Steve and I wish all our readers a Happy Thanksgiving and appreciate everyone for visiting here often. I thought I’d post the first Thanksgiving Proclamation ever made by George Washington requested by Congress. The first officially declared Thanksgiving established 1779, exactly 230 years ago today. Giving thanks to Almighty God for all the blessings bestowed on them. We continue this thank you still today for continued blessings on our country.
General Thanksgiving
By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America
A PROCLAMATION
//
WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me “to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:”
NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;– for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;– for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;– and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.
//
And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;– to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.
GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.
(signed) G. Washington
Source: The Massachusetts Centinel, Wednesday, October 14, 1789
I just read this on Worldnet Daily and can’t believe my eyes. What is wrong with Lou? Politics already? If this is it then he might have just lost a lot of conservative votes while courting the hispanic vote. I am very disappointed in Lou Dobbs. He might as well stayed on CNN if he’s going to do this.
What the … ? Lou Dobbs wants to legalize illegals
Ex-CNN anchor suddenly champions amnesty, ripped as ‘pathetic sellout’
Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, the illegal immigration opponent with possible presidential aspirations, is stunning many today as he recasts himself as a champion of Hispanic immigrants, now looking to legalize millions of illegal workers in the United States.
Despite his long-held opposition to “amnesty,” Dobbs now actually supports a plan to legalize undocumented workers.”
Whatever you have thought of me in the past, I can tell you right now that I am one of your greatest friends and I mean for us to work together,” he told Maria Celeste of the Spanish-language network Telemundo. (Click here for video of full interview). “I hope that will begin with Maria and me and Telemundo and other media organizations and others in this national debate that we should turn into a solution rather than a continuing debate and factional contest.”
“Many Hispanics consider you to be the No. 1 enemy of Latinos,” Celeste told Dobbs. “Do you think that the community is somehow misjudging you?”
“Oh, not somehow. Definitively, absolutely,” Dobbs responded. “By the way, I don’t believe for a moment that the Latino, Hispanic community in the United States believes that of me at all. It has been the efforts of the far left to characterize me in their propaganda as such.”
Twice during the interview, Dobbs mentioned plans to legalize millions of illegal aliens in America, saying “we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants under certain conditions.”
“What isn’t working is a penalty to those who are in this country illegally for whom we can both be building a bridge to the future in which there is legalization and at the same time constructing an environment in which everyone is clear and unequivocal about the need for border security and a regulated flow of immigration,” Dobbs told Telemundo.
Dobbs’ spokesman Bob Dilenschneider told the Wall Street Journal the former broadcaster draws a distinction between illegal aliens who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are “living upright, positive and constructive lives” who should be “integrated” into society. He said Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Hispanics and is “smoothing the water and clearing the air.”
Reaction from the public is already strong, including online comments such as: *
“Obviously, the old boy is losing his wits. Never trust a politician, which is what Dobbs now is.” *
“Well at least his disingenuousness is in keeping with a politician. On CNN: ‘I hate you dirty foreigners!’ Preparing to run for office: ‘I love you foreigners! And you’re not that dirty!’” *
“Just another pathetic sellout. Lou, don’t bother.” *
“The only thing Dobbs had going for him was his anti-illegal stance. He just blew it. Otherwise he’s just another pundit. He’s suddenly Bill O’Reilly.”
Dobbs, 64, of Wantage, N.J., has admitted an interest in politics, and the New York Times reports a run for the U.S. Senate is possible in 2012 before testing presidential waters.
Oops ! I don’t remember hearing anything about this on mainstream media. Obama lawyers going to defend Iran? I thought this was a president for change?
Obama Administration Willing to Dishonor Dead U.S. Marines To Not Offend Iran
Obama Administration is willing to turn his back on families of the dead U.S. Marines so as not to offend Iranian Terrorist-in-Chief.
The Obama administration is going to court to try to block payments from Iranian assets that lawyers for the dead Marines’ families want seized as restitution for the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Obama is contending that “it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent.”
Adding insult to infamy, 26 years after the attack on Marine barracks in Beirut, families are stymied again in their bid for restitution, this time by Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
On Veterans Day, Christine Devlin stood in the cold in Westwood for the unveiling of a new memorial to local soldiers lost overseas, including her son Michael, one of the 241 servicemen killed in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.
Devlin is among 30 Massachusetts relatives of victims of the Beirut attack who have been fighting for more than a decade to get compensation for what many consider the first major terrorist attack against the United States. After a federal judge ruled in 2007 that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution, they believed they were on the cusp of victory.
In a little-noticed filing in federal court, the Justice Department is arguing that giving the money to the victims “can have significant, detrimental impact on our foreign relations, as well as the reciprocal treatment of the United States and its extensive overseas property holdings.”
The Obama administration’s position is a blow to those like Devlin, who still waits for some measure of justice for her son. Michael was 21 when Hezbollah terrorists rammed a suicide truck bomb into the peacekeepers’ headquarters.
“It is offensive that our government – the government that [the Marines] were fighting for, who sent them there – are against us collecting from Iran,” Devlin said in an interview this week. “I felt justice was going to be served, but so far it hasn’t.”
The lawsuit, specialists say, also demonstrates the enormous difficulty for terrorism victims in general to collect damages. Despite a host of court rulings in its favor and legislation passed by Congress to make it possible to sue foreign governments that sponsor terrorism, the executive branch has long resisted such payments, arguing that seizing the assets of another country could restrict the president’s ability to conduct diplomacy. There are also significant legal disagreements over what kind of assets can be seized.
Two branches are supporting [the families'] position and the executive branch is directly trying to undermine them. Even the courts have grown frustrated. Royce C. Lamberth, chief judge of the US District Court in Washington who ruled in favor of the Beirut families, wrote in a Sept. 30 opinion that “these case have consumed substantial judicial resources while achieving few tangible results for the victims.”
Well guess they’ll have to call in Al Gore for help here as well.
Climategate: Oops We Got Caught
One of the most striking revelations to immediately emerge from the “climategate” scandal has been references to efforts by scientists espousing the human-caused warming theory to exclude contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications.
Among the thousands of emails and documents hacked or leaked from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last week are several references to an agenda to shut down scientific debate on global warming by stifling counter-evidence from other scientists.
Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.
The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.
This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.
“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.
In another of the emails, Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), says that the journal in question, Climate Research, “encourages the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’”.
Other emails show that some of the scientists declined to make their data available to independent scientists whose views they disagreed with, clear evidence that they were simply unwilling to engage in scientific debate – a core ethic of the scientific community.
“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains.
“So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me. About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”
“On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”
We have long covered the fact that the so called “scientific consensus” on global warming is wholly manufactured and that there are thousands of scientists who have differing viewpoints to the human-induced warming theorists.
We now have clear evidence that a concerted effort has been made by the IPCC connected climate scientists to block dissenting opinion on climate change, regardless of it’s scientific merit.
“This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is directly threatened with physical violence in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”
John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, “It’s disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.”
Individual Mandate Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/$8 bil): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the following schedule
(capped at 8 percent of income)
Single Single +1 Single+2<
2014 $95 $190 $285
2015 $350 $700 $1050
2016 etc. $750 $1500 $2250
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).
Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.
If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil):
Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil): Increases additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS.
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/$22.2 bil): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.
Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.
Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil)
Raise “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil)
Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$53.8 bil): Current law and changes:
Many of us already knew this was what the G-20 and other groups were working on, while others called us conspiracy theorists. Now they just come out in the open and tell you, “we now have global government” (1m:56sec into video) and most hardly noticed the change. Just as they denied the Council on Foreign Relations existing and now you see them on TV all the time as a “think tank”.
New EU President Rompuy announces 2009 as “first year of global governance” Sees Copenhagen as additional step towards global management
By Daniel Taylor
The new EU President, Herman Van Rompuy, has proclaimed 2009 as the “first year of global governance.” During Rompuy’s intervention as President on November 19th, he stated,
“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”
Rompuy attended a Bilderberg dinner at Hertoginnendal, Brussels on November 15th, during which he announced a plan to implement EU wide taxes that will be paid directly to Brussels. Recently Mario Borghezio (Italy), member of the European Parliament,spoke openly against the influence of globalist organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. “Is it possible that no one has noticed that all 3 (EU Presidential candidates) frequently attend Bilderberg or Trilateral meetings?,” asked Borghezio. Rompuy will undoubtedly serve globalist interests during his reign of the European Union.
Let’s keep those pink slips coming and hope for once they can get the message loud and clear. WE DON’T LIKE WHAT YOUR DOING & IF YOU CONTINUE IT WE WILL REPLACE YOU IN 2010 !
Boxed and ready to go
Pink Slip Tidal Wave Hitting Washington D.C.
The surge of pink slips being sent to Congress to warn members against more spending, taxing and government continued today, with the total number surpassing 6 million – of which 1 million have been dispatched in just the last 48 hours or so.
“It’s an amazing feat, to get that many slips to Congress,” Rep. Steven King, R-Iowa, told WND. “If you look through them, you can index each one back to an individual. That’s powerful. There is a person behind each one of the slips.”
“This is putting everyone on notice,” he said. “And I think this is what the American people have been doing for months now, saying if you keep spending and borrowing, you’re going to get fired.”
“Our goal from the beginning was to generate 5 6 million of these notices,” said Farah. “But it now appears we might just be getting started.”
Bachmann cheered the program on, saying she agrees with the campaign and that it is having a major impact on her colleagues. She said she was surprised that so many pink slips were generated even though most Americans had never heard of the program.
She said it’s clear the message – delivered through a stack of “pink slips” now standing more than five feet high in congressional offices – is getting through.
The “pink slips” remind members of Congress they actually work for the taxpayers and list four governmental plans that are unacceptable:
government health care
cap and trade
“hate crimes”
any more uncontrolled spending
“If you vote for any of these, your real pink slip will be issued in the next election,” it warns.
Conservative pastors rallied outside the Justice Department on Monday to test the limits of the newly expanded hate crimes law.
Calling the new law – which broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation and gender identity – a clear threat to religious liberty, the group sought to defend their freedom to proclaim biblical truths.
“You may choose to disbelieve or disagree with us but you have no right to seek to silence us,” said Dr. Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America Action, as pro-gay clergy and some from the gay and lesbian community gathered with signs reading “My love is legit.”
“If this law is used to silence me or any of these preachers for speaking the truth, then we will be forced to conscientiously defy it,” Scarborough declared. “That is my calling as a Christian and my right as an American citizen.”
After a decade-long dispute, the hate crimes legislation was tacked on to a must-pass defense appropriations bill this year and passed by the House and Senate. President Barack Obama signed the bill last month.
Clergy, religious broadcasters and conservative groups fear the legislation will subject them to prosecution for preaching what they believe the Bible says – that homosexual behavior is sin. While some believe they are exaggerating the effects of the expanded hate crimes law, the group on Monday was convinced they could be targeted for their speech and beliefs.
Janet Porter, president of Faith2Action and author of The Criminalization of Christianity, cited Title 18 of the United States Code regarding accessories to crime. It states: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”
“That’s how they go after speech,” Porter explained at the rally.
The group also pointed to cases in Canada and the United Kingdom where Christians have already been feeling the negative effects of similar hate-crimes legislations.
Paul Diamond, a barrister from Great Britain, said people are scared to exercise their rights as a number of preachers, including Aake Green from Sweden, and other individuals have been threatened with imprisonment for preaching against homosexuality or for speaking out against its promotion.
“Our freedoms are very much inhibited in the last few years as Judeo-Christian values are driven from the public square,” he said. “We’ve been there. … We have lessons to tell you. And this is a road you don’t want to go down.”
Amid the arguments, a couple of ministers preached short sermons in hopes of sharing the Gospel with the homosexual community.
“God loves the homosexual,” the Rev. Grace Harley of Jesus Is the Answer Ministries in Silver Spring, Md., declared.
As someone who previously lived as a transgender (as a man) for 18 years, Harley testified that God set her free and can set others free from all kinds of sexual immorality, not just homosexuality. Jesus died on the cross so that you may be saved, she preached.
Offering a personalized version of the biblical passage Luke 13:13, she said, “Immediately she was made straight and glorified God.”
“I don’t just walk as a woman,” she noted, “but now I know the truth.”
How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?
Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?
The FCC, in proposing to change the definition of an “open Internet” from competition-driven to government-driven is setting a very dangerous precedent; that it is acceptable for countries topreemptively regulate the Internet for whatmight happen in the future, even if they lack the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority to do so, or even if there is thinnest of justification or evidence to support it.
How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?
The grave mistake the FCC is making in the broader international context is claiming that private companies are the primary threat to Internet freedom and free speech, and not governments. History and common sense tell us only Governments have the effective coercive power to dictate real censorship.
The FCC is effectively declaring “open season” on well-established Internet freedoms.
It is perversely providing legitimacy, justification and political cover for undemocratic countries like China and Iran to hunt down dissidents online and censor free speech while using the Orwellian doublespeak of regulating to “preserve an open Internet.” Undemocratic regimes are always looking for “openings” and excuses to further crack down on their people’s freedom of speech and assembly. Surely, the FCC must appreciate that internationally, actions speak louder than words.
The FCC’s proposed “Open Internet” regulations are illegitimate.First, they offend constitutional due process in that they assume companies are guilty of anticompetitive behavior until proven innocent; the FCC would regulate roughly 2,000 companies, for what one has admitted it did, and for what the FCC alleges another has done. Second, they offend constitutional equal protection in that they treat similar companies very unequally.Third, they offend constitutional protection against Government takings because they ban competitive companies from pursuing business models that are legal today.Fourth, they offend constitutional free speech because the FCC apparently does not agree with the Supreme Court that companies have constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.
The FCC’s proposed rules also overstep the FCC’s legal authority. Without congressional authorizationof net neutrality legislation, the FCC is granting itself near limitless jurisdiction over the Internet. Moreover, the FCC’s proposed rules are arbitrary and capricious. They would arbitrarily reverse FCC precedent and factual determinations; arbitrarily move the competitive goalposts mid-game; and regulate competitive companies’ business practices more strictly than any monopoly in the last 75 years.
Further undermining America’s credibility to lead on the Internet policy going forward is that the proposed Internet regulations are not justified.They are a solution in search of a problem.The near perfect voluntary industry compliance over the last several years simply does not warrant a permanent ban on legal business behavior. To top all this off, the FCC has offered no evidence of market failure to justify regulating this competitive marketplace.
In sum, America risks both Internet freedoms and its Internet policy leadershipwhen it proposes such a radical policy change without the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority or the justification of facts. International Credibility 101 says: if you want others to follow your lead, be worthy of following.
Boy, if this doesn’t get your blood boiling! When you read this article, you’ll see these liberals will go to no end and try all kinds of hidden deceptions to pass their unconstitutional health care bill. A cloture vote Saturday Nov.21, by Senators on whether even to start debating the bill. With Republicans seemingly united against the bill, Reid will need all 60 Democrats to vote against the filibuster.
What Reid wants is for the Senate to vote to proceed on a bill that has not been seen, not read, not studied by the very Senators from whom he wants to force a vote.If this bill is so important, why isn’t it imperative that our Senators actually get to see the thing they are expected to vote on?
And that isn’t the worst of the unconscionable dirty tricks that Reid is playing with this “important” legislation.He’s also planning on a bait and switch tactic once he gets his vote to proceed.
News is that Reid wants to use a Senate procedure where a bill can be swapped out with another on the floor. He wants to bring an unassociated bill to the floor and once it gets there he wants to swap that bill out with the health care bill. In other words, he wants to bring a fake bill to the floor and pull a bait-and-switch act to suddenly plop before the Senate the heretofore unseen health care bill. Then he wants to force a quick vote before Christmas.
Under pressure from the White House, Majority Leader Harry Reid says he plans to bring a health care reform package to the floor of the Senate next week, and his goal is to see it passed by the end of the year.
But he faces an uphill climb in getting the required 60 votes necessary to start debate.
Pelosicare? Reidcare?–The Shell Game Continues
CORRECTION: Amid conflicting reports and information on the timing of the health care bill, HUMAN EVENTS just received clarification on possibilities under the rules for the Senate schedule next week.
This week, Reid began a Rule 14 process on the House health care bill. What that means is the bill is available on the legislative calendar by Tuesday, November 17. It does not mean the Senate will actually proceed to health care.
Because a tax bill cannot originate in the Senate(the Constitution says tax bills must originate in Congress) , Reid needed a shell to use to proceed to his health care bill. He is using the House-passed version as a shell to move on the Senate’s health care bill. Rule 14 was the easiest way to place the House bill on the calendar — the shell that will ultimately be fully substituted by the Harrycare bill. In order to immediately begin consideration of the health care bill, Reid must have a unanimous consent agreement, which is unlikely.
Without unanimous consent, Reid is forced to file for cloture on Tuesday. The vote on the Motion to Proceed to the health care bill could not occur until Thursday morning at the earliest.
There are also 30 hours of post-cloture debate that, if used, would delay any adoption of a Motion to Proceed until Friday afternoon which would then be the earliest Reid could offer the actual Senate bill as a substitute amendment. This would be the Friday before the week-long Thanksgiving recess.
Apparentlyoblivious to the unpopularity of the government takeover of America’s health care system, Democrat leaders in the House and Senate continue to lay the structural groundwork for the final passage of a health care bill this year.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) revised the House calendar yesterday to include Monday, December 21 and Tuesday, December 22 as possible days the House will be in session and voting.The previously-targeted date for Christmas adjournment was Friday, December 18.
The House will be in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday the week of November 23.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday night filed a Motion to Proceed to bring the House health care bill to the floor for debate by no later than Tuesday, November 16. Reid needs 60 votes for the motion to pass and floor debate to begin.
But Senate sources tell HUMAN EVENTS that he’s doing this only to comply with the constitutional rule that revenue bills must originate in the House. Reid intends to substitute his own bill (whatever that may be) when the measure comes up in the Senate next week.
Pro-life senators could oppose the motion if the Stupak-Pitts pro-life language is not included in the bill before it comes up for this critical vote. Once the bill is brought to the floor for debate, it will take 60 votes to make any additions to the bill. It is unlikely a pro-life amendment could reach that threshold.
Republican Senators should oppose the motion en masse. Republicans have been excluded from the entire bill-writing process, and his bill is certain to be as bad (or in some ways even worse) than the bill Speaker Pelosi slammed through the House late Saturday night. Reid has not yet released a Senate bill with legislative language for Republican or general public review. The measure is being written behind closed doors by the White House and Democrat leadership. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost analysis of the Senate bill has not yet been completed but may be available by week’s end.
There is no reason for Republicans to desire to get a bill to the floor.
If any one of the 58 Democrats or the two independents opposes the motion on Tuesday, combined with a united Republican caucus, the motion fails and Harrycare stalls in the Senate.
The Gallup poll released just yesterday shows independent registered voters now favor any Republican candidate over a Democrat on the generic ballot by a stunning 52 to 30 percent. Yes, that’s the independents. The American people appear to be more worried about the current Democrat solutions to our problems than the actual problems themselves.
Americans resent being ignored by arrogant politicians who think they know better how to run our lives than we do. And mocking efforts to make our voices heard really isn’t a very good way to win votes and influence people.
The attitude on display by Democrat leaders in Congress and the White House these days is exactly what led to the Republican takeover in 1994.
The current Senate health care measure teed up for the Motion to Proceed vote next Tuesday is not a bill designated as a budget reconciliation measure. Should this motion fail, the scenario offered by the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Darling remains a valid means by which the Senate could facilitate passage of a bill through reconciliation this year. With no changes, it would go straight from the House to Obama’s desk for signature by the end of the year.
There is another scenario to ponder this year in lieu of the House or Senate reporting bills out of committee with the budget reconciliation designation early next year.
H.R. 3962, the health care bill already passed by the House last week, was not designated as a budget reconciliation bill. However, all three House committees of jurisdiction took measures to certify that H.R.3200, the bill’s predecessor, met all of the budget reconciliation requirements.
But we’re told H.R. 3200 was not reported out of the Budget Committee to the Rules Committee as a reconciliation measure before it was brought to the floor and passed.
Should the Senate pass a health care bill with whatever it takes to get the votes, the House and Senate bills go to conference to combine the two measures that emerge as a Conference Report which is actually the final compromise bill. The Conference Report must then pass both the House and the Senate.
A concern raised yesterday was using budget reconciliation as a means to pass the Conference Report through the Senate. Can the Conference Report emerge as a reconciliation measure?
House Rules currently say no, yet we should all be reminded that House rules are what the majority says they are.
The success of any budget reconciliation attempt in the Senate rests on rulings by the parliamentarian. We all watched as the White House summoned the “non-partisan” CBO Director Doug Elmendorf for some Chicago-style political repartee. We’ve also seen the integrity of the subsequent House CBO scores collapsing under scrutiny.
How far are Democrats willing to go to get their ultimate statist power grab across a finish line that’s oh, so close? All the way.
Steve Hilton
babybttrfly
Mike