Still Liking That “Change” ?

Comments Off on Still Liking That “Change” ?

Found these on a website called Moonbattery called Billboards in America



Nancy Pelosi: ‘Once we kick through this door> more reform will follow

Comments Off on Nancy Pelosi: ‘Once we kick through this door> more reform will follow

Yeah, that’s what we’re afraid of…………..more socialism!

Nancy Pelosi: ‘Once we kick through this door> more reform will follow

If you have any doubt that the Democratic leadership of the House views passing the current health care reform bill as the beginning, not the end, of the process of creating a national government health care system, just note what Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a group of bloggers on Monday.

“My biggest fight has been between those who wanted to do something incremental and those who wanted to do something comprehensive,”Pelosi said, according to an account by Washington Post reform advocate Ezra Klein. “We won that fight, and once we kick through this door, there’ll be more legislation to follow.”

But since the current bill is unpopular, and Pelosi at the moment does not have enough Democratic, much less Republican, votes to pass it, the door she will be kicking through is the back door. Pelosi told the bloggers she favors using the “self-executing rule” strategy (called the slaughter solution) in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill without going on the record as specifically voting for it. “I like it,” Pelosi said of the scheme, “because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” The strategy of passing the Senate bill while avoiding a direct vote, writes Klein, “is all about plausible deniability for House members who don’t want to vote for the Senate bill.” (Not to mention unconstitutional according to Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution)

In a particularly Alice-in-Wonderland moment, Pelosi argued that the debate over health care reform can begin after the bill is passed.“Pelosi said passing the bill would allow Dems to undertake a ‘debate’ with Republicans over ‘what is the balanced role that government should have,” writes another pro-reform blogger at the Post, Greg Sargent. According to Sargent, Pelosi explained, “We have to take it to the American people, to say, this is the choice that you have. This is the vision that they have for your health and well being, and this is the vision that we have.” Again, in Pelosi’s scenario, that debate would occur after the bill is passed. (Say What? Nancy Pelosi has completely lost it and is completely out of touch of what she is supposed to be doing in DC for us the citizens and she’s not listening to us……but we’ll remind her come November 2010_

Finally, Pelosi downplayed statements from her own team that she does not yet have the votes to pass the national health care measure. (Of course she doesn’t or they would have already voted on it. Now they’re saying it might be after Easter before they take a vote, which means they don’t have the votes to pass it. The longer this goes the better the chances it won’t pass at all. We need to call and email our representatives now and thru the Easter recess and tell them we don’t want your socialized medicine….drop it and get us some jobs and worry about the economy!) On “Meet the Press” Sunday, Democratic Whip Rep. James Clyburn said, “No, we don’t have them as of this morning.” Meeting with the bloggers, Pelosi said, “The reason [Clyburn] said that is we don’t have a bill yet.” In the end, the Speaker declared, “I have no intention of not passing this bill.”


Kill the Bill Rally in St. Paul, MN – March 13, 2010

Comments Off on Kill the Bill Rally in St. Paul, MN – March 13, 2010

Michele Bachmann – Kill the Bill Rally in St. Paul, MN


GOP Rules Chief Resigned to Letting Dems Make Obamacare the Law Without Actually Voting on It

1 Comment

What the heck is wrong with David Dreier (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee? Has he been threatened as well? Guess this is the first Republican to lose his job in November along with several Democrats.

GOP Rules Chief Resigned to Letting Dems Make Obamacare the Law Without Actually Voting on It

Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, indicated yesterday that he was resigned to letting congressional Democrats make the Senate health-care bill the law of the land without ever holding a vote on it in the House of Representatives by passing a rule governing debate on another bill, the budget reconciliation, that “deems” the health care bill as passed.

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, however, expressly states that for any bill to beome law “the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by the yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.” After that, under the Constitution, the president must either sign the bill or hold it for ten days (not counting Sundays), after which it will become law unless Congress adjourns in the interim.

Constitutional scholars have said that what the Democrats may try to do by making the Senate health care bill law without ever voting on it in the House is unconstitutional and could spark a constitutional crisis far worse than Watergate.

Dreier, who is the top House Republican responsible for making sure that Congress follows legitimate rules of procedure, told reporters yesterday that he is not a constitutional expert and that he had not spoken personally to any constitutional experts about the issue. He did say he had indirectly gotten “input” from such experts.

“If this passes and is signed into law, I think it becomes law,” Dreier said. “I’m not a constitutional lawyer and that’s the response from some of the experts with whom I’ve spoken – I didn’t speak to but have gotten some input from. I’m not in a position to raise the (constitutionality) question right now.”

Dreier said there is nothing the majority party (Democrats) cannot do so long as the Rules Committee, where Democrats hold a 9-4 majority,
authorizes it. This would include passing health reform without actually voting on it.

“There’s nothing that can prevent it,” Dreier said. “It’s something, David [a reporter], that they can clearly do, if they have the votes.”

The plan Dreier was asked about is called the Slaughter Solution, named for Rules Committee chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

The Rules Committee sets the rules of debate for legislation before it is brought to the House floor. Under normal circumstances the committee lays out how much time each side is allowed for floor debates and which amendments they can offer on the floor. Amendments that the majority does not want debated or offered on the floor are often added to legislation in the Rules Committee.Such self-executing rules, as they are known, have been used by both parties to avoid extended debate on politically embarrassing matters, such as raising the national debt ceiling.

If Democrats use the Slaughter Solution, it would send the Senate-passed bill to the president to sign, and the amendments package would go to the Senate, where it presumably would be taken up under the budget reconciliation process.

Dreier said he had “explored” questions of the plan’s legality and found that the bill would still become law.

“I’ve explored that earlier today and I think that if it becomes law, it becomes law,” he said. “I think that that’s the case.”

The question of constitutionality of the so-called Slaughter Solution stems from the plain language of Article I, Section VII of the Constitution, which states that all bills must pass Congress via a vote in both chambers that is recorded in their journals.

Radio host, Landmark Legal Foundation President, and former Justice Department Chief of Staff  Mark Levin said that the Slaughter Solution was a “blatant violation” of the Constitution on his radio program on Thursday, March 11.

“I can’t think of a more blatant violation of the United States Constitution than this,” said Levin. “If this is done, this will create the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate. It would be law by fiat, which would mean government by fiat.”

Constitutional law expert Arthur Fergenson, who litigated the Buckley v. Valeo case enshrining campaign spending as a form of constitutionally protected speech, weighed in on Levin’s Thursday program, calling the plan “ludicrous,” saying that such a move would be “dangerous” because it would amount to Congress ignoring the clear constitutional provision for how a law is approved.

Fergenson explained that both chambers of Congress must each vote on identical bills before the president can sign them into law. Any bill signed by the president that had not first been voted on by both the House and Senate would be a “nullity,” he said.

“It’s preposterous, it’s ludicrous, but it’s also dangerous,” Fergenson said. “It is common sense that a bill is the same item. It can’t be multiple bills. It can’t be mash-ups of bills. It has to be identical, that’s why the House and Senate after they pass versions of the bill–and we just had this with what was euphemistically called the jobs bill–if there are any changes they have to be re-voted by both chambers until they are identical.”

“Both chambers have to vote on the bill,” Fergenson said. “If this cockamamie proposal were to be followed by the House–and there would be a bill presented (to Obama) engrossed by the House and Senate and sent to the president for his signature that was a bill that had not been voted on identically by the two houses of Congress–that bill would be a nullity. It is not law, that is chaos.”

Former federal judge and the director of Stanford University’s Constitutional Law Center Michael W. McConnell agreed with Fergenson’s assessment. Writing in The Wall Street Journal on March 15, McConnell called the Slaughter Solution “clever but … not constitutional.” McConnell noted  that the House could not pass a package of amendments to a health reform bill it had not passed first.

“It may be clever, but it is not constitutional,” said McConnell in the Journal.  “To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a ‘Bill’ to ‘become a Law,’ it ‘shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate’ and be ‘presented to the President of the United States’ for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has ‘passed’ both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.”

“The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote,” wrote McConnell.  “The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the ‘exact text’ must be approved by one house; the other house must approve ‘precisely the same text.’”


New Poll: House Dems – proceed with caution

Comments Off on New Poll: House Dems – proceed with caution

Here’s a new poll out saying what Steve and I  along with others have been saying for quite some time now, if you vote in national health care, your JOB next year is in jeopardy.

House Dems – proceed with caution

// surveyA new poll issues a grim warning to House Democrats who are on the fence about whether to vote for President Obama’s healthcare overhaul.

The survey released by the Polling Company and Independent Women’s Voice polled 1,200 registered voters in 35 districts represented by pivotal House members who could determine the outcome of the healthcare debate.

82 percent of voters in those “swing districts” regard the healthcare bill as either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November. 60 percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan healthcare reform proposal or stop working on it this year.

Majorities feel the legislation will make them and their loved ones, the economy and the U.S. healthcare system worse off.

Julie Gunlock  (Independent Women's Forum)Julie Gunlock, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, says the findings of the poll show that constituents in the 35 swing districts are paying attention.

“They’re paying attention to the issue, and they’re going to pay attention to how their members vote,” she comments. “This is not about a lack of information – people are focused on healthcare, they’re focused on this debate and they’ve really educated themselves.  The reaction is clear – people do not want this particular package of healthcare reform.  They don’t want Obama healthcare, and they’re going to be watching how these members vote.”

The survey also found that three in four voters disagree that the federal government should mandate that everyone buy a government-approved insurance plan, and 81 percent believe any reform should focus first on reducing costs.(This is why 36 States are looking into Opting out of the mandate completely, the state of  Virginia has already voted it into law.)


Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats


Ha ha ….this threat might backfire, because early last year each time Obama went to help someone to get elected……they lost.  So Obama might be doing his fellow Democrats a favor.

Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats

Barack Obama has said he will not campaign for any Democratic congressmen who fails to support health care reform.

Barack Obama is battling to save US health care reform

Barack Obama is battling to save US health care reform Photo: EPA

The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill.

A one-night presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds which would otherwise take months to accumulate through cold-calling by campaign volunteers.

Mr Obama’s threat came as the year-long debate over his signature domestic policy entered its final week.

Mr Obama is personally telephoning congressmen who are still on the fence this week, in between several personal appearances devoted toward swinging public opinion.

Yesterday he visited Strongsville, Ohio, home of cancer patient Natoma Canfield, who wrote to the president she gave up her health insurance after it rose to $8,500 (£5,600) a year. Mr Obama repeatedly has cited the letter he received from the self-employed cleaning worker to illustrate the urgency of reform.(Just used this woman to push his program and pull on our heart strings, that’s all.)

Though Congress has already ignored several deadlines set by the president, March 21 is being treated by all sides the final target date, at which time all options would have been exhausted. The president has postponed an overseas trip by three days to see reform through.

Apart from arm-twisting by the White House, an advertising blitz that could cost £20 million by the end of the week, about the same level of a presidential campaign, has been aimed at about 40 undecided Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Most are conservatives who are worried that their support would cost them their seat in November, as the bill has become unpopular with a majority of Americans.

Others are anti-abortion advocates concerned that the proposals would not do enough to prevent government funding of abortions.