the question of this health care law’s constitutionality came before the Supreme Court with an appointee of his as David Souter’s replacement – a strict constructionist – the bill would almost certainly face the death it deserves … which it may anyway.

There is hardly a Presidential legacy more enduring than whom he appoints to the Supreme Court – except maybe that of government run health care.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Constitution, Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SOLD!

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009

From Fox News:

With a self-imposed Christmas deadline at stake, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid engineered a last-minute compromise that has won the support of the lone Democratic holdout and clinched the required 60 votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system.

Marathon negotiations among the White House, Senate Democratic leaders and Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska, produced fresh concessions that will mean additional abortion restrictions in the legislation.

Democratic leaders also offered Nelson a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid aid Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support, numerous sources told Fox News.

When asked about this, Sen. Kent Conrad, a key Democratic leader involved in the negotiations with Nelson, said, “Oh, it’ll be much more.”

The conservative Nebraska Democrat announced his support in a news conference Saturday, adding that he reserves the right to vote against the final bill if substantial changes are made by House and Senate negotiators.

Is there anything more noble or more responsible than buying a vote with money we don’t have?

Posted in health care | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

REID MAY HAVE HIS SIXTY

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009

As midnight approached last evening, reports started surfacing via the news wires that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared to be very close to securing the 60 votes he needs to get radical health care reform – ObamaCare – passed in the Senate.

That means he may have found a way to win over Ben Nelson, Democrat Senator from Nebraska.

And that ain’t good.

Yesterday Reid spent most of the day meeting with Nelson – the lone Democrat holdout – trying to woo him back into the donkey fold. Apparently, the negotiations were quite successful. Nelson himself said that “real progress” was made.

Dandy.

It sort of gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling inside, doesn’t it? Like a coat hangar ripping out your gut.

Patrick Yoest with Dow Jones Newswires, via the Wall Street Journal posted this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appeared close Friday to securing the needed votes to pass sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, as senators shuttled to his office to work out a last-minute compromise on abortion … Nelson said late Friday after a negotiating session in Reid’s office that “real progress” has been made on a compromise and indicated that the two sides are looking closely at language aimed at bridging the two sides’ differences on abortion.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said that Friday was “a day of long, hard negotiations,” but that senators “made great progress and are pleased with how the discussions have proceeded.”

Democrats sought language on the abortion issue that would satisfy Nelson, who previously sought language similar to that in a House-passed version of health-care legislation that effectively bars insurance plans receiving any federal subsidies from offering coverage for abortion for any of their enrollees.

WKOW-TV in Madison, Wisconsin reports:

Nelson has been seeking stricter abortion language and said new concepts he’s been offered may accomplish the goal of barring federal funding for abortion. He also reported progress on addressing his concerns over the costs to Nebraska of an expansion of Medicaid.

The talks were expected to continue Friday night and Saturday morning.

Dems want to see this monstrosity passed by Christmas Day.

In order for that to happen, a lot of things have to fall into place.

Later today – sometime after 7:30AM (after the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill is voted on) – focus will shift back to health care. There will be three total motions filed by Harry Reid – each one requiring thirty hours of debate time before a vote can be taken. 

He is expected to file what is known as a “manager’s amendment” – a version of the health care bill that is inclusive of all the changes to the original 2000-plus page bill currently in the Senate.

After Reid files the “manager’s amendment,” it will be read aloud – something that could take anywhere from 10 to 11 hours.

From the time the reading of the bill is completed, thirty hours of debate time is required before the first cloture vote on the “manager’s amendment” can take place.

So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, the “manager’s amendment” is filed at 8:00AM this morning. The bill is then read aloud for eleven hours, which takes us to 7:00PM tonight. After that, 30 hours of debate brings us to approximately 2:00AM Monday morning. That’s when the first cloture vote is taken.

Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00AM Tuesday morning – the second cloture vote takes place (the substitute amendment).

Then, thirty hours after that – approximately 2:00PM Wednesday afternoon – the shell bill or underlying bill (inclusive of all changes and amendments) will come up for what will be the third cloture vote.

Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00PM on Christmas Eve – the final vote on the whole deal will take place.

That’s the breakdown.

God help us.

_______________________________________________________

wordpress statistics

Update December 19, 2009 – 9:52 AM

The Senate, as expected, approved the $636 billion Department of Defense Appropriations Bill this morning. That means the road to ObamaCare is officially open – and if there’s any truth to the reports circulating this morning, Ben Nelson has crumbled. Dems have got their sixty.

Unreal.

Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

THE DISASTER OF DEMOCRAT ANALOGIES AND METAPHORS

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 9, 2009

Along with liberal conceptions of how to suitably defend the country, bolster economic growth and safeguard liberty, Democrats often best exhibit their political ineptness when attempting to create effective analogies and metaphors to help sell their ideas. Invariably, when an untenable lefty policy needs defending, or a boost in public support is required, liberals will customarily attempt to affirm their own positions by inappropriately equating opposing positions to the most unfavorable, distasteful or incongruous things.

Senator Barbara Boxer – don’t ever call her ma’am – in commenting on the possible public funding of abortions in the Senate version of the health care bill, brilliantly compared the limiting or denial of abortion coverage for women to inhibiting men from accessing Viagra. Nothing illustrates someone’s depth of thought more astutely than comparing erection pills to the taking of an unborn human life.

From the MercuryNews.com:

“Why are women being singled out here? It’s so unfair,” Boxer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “We don’t tell men that if they want to … buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can’t do it.”

And she came up with that all by herself.

Senator Harry Reid – Senate Majority Leader – in commenting on the health care reform debate, judiciously compared opposition to ObamaCare to those who were against the abolition of slavery. Nothing embodies someone’s sagacity quite like comparing those who question proposed government policies to those who enslaved other human beings.

From Fox News:

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.'”

It’s hard to believe his approval ratings are in the thirty percent range.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – swastika connoisseur – in commenting on the growing fervent opposition across the country to a government-run health care plan, skillfully compared the murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978 to this summer’s conservative tea parties and town hall meetings. Nothing epitomizes a person’s ability to clarify a position like comparing the murder of two innocents to concerned citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

From United Liberty:

Pelosi, responding to a question about anti-Obama sentiment, said that partisans on all sides of an issue have the right to voice their opinion. But after pausing, she added: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place.”

The tears on her face, by all accounts, were real … and without a trace of salt.

Congressman Charles Rangel – tax cheat – in commenting on the War on Terror, guilefully compared the War in Iraq to the Holocaust. Nothing demonstrates keen insight like comparing America’s brave fighting men – the very soldiers who liberated the Iraqi people from the murderous reign of Saddam Hussein – to the regime that rounded up and murdered six million Jews.

From NewsMax:

“It’s the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country,” Rangel told WWRL Radio’s Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. “This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn’t their ox that was being gored.”

And yet, to this day, conservatives still give this man a hard time. Go figure.

State Senator Barack Obama – still a few years away from becoming the Democrat candidate for President – in commenting on World War II-era race relations in America, articulately compared the United States of America to Nazi Germany. Nothing typifies a mastery of the nuances of American civilization like comparing the United States of the 1940s and 1950s to the murderous, totalitarian Third Reich.

From Moonbattery:

Barack Obama has further established his credentials as a truly unhinged moonbat radical by comparing America to Nazi Germany. LGF quotes from The One’s ruminations on the Supreme Court, which he has chastised for not being sufficiently radical on the subject of “spreading the wealth around”:

“… just to take a, sort of a realist perspective … there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

A triumph of thought! And he couldn’t even balance himself on the surface of the water yet.

These aren’t simple policy disgareements. These aren’t cohesive arguments directed toward the opposition defending a viewpoint. These are, first and foremost, vicious attacks equating opposing opinions with those of genocidal tyrants and slave masters. These are deliberate attempts to marry honest dissent with evil so that conventional wisdom can be reshaped and redefined. These are calculated comments by well rehearsed flame throwers intent on smearing the other side in the worst possible way. After all, once a high profile Democrat tosses a “Nazi Germany” or an “Adolf Hitler” into the arena, it immediately begins inoculating itself into the mainstream of conventional wisdom.

That’s because the news media and entertainment complexes are already in bed with liberalism. No viagra needed.

And speaking of Baraba Boxer’s insipidity, she attempts to do the opposite of the others – that is, equate something that she doesn’t see as detestable (killing an unborn child because of its inconvenience) with something completely and thoroughly unrelated (overcoming male dysfunction). The evil, in this case, is in the opposition not accepting that both of these things fall under the same awning of basic health care. Thus, if guys can have access to impotence medicine, women should certainly be able to coat-hanger the unborn.

Remember, to a liberal, conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re bad – with ulterior motives. Conservative impulses are sinister.

Liberal impulses, by contrast, are born from warm, fuzzy-bunny hugs and swaying daisies.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Harry Reid, leftism, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

QUICK THOUGHTS ABOUT LAST NIGHT’S SENATE VOTE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 22, 2009

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - the $300 million baby

A little perspective, please.

Don’t let the left’s seizure of the word “historic” after last night’s vote in the Senate convince you that it was anything more than routine. Last night’s 60-39 vote was not historic. It did not make government-run health care a reality. It was nothing more than a procedural vote allowing the matter of health care reform to be formally discussed on the floor of the Senate after Thanksgiving. I’m not even sure that there were many who actually believed that it wouldn’t muster sixty votes.  ($300 million can buy alot).

Face it, last night’s vote really wasn’t one that Republicans could win anyway. Did anyone really think that any Democrat was going to deny anyone in their own party the opportunity to talk about this on the Senate floor?

It simply wasn’t as critically earth-shattering as many have made it out to be.

Certainly, I didn’t like it one bit. Indeed, it would have been a pleasant surprise had the winning side fallen short of sixty, but I didn’t expect it to.

One thing is certain: The ultimate passage of this bill would be a disaster for the United States of America. It must be stopped. There is still time. But last night’s vote, to be quite honest, was being built up far more than it needed to be.

The process has only just begun.

More disturbing, however, was some of the commentary from Democrats.

Just before the vote, Senator Chris Dodd spoke of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, saying it would pay Kennedy the highest compliment of all if they were able to fulfill “that quest of achieving the goal that all Americans aspire for, and that is a national health care plan that serves every one of our citizens.”

“Every one of our citizens?”

Really?

Hmmm … Call me unnuanced, but that smells an awful lot like government-run health care, doesn’t it?

And of course, Harry Reid himself said, ”Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation – indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever faced – whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.”

He’d be almost adorable if he wasn’t so frightfully irritaing.

The Senate Majority Leader obviously believes that the federal government can legislate immortality. Death can be prevented? And all it takes is a merely “decent” health care bill? That’s quite incredible. What if it were a “fantastic” health care bill? Or a “sensational” health care bill? Would they also have the power to bring back the dead and make them well again?

Or maybe Reid meant to say that the fear of illness and death can be prevented.

Really?

So, if the Senate passes this bill, and it is eventually signed into law, no one will be afraid anymore? No one will fear death? That which has plagued humanity since its inception – the fear of death – will be erradicated by passing a “decent” health care bill?

Stunning.

Why didn’t we elect a Messiah sooner?

And by the way … nice job, Senator Landrieu. $300 million is a nice chunk of change.

You go girl.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BILL SAYS “WE ARE WINNING” – ALSO, EASTER BUNNY FOUND ALIVE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 11, 2009

Bill Clinton

The Secretary of State's husband

Last Saturday, President Barack Obama not only referred to me (and millions of others like me) as one of the “teabag people,” but also as an “anti-government extremist.” (Admittedly, there was strange kind of honor in that). He did so behind closed doors after he made his much publicized visit to Capitol Hill to encourage House Dems to vote for the two-thousand page Pelosi-ObamaCare debacle that eventually wound up passing by five votes later that evening.

After a slew of “hip-hip-hoorays,” a little back-patting, and some congratulatory spit-swapping, focus soon turned to the next hurdle in America’s transformation – the Senate.

And who better, only three days after the “historic” House vote, to talk up the positives of a government-run health care system to a room full of bright-eyed, bushy-tailed Senators than the husband of the Secretary of State himself, Mr. Hillary Clinton?

And so it was that yesterday, Bill and the gang did lunch.

To Clinton, however, people like me (and millions of others like me) weren’t just “teabag people,” as Bammy called us. We were actual “tea baggers” – a term with a diversity of colorful and quaint meanings.

Making it all the more interesting was the assertion that the “tea baggers” – according to the first black President – were all “inflamed.”

(Ouch).

And why?

I’ll get to that in a moment.

Carol E. Lee and Carrie Budoff Brown of the Politico write:

With the issue he has positioned to be his crowning achievement as president at a crossroads, Barack Obama once again called on his former rival to help him follow through.

Former President Bill Clinton told a room full of Democratic senators Tuesday that passing health care reform — which he failed to do 15 years ago — is not only a moral issue but also “an economic imperative.”

Clinton argued that even “the most cold-hearted person” ought to support health care reform simply from an economic standpoint. He reminded Democrats of the political momentum their failure to pass reform in 1993 delivered the House of Representatives to the Republicans the following year.

“The point I want to make is: Just pass the bill, even if it’s not exactly what you want,” Clinton told Democrats. “When you try and fail, the other guys write history.”

Actually, Bill, when Democrats fail, America wins … but that’s a separate issue.

And so the question of the hour is: Why are the tea baggers inflamed?

The answer: Because Democrats are winning.

That’s right, in case you weren’t paying attention to reality – or someone slipped a rather strong hallucinogen into your Ovaltine – the Democrats are winning, according to Number 42 … and I, as a tea bagger, am inflamed because of it.

(I had a line about selling some ocean front property in Wyoming, but it’s slipped my mind).

Not only are Democrats winning now, they have been winning since the health care debate began.

Think back to the spring and summer for a moment.

Whether it was the overwhelming turnout of limited-government, budget-conscious Americans at tea parties all across the country, or the exuberance of spirited protestors who showed up at town-hall meetings to voice their oppostion to ObamaCare, the real reason they did so, according to Mr. Bill, was because the Democrats were (and still are) winning.

(And because they were inflamed).

Honestly, it must be something hard wired in liberal DNA that makes them think this way.

It’s appears to be a universal affliction, although I refrain from jumping to any conclusions.

Still, the evidence is hard to resist.

For instance, in the recesses of the liberal brain, although temperatures have been dropping across the globe for several years now – and NOAA lists last month as the third coldest October on record – global warming still threatens the planet.

To a leftist, although every bit of evidence available points to the Fort Hood killer being a radical Islamist carrying out jihad, it is unclear whether or not religion was a factor in the mass murder.

It is therefore no surprise (or it shouldn’t be) that although the President’s poll numbers continue to plummet, and support for the Obama agenda continues to flounder, and with Democrats getting bounced in last week’s elections (hello New Jersey), and with a huge majority in the House that still saw the health care bill pass by only five lousy votes, Democrats are clearly winning.

Okay, Bill.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Democrats, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »