Political Violence? Conservatives Don't Throw Bricks.

I find it mildly amusing after decades of violence from the left over everything from war to the environment that they are so fearful of flag waving patriots at Tea Party Protests. There has been a concerted effort to liken Tea Party protests to the actions of an angry mob but those that have attended those rallies know who and what the Tea Party is. Most Tea Party groups know that the main stream media has been scouring these events so they can hand pick a few pictures of the more extreme protestors to impugn the movement as a whole and it would do well to treat those reporters with suspicion whenever they are present.

The power of the media comes into its own once they have an audio conversation of more than a few words. The less scrupulous of these media organs have absolutely no problem dissecting a five minute conversation and using snippets of your comments to craft a controversial answer to a question you were never asked. Those in the public eye know this and most are savvy enough to skirt these traps by crafting their answers to avoid particular statements that could be inflammatory when taken out of context. Still, a few slip through the cracks such as Sarah Palin’s comment on reloading or that she was putting a “sight” on Democrats she was “targeting” in the 2010 elections.

Sarah Palin was the subject of numerous jokes during the 2008 campaign because she is an avid hunter in her home State of Alaska. He references to weapons and hunting terminology was meant to be an “in your face” swipe at those who tried to use her love of hunting against her and rather than submit to the criticisms, she decided to wear it as a badge of courage. The left however, seized the opportunity to claim her statements were meant to incite violence against Democrats and attempted to link the post-healthcare bill brick throwing incidents at her feet and at the feet of her Tea Party followers.

I really do have to wonder about all these claims of violence anyway. During the heated healthcare debates in August of 2009, multiple windows at the Democratic offices in Denver Colorado were smashed adding up to more than eleven thousand dollars in damages. Since the windows that were targeted held posters praising Obama’s efforts to reform healthcare, Democrats were quick to accuse right wing zealots and Tea Partiers claiming they were trying to invoke fear and foment hatred against supporters of the President’s healthcare initiative.

Days later, Denver Police arrested 24 year-old Maurice Schwenkler for the attack but Schwenkler was neither a right wing zealot nor was he a member of the Tea Party. Schwenkler was in fact, a Democrat activist and a supporter of the Healthcare Bill. He had previously been arrested for misdemeanor unlawful assembly at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN and had worked for the Democratic Party in the past. Schwenkler had also been paid five-hundred dollars by the Colorado Citizens Coalition, a non profit group that supports Democratic candidates, for his work in a door to door campaign to drum up last minute support for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

While the motives for Maurice Schwenkler’s acts of vandalism were never disclosed, it is clear that this was not someone that had been angered over the Democrat’s push to pass Healthcare Reform. Could it be that this was an idea he and his other radical friends came up with to discredit Tea Party opposition to his beloved President? Could this have been a contrived act perpetrated with the hope that the Republicans and Tea Parties would be blamed?

One can never be certain but since their list of heroes include Marxists, Socialists and some very radical thinkers, it is a credible possibility. This is curiously reminiscent to the 1933 blaze that gutted the German Reichstag building. The fire was deemed arson and there was an outcry from Hitler’s loyal party that Dutch Communists were responsible. Several Dutch Communists were arrested but just one, Marinus van der Lubbe, would be tried and executed for the act. The fire was then used by Adolf Hitler to suspend many of the German Republic’s civil rights and to disperse the various Communist opposition Parties present in Germany at the time. It was not until years later that Gestapo Archives seized by Russian forces during World War II were rediscovered in Moscow. These archives show that the fire was actually the work of Hitler’s loyal SA or Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers), the paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party. The work of several modern day researchers claim that the fire was intentionally set by SA commandos so that the Nazis, under Hitler’s command, could create a crisis that would radically broaden his powers.

The reality of the situation is there is an understanding among Democrats that most Tea Party activists are law abiding members of society that abhor violence and ignorance. I believe their hope is that if they can connect the Tea Party or Republican supporters with random acts of violence that it will fracture the Tea Party and render it impotent; that independents and conservatives will flee if they believe the Party has been taken over by dangerous factions.

We saw this strategy employed during the Tea Party protest that gathered in Washington before the final House vote on the Healthcare bill. Instead of entering the Capitol Building through their usual underground passageway, House Democrats lead by Nancy Pelosi challenged the crowd as they walked to the Capitol Building. There were reports that racial slurs were lobbed at black Congressmen and that some were even spat upon. Really? Well, despite hundreds of news cameras, microphones and security agents, not one of them actually witnessed these alleged events; there were no arrests made and none of the so-called victims of these horrendous acts would agree to appear on a single news show to tell America what happened to them.

Is that even possible? Do you doubt for one moment that if a Congressman were assaulted, threatened or spat on that the perpetrators wouldn’t have been arrested on the spot? The films I saw of the Congressional Democrats walking to the Capitol Building showed that their security people had cleared the path for them and maintained a comfortable distance between the crowd and the Congressmen. I clearly heard security personnel tell people to move back but I didn’t hear one racial remark. The cameras didn’t capture a single image of anyone spitting and neither did any of the other news networks that were present.

House Democrats equated their walk through the Tea Party protest with the historic civil rights marches of the 1960’s when in reality; it was far more similar to the marches staged by American Nazis, Skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. Like those marches, this little walk was designed to challenge the protestors. They were hoping that someone, anyone, would do something that would bring shame and scrutiny upon the Tea Party movement. When they couldn’t incite the response they wanted, I believe they made it up as they went along. That is why none of them would appear on the news programs. It is one thing to have Nancy Pelosi tell us that she heard that this had happened, its quite another to convince someone to stand before news cameras and lie to the American people that you were the victim of an assault that never happened; an assault that not one of the hundreds of cameras that were present had filmed.

Now we have windows being broken again; a few Democrats here and a few Republicans there. Even though the perpetrators have not been apprehended, we are being told that it is the acts of right wing zealots and angry Tea Partiers again. Has anyone even asked where Maurice Schwenkler has been lately? No I don’t actually believe he is responsible this time but considering what did happen this past August and the unsubstantiated nature of the alleged assault on House Democrats earlier this month, I am more inclined to believe in Elvis sightings than I am in their claims that Tea Partiers are suddenly throwing bricks again. Let’s face facts. Acts of violence and vandalism are the calling card of the left; not the Tea Party. Conservatives don’t throw bricks and we don’t make pipe bombs. We don’t incite violence and we don’t get arrested at protests. In fact, we even pick up our trash when we leave, something that the left never does; ironically, not even at a protest for the environment.

Paul

Progressive Arrogance - The Lights Are On But the Rats Aren't Running

I suppose if there is a bright light on the horizon it is the fact that important discussions on the direction of our nation are finally taking place. The actions of government since the election of Barack Obama have sent a clear message across the country that this is the year we must act to restore our Constitution or there very well may be no Constitution to restore. As November approaches, we may end up thanking President Obama; not for his agenda, but for his arrogance. The Progressive movement saw in Obama, a President that would end their wait and take bold action to finish the work begun by American Socialists during the early years of the twentieth century. The end result is today’s Progressives are so emboldened by President Obama that they are standing out in the open for a change and attempting to force transformative change upon an unwilling society.

Saul Alinsky made it clear in his book “Rules for Radicals” that an open attempt to force major change would be met with harsh opposition. His tactics called for subterfuge and infiltration to gain the advantage over an unwilling public. He strategized that by looking and sounding like Middle America, one could guide political conversations and eventually gain support for a whole host of Socialist programs by cloaking them in a false sense of urgency or compassionate need. Well, since the election of Obama the cloak has been lifted and the light of day is shining on the most massive and immediate shift towards Socialism ever attempted by the left. The resistance Alinsky predicted certainly came as expected but with an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House and Senate, Progressives didn’t concern themselves with the outcry of concerned Americans as they pushed forward.

Some have been uncharacteristically vocal about their intentions. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said the so-called “comprehensive” healthcare bill was now going to be followed by much more legislation. She added that it is really more about diet than diabetes indicating that Americans have surrendered more than their freedom where the purchase of healthcare insurance is concerned and may soon be subject to government interference in what they eat and how they live.

John Dingell (D-MI) said in a recent interview with Paul W. Smith “The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." Mr. Dingell doesn’t say what kind of control he is talking about but it is clear that this bill is about far more than the access to affordable healthcare that they sold it as.

Max Baucus (D-MT) was interviewed by CSPAN as the Senate voted on the reconciliation package. Appearing disheveled and sounding tired, Baucus may have spilled more than he planned because his comments finally admitted what many of us had feared; that the healthcare bill had less to do with health than it did with some warped Progressive idea of Social Justice. Baucus rambled before the cameras “Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

So a healthcare bill that was sold to the American people as being designed to address the problem of thirty million Americans that could not afford healthcare insurance and would have the additional benefit of reducing the cost of insurance for employers, the Federal government and average citizens, suddenly has a myriad of new purposes that were never discussed or disclosed until it was already signed by the President. Now that it is actually law, they are willing to tell us that in addition to forcing everyone to buy health insurance, it will control diet, it will control us and it will fulfill the Socialist dream of stealing the earnings of those that create wealth to fund entitlements given to those that merely consume wealth.

To the many of us that actually took the time to look past the campaign rhetoric of Barack Obama and research the man himself; this comes as no surprise. Most of this was already out there well before his bid for the Presidency. He had always supported a universal, national healthcare system; he said that he did not believe in reparations for slavery because in his own words “reparations do not go far enough” and he said that “the Constitution was a document of negative values because it only said what the government could not do to you”.

Obama admitted in his own book and in his own words “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists." Even the photograph that has been widely circulated of his days as a college professor contained more proof than we needed. It shows professor Obama at the blackboard adding detail to a chart taken directly from Alinsky’s book. Now why would someone that claimed to be a centrist late in his campaign for President be teaching Marxist economic principals taken directly from a book written by an icon of Progressive radicalism?

I think Reverend Al Sharpton said it all when he admitted in an interview with Fox news "First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama. Let's not act as though the president didn't tell the American people…the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised." I’m sure that revelation comes as a shock to all the people that voted for hope and change and had not considered that Socialism was one of Obama’s campaign promises.

Despite two years of candidate Obama’s rhetoric, hope and change are awfully hard to find right now. Nearly 80% of Americans fear the economy is on the verge of collapse and even though the President promised new focus on economic stability and jobs during the State of the Union Address, Barack “Nero” Obama is still fiddling around with healthcare, immigration reform and cap and trade as the Federal government under his leadership racks up a second straight year of record budget deficits; adding three trillion dollars to our unsustainable debt. In fact, Obama’s deficits are nearly four times higher than the deficits that he roasted Bush for during the campaign. Don’t get me wrong…I am not defending the spending policies of the Bush administration. Part of the reason Obama was elected was that Bush personified a Republican Party that had turned its back on conservative values and not only lost the trust of independent voters but lost the attention of the Republican base as well.

As far as change is concerned, there is little that Obama can claim there either. He said he would unite Washington with a new sense of bipartisanship and then pursued an agenda so radical that he was barely able to get it past moderate Democrats in his own Party. Every closed door meeting and corrupt deal he brokered to gain passage of healthcare led people to question “where is the change?” Every story of waste, abuse and cronyism associated with his massive stimulus bill caused people to ask “where is the change?” Of course, Democrats in Congress and in the Liberal press didn’t help his case when all they would offer is how many times these strategies were used by Republicans in the past. Well, if Obama is going to continue the same tactics used by the Bush administration; again, “where is the change?”

The change is there all right; it’s just not what he promised or people expected. As the statements made by Obama and his Progressive friends add to the tally of Socialist rants, those of us that warned about their intentions from the start suddenly don’t look as crazy as we did in January of 2009.

Paul

Obama's Beverage of Choice is Coffee Not Tea - The Coffee Party Scam

I heard about the Coffee Party in much the same way as everyone else has and now that the group has begun its media campaign, I felt it was time to take closer look. The group’s founder, Annabel Park, appeared on Fox Sunday morning and was explaining the group’s origins and aims. According to Park, their aim is to improve dialogue with Washington so that they are not deadlocked in partisan battles instead of focusing on work necessary for the good of the country.

That sounds great on the surface, but a few things she said bothered me. I get this gut feeling when something is wrong and the first impression that I got from Annabel about her Coffee Party was that their core belief is that Washington was the driving force behind providing for the public good. Anyone that understands the Constitution knows that nothing is further from the truth; that our modern Federal government has usually been quite damaging to the public good. Oh sure, they have thrown crumbs to the poor, usually in an attempt to buy votes, but overall, ninety percent of the power the Federal government now holds has been stolen from the States in violation of the Tenth Amendment and they have fought a devious battle to retain that power by any means necessary.

My gut twitched as I heard more about the Coffee Party and while Ms. Park claimed that she is not trying to undermine the Tea Party movement, she did say they have a different view of politics and the Coffee Party was formed to offer another approach to those who feel a need to become active at the grass roots level. There was no mention of fiscal responsibility or the need to reduce government spending. The overwhelming majority of Americans are angry about deficit spending and fearful of our mountainous debt but curiously, Ms. Park failed to touch on the debt and deficit at all which only deepened my suspicions of her group and her motives. In fact, Annabel Park’s comments seemed far too favorable to an administration that was deeply entangled in an agenda to “fundamentally transform” America in total opposition to the public’s wishes.

I decided to take a closer look at Annabel Park and what do you know! Both Annabel Park and Coffee Party co-founder Eric Byler worked on Virginia Democrat Jim Webb’s 2006 Senate campaign and Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign. Annabel Park studied philosophy at Boston University on a Melville Scholarship and political theory at Oxford University as a Marshall Scholar. Not exactly the background you would expect to find in a “grass roots” organization. Eric Byler was born in Los Angeles California and studied as a film major at the Liberal bastion of Wesleyan University in Connecticut. If you recall, Wesleyan University is the alma mater of our Progressive Secretary of State and former First Lady, Hillary Clinton while her husband, former President Bill Clinton studied at Oxford University just like Annabel.

According to the news story, the Coffee Party began as a simple idea on Facebook and that idea spontaneously erupted into a firestorm of interest in Ms. Park’s idea. Growing in leaps and bounds, the Coffee Party has according to CNN, purportedly swollen to over 110,000 Facebook fans. A quick count of their membership through their own web page (http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/) shows far fewer members; about 3800 in all but that isn’t all the Coffee Party website shows us.

For a grass roots organization that supposedly sprang into existence from nothing in February of 2010, they have made incredible leaps in just one month’s time; a little too incredible if you ask me. They have pages of press coverage from CNN, CBS, ABC, NPR, NBC and from a host of other traditional and web based news outlets; the same media and press organizations that ignored the Tea Party until they launched a protest of more than 200,000 people at the nation’s Capital; signaling that they could no longer be dismissed as meaningless. The one that really caught my eye is the glowing endorsement they received from the Queen of Liberal rag sheets, the Huffington Post. That alone should be an indictment of the Coffee Party’s true origin and mission; especially for anyone that has had their senses assaulted by Arianna Huffington over the past few years.

This new “grass roots” movement has not only managed to organize a National “Coffee Summit” in just one month but has also miraculously generated a website with a curiously professional look and feel to it; something the local Tea Party chapters are still struggling with even though their momentum and membership far outweighs that of the Coffee Party. Their main page shows their mission statement which is: “The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.”

Really? To support leaders who work for positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them? Why does that sound so damned familiar? Truthfully, that sounds an awful lot like the orchestrated assault launched against the Tea Party by the President and the Congressional Progressives during the healthcare debates. After all, according to them, it was the President and his friends that were working towards positive solutions while those angry Tea Party activists were just trying to obstruct the President’s progress. As much as Annabel claims she is not starting a battle with the Tea Party that mission statement sounds like the first shot in the war. In fact, I got a real laugh when I went to the bottom of their web page and looked for the standard “terms of service” disclaimer. The Coffee Party even calls that their “Rules of Engagement” which says even more about their intent than their mission statement does.

The Coffee Party “rules of engagement” state: “We reserve the right to moderate this blog according to our values, which include respecting and embracing diverse opinions and diverse backgrounds. There are plenty of blogs and websites where partisanship, unfounded conspiracy theories, and intentional insults poison the environment. We'd like for our blog to be an alternative to that approach. We ask that participants not to hide behind anonymity, and be as polite and as responsible as they would be if they were speaking in a public forum and their mother might see them on the news. Those who come to this blog to deface it with ugliness and rancor will have their profiles put into moderation as a warning, and then deleted for a second offense.”

I ask you, what grass roots movement begins life with a direct attack on the First Amendment by promising to silence those that disagree with them? The preemptive attack against the accusations of conspiracy they have invited upon themselves told me that the conspiratorial link between the Coffee Party and Obama is more than just a theory. This is in fact, a shadow movement created and funded by a pro-Obama / Progressive think tank. They ask that the participants that post to their blog site not hide behind anonymity but if you look at the list of active Coffee Party groups across the country, the managers of each one of those groups in listed as “anonymous”. Now that is funny isn’t it? I guess that leaves it up to us to figure out if they are that fearful of reprisal or if the names of those “managers” would provide too much of a link to people that are already active within other groups like Obama’s own “Color of Change”.

In addition to promoting counter protests to planned Tea Party activities, the web site includes suspicious links to something called “The Organizer’s Toolkit”. The toolkit contains volumes of information on the structure and organization needed to develop the Coffee Party. The tools are far too detailed for a grass roots movement that is only one month old and cover community involvement, leadership development, media control, etc, etc, etc. The interesting part about the toolbox is that it is run by Democracy in Action (democracyinaction.org) which is directly linked to none other than the George Soros funded MoveOn.org. MoveOn is also inextricably linked to the Progressive movement, to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and through those organizations, to Barack Obama as well.

We knew that eventually there would be an attack on the Tea Party in advance of the November elections. The initial attempts to discredit the Tea Party failed miserably as did the recent push to link the Tea Party to allegations of violence after the signing of the healthcare bill. Tea Party groups have resisted any attempts made to absorb the movement into any organized political Party and because they have maintained their autonomy, recent moves to infiltrate the groups are quickly frustrated. The only option left to the Obamanistas was to form their own nationally controlled, Soros funded, Socialist influenced “grass roots” movement. Talk about “Astroturf! I’m actually surprised they called it the Coffee Party without adding the subtext that they are decaffeinated and sugar free in keeping with their Lord and Master’s Healthcare Plans.

Tea Parties are local groups of concerned citizens that are trying to preserve the American way of life. The main Tea Party website (http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/)
reflects the populist nature of the movement and it simply reports on events of national significance and can direct interested people on how to find a local Tea Party in their area. I highly recommend that everyone get involved if for no other reason than to counter this obvious attempt by Obama and his gang of thugs to silence the voice of true American patriots with their tainted idea of what a Tea Party is supposed to be.

Paul

Target 2010 - Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

Texas has always remained a highly independent State, especially where politics have been concerned. They consider anyone living north of the Red River a “Yankee” and have often joked that the difference between a Yankee and a Damned Yankee was that a Damned Yankee shows up with a moving truck. The problem with Damned Yankees is they also show up with a desire to alter the political landscape whenever they get where they are going and for the most part, their Liberal leanings are at odds with the Libertarian and Conservative beliefs engrained in Texas’s rich heritage.

Having been born in Queens, New York, Sheila Jackson Lee certainly qualifies as a Damned Yankee. Ms. Lee showed up in Houston Texas with her moving truck in 1975 after her husband, Dr. Elwyn Lee, secured a position at the University of Houston. Having received a degree in Political Science from Yale, Sheila Jackson Lee then pursued a degree in law (Juris Doctor or J.D.) from the University of Virginia Law School. In many cases, the study of Political Science infects people with warped ideas on how to use law to affect ideological change rather than reinforcing the traditional view of law as a societal tool to maintain peace and stability within the structure of the Constitution.

Having been armed with a sufficient quantity of Socialist ideals and the degrees needed to spread them throughout society, Sheila Jackson Lee made three attempts to obtain a local judgeship before being appointed as a municipal judge in 1987 by then Mayor of Houston, Kathryn J. Whitmire. Whitmire, who was the first woman mayor of Houston was a former professor of Political Science at the University of Maryland’s Burns Leadership Academy and a Progressive Democrat herself. As a former professor of Political Science, Whitmire understood the importance of establishing a Progressive presence in the court system so that they can begin the work of tweaking existing legislation in favor of their ideological goals and Sheila Jackson Lee had the credentials of someone she could trust to do just that.

The position of municipal judge was the springboard Jackson Lee needed to thrust her into the public arena. In 1989, Jackson Lee won a seat on the Houston City Council where she continued her mission of chipping away at Constitutional rights to forward the Progressive agenda. A major impediment to the ultimate Progressive goal of collapsing the US Constitution is the 2nd Amendment and Texans had traditionally guarded the 2nd Amendment with passion. To chip away at that right, Jackson Lee used the Alinsky trick of framing the argument to elicit the answers she wanted. If minor changes can be made to local law that would impose slight limits on gun owners, then those minor changes could be used later as a precedent for more control and limits.

Jackson Lee launched her assault by pushing a gun safety ordinance that would punish parents that failed to keep weapons away from their children. Alinsky and Jackson Lee both knew that no one would argue against the idea of keeping guns away from children but this wasn’t about children; this was about taking the first step towards gun control in an area that predominantly favored gun ownership. Every community already has laws specifically designed to protect children and punish those, including parents, that would endanger a child. Current law provided all the muscle local law enforcement needed to safeguard children against reckless parents but what it didn’t do was raise a question about owning guns and that is what Jackson Lee wanted. Of course Sheila Jackson Lee was elected to Congress, assuming office in January of 1995 so any interest she may have had to continue her fight against gun owners would now have to take place in the national arena.

I have always maintained that Progressives are the single greatest threat to America because they a gang of closet subversives that clothe themselves as part of the mainstream and speak the language of Middle America while exercising a carefully crafted strategy designed to transform America into another “Socialist Utopia” one law at a time. Saul Alinsky laid the groundwork out in his book “Rules for Radicals” where he stated quite clearly that to obtain their ultimate goal; Progressives must hide their agenda and be willing to accept small steps towards achieving a larger goal. He recognized that Americans would fight tooth and nail against major changes but could be nudged into accepting Socialism one piece at a time; especially if they thought they were getting great benefits from the government for a small investment of taxes or minor freedoms. Progressives pray upon the generous nature of the American culture and sell their ideas on the premise that government programs are just an extension of their own charity.

Sheila Jackson Lee is not only a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus but a member of the Congressional Black Caucus as well. That is also in keeping with Alinsky’s strategy of framing the argument to achieve results instead of actually engaging in honest dialogue. A favorite technique of Progressives is to claim that any opposition to their plans is motivated by hate rather than political ideology. For the past fifty years, they have successfully branded anyone that opposed their agenda as racists fighting against social justice for poor and minority Americans. That was actually very effective until just recently. After all, it’s hard to throw claims around about racism when the United States has a greater degree of racial diversity in local, State and Federal government than any other nation on the planet. The idea that Barack Obama was elected by such a wide margin should have shut down any argument of societal racism in America but the left still tries. The difference is that the charges are now so ludicrous that they just haven’t been able to gain the same traction they once did.

Progressives like Sheila Jackson Lee are actually doing America a favor. They have become so emboldened by their recent victories that many have tossed out Alinsky principals and have begun to publically air their real agenda instead of sneaking in through the basement a piece at a time. That is why the independent and Conservative people in this nation have been so actively opposed to the President’s plans. American’s still don’t like sweeping change and they have never liked Socialists. Most Americans can’t even utter the word Socialist without out getting a sour taste in their mouths.

Sheila Jackson Lee actually considers the Marxist regime of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez as “friendly” to the United States and has proposed relaxing the U.S. ban on weapon sales to that nation. She also has continued her fight against the 2nd Amendment and co-sponsored a bill that would restrict the ownership of so-called “assault” weapons; a bill that has such a loose interpretation of what an assault weapon is that it would have been a major blow against the lawful ownership of hundreds of weapon classes and accessories. Keep your eyes open because they are not done with this one yet. If they are going to seize the control they need over the population to realize their dreams then the first thing that has to be done is the elimination of privately owned weapons and they will use any means at their disposal to bring that about.

Sheila Jackson Lee still hasn’t learned that with her election to Congress, she has a responsibility to display obedience to the law and that adherence is obviously optional to Jackson Lee. In 2006, she was one of five Congressman and six other activists that were arrested for disorderly conduct during a protest in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington. Strangely, Jackson Lee spoke very harshly about the Tea Party protests in front of the Capitol this past weekend despite her own penchant for angry protest. What she didn’t mention in her news appearances on the issue is that none of the Tea Party members were arrested as she was, so their protests apparently did not contain the same level of intensity as her own. Truthfully, there would have been no incidents at all during the Tea Party protests last week if Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress had chosen their usual route to the Capitol Building. Instead, they walked through the crowd in an act of open defiance against the protest. In the end, it was Pelosi’s insistence on flaunting the impending vote in the faces of the protesting crowd that served to inflame them.

Sheila Jackson Lee was prominently mentioned during the town hall meeting protests over healthcare last August. She was the only member of Congress that was so blatantly indifferent to her constituent’s concerns that she continued to carry on cell phone conversations while people were speaking at the meeting. I’ve been in meetings that were very important and the general rule of courtesy is to turn the phone off, let an aide take messages or at the bare minimum, to turn it to silent ring. As a member of Congress pledged to represent her district, there should have been nothing more important than to hear from the people she speaks for.

Sheila Jackson Lee is one of the people that least deserves re-election. There was no doubt that she would vote for the healthcare bill because it fits the Socialist agenda that she supports. She didn’t bother to read any of it because it didn’t matter…..she was going to vote for it regardless of what it contained or how many of her constituents openly despised it. If re-elected, she will certainly continue on her march to bring about her Progressive idea of a Socialist America; an ideology shared and promoted by President Barack Obama.

Paul

Immigration and Amnesty

The Democrats are in power, elections are in the air and the traditional Democratic base has lost interest so that means it’s time to play….Let’s Grant Amnesty! Yes, let’s grant amnesty; the exciting decennial game where millions of people are given a free chance to collect thousands in benefits and social aid. To be eligible to play you must be in the United States illegally, you must have avoided capture for at least five years and you must have worked in a cash only business or with the use of someone else’s Social Security number; extra points are awarded if the Social Security number you are using belongs to someone that is still alive.

Of course I lay this initiative at the feet of Democrats but there are a few Republicans like Lindsay Graham (R-SC) that support this as well as Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who actually co-sponsored an Immigration Reform bill with the now deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 2005. The “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” or McCain-Kennedy Bill incorporated several provisions to grant amnesty for certain illegal immigrants, provide for guest worker programs and to strengthen border security. The bill was never voted on but similar legislation based on McCain Kennedy was proposed in 2006 by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and proposed again in 2007 by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The 2006 legislation passed the Senate but failed in conference committee and the 2007 bill failed all three attempts to obtain cloture and died without leaving the Senate.

In all three of these bills, there was bi-partisan opposition to one or more of the provisions within the bill. The right argued against the amnesty provision which would have in essence, rewarded people for having entered the country illegally. The left fought the bill’s tight language regarding family unification that limited Visas only to immediate family members of US citizens. They also despised the guest worker program that would have allowed workers temporary work permits for particular industries stating that it would create an entirely new class of workers that were prohibited from access to the benefits enjoyed by so many others. Also, industry opposed the new limits the bill would impose on the employer sponsorship of green card applications and the elimination of priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers.

Immigration reform is guaranteed to be a hotbed of controversy. Until 1986, immigration legislation had largely been used to block entry into the United States based on criminal background or to enact quotas on immigration on the basis of nation of origin. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was the first time that legislation was used to grant amnesty to people that had entered the United States illegally provided they had resided in the US continuously since January 1, 1982. It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan mostly because it contained some important reform language designed to dissuade future illegal immigration. Under the 1986 reform bill, it became a crime to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and would require employers to attest to their employee’s immigration status.

The proponents of the 2010 push for immigration reform want to go beyond what has already been done. There is no real desire to secure our borders which is absurd in a post 9/11 America. Not every terrorist is going to board an airplane in Amsterdam; especially if they can simply walk into the country unchallenged through one of our land borders. The current bill proposed by Representative Gutierrez (D-IL) says that it strengthens border protection but then prohibits the use of the United States armed forces, including the National Guard from States adjacent to the US border, to enhance border protection. The bill expands the definition of “family” for the purpose of determining the eligibility of entrance based on family reunification. The bill would hamper the ability to detain those people that are known to be in the United States unlawfully. The bill would also relax the requirements for citizenship, allowing those that were recently considered law breakers to become law makers through the election process.

Proponents of the bill have always claimed that the opposition to immigration legislation was based solely on racial hatred but is that really true? Most of the opposition I’ve heard is centered on several principals. The proponents of immigration reform like to rephrase the argument by calling illegal immigrants “undocumented workers” suggesting that they are a legitimate part of the U.S. workforce. In fact, they have already had to have broken several U.S. and State laws for them to be “undocumented workers” in the first place. They are illegal and no amount of flourish can change that. Opponents also recognize that the reforms suggested under the Gutierrez bill would, in short order, allow these people unlimited access to American social benefit programs that are already severely challenged, adding billions to the burden of tax paying Americans.

I am the first to admit that there are good and bad in every race and nationality but does it really make sense to relax immigration and citizenship standards when we have little or no cooperation in obtaining the criminal records of the applicants? Mexico is now under assault from drug cartels and their gangs of assassins; the same gangs that are responsible for an exponential increase in gang and drug violence in U.S. communities close to the Mexican border and the Mexican government would do anything to see some of these people leave for the United States and out of their hair. These violent tendencies and trends must be considered as an impediment to relaxed immigration policies as long as we do not have a willing partner in identifying the criminals that are seeking legal status in America. That is strictly speaking for the rule of law and self preservation which has nothing to do with hatred or racism.

Speaking of self preservation, there is also the reality of our economic crisis here in the United States. Recent tax and trade policies have allowed many of our manufacturing jobs to leave the U.S. for places around the globe where labor is cheap and government restrictions are few. As Al Gore campaigned for President, his defense of the United States trade policies adopted by the Clinton administration was that America doesn’t want to make underwear and sneakers; America wants to make information systems and new technologies. Really?

Not only did Mr. Gore fail to ask the Americans that were making underwear and sneakers how they felt about their country adopting policies that would ship their jobs to Asia, I find it curious that America’s immigration policies do not reflect that drive towards the future. We are discussing embracing people that entered the nation illegally to perform menial and unskilled labor while we have driven the need for unskilled labor from our shores leaving millions of Americans seeking employment in the few remaining service industries that survived government ignorance. These remaining jobs for our own unskilled labor force are directly challenged by this wave of illegal immigrants who are willing to work longer hours for less pay because it is still a better existence than they had in their country of origin.

Finally, the periodic and regular granting of amnesty for illegal immigrants only encourages further illegal immigration. After all, what is the downside? Many that were caught and deported only return to the U.S. within weeks or months. There is no will in the Federal government to assist the States in stopping this influx and the prevalent train of thought of the current administration actually seeks to inhibit the actions of local law enforcement that try to combat the illegal immigration problem on their own. This is a discussion that always seems to surface whenever Democrats are in control because as these people are amnestied and naturalized, they overwhelmingly vote Democrat because the current Socialist leanings of today’s Democrats more closely reflect their own political ideologies.

Paul

How Much Will Pelosi Cost San Francisco?

The Healthcare Bill has passed the House by the slimmest of margins and the slimiest of strategies leaving many wondering what, if any, honor is left in the body that was meant to be the House of the people. Nancy Pelosi was the driving force behind the wheeling and dealing that eventually gained passage of the Healthcare Bill and while she is revered for her work by fellow Progressives and the leftists in the main stream media, most every one else is repulsed by the stories that are creeping out about bribes, bullying and political brutality she employed to get to a mere 219 votes this past Sunday night.

The overwhelming majority of Americans did not want this bill and have made that known in town hall meetings, protests, phone calls, faxes and e-mails. Americans were angry as Congressional Democrats ignored the people they were elected to represent and opposition to this bill climbed to an overwhelming 68% by the evening of the vote. Despite all of this, those that know what this bill will do to the nation watched the signing ceremony that took place Tuesday morning with an unsettling mixture of fear and outrage.

On March 22, 1765 the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act imposing a slew of unpopular and unfair taxes on colonial America. The Stamp Act would rouse anger in the colonies and predicated the colonial revolt against taxation without representation. Isn’t ironic that 245 years later, almost to the day, the United States Congress passed a bill that will tax nearly every facet of American human activity with total disregard of the people they are ostensibly representing. I guess the question now is whether or not the reaction of unrepresented citizens will be the same as the reaction of unrepresented colonists.

As the charge of taxation without representation echoes across the country with the passage of this bill, the real ramifications are just now becoming clear. For the first time in American history, the Federal government will force people to buy a service that they do not want so that government can give it away to people that they determine cannot afford it. The process used by Pelosi to gain the 216 votes she needed for passage was not only rife with charges of bribery but numerous stories about Congressmen being threatened with the loss of their powerful committee assignments or project funding for their districts is now drifting, or should I say oozing into the public light. One Congressman has even accused House leadership of leaking information about an ethics investigation to the press to force his resignation prior to the vote because he would not change his position and support the bill.

Incredibly, Charlie Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (the committee responsible for writing our tax code) is currently under investigation for tax fraud and accepting gifts. Nancy Pelosi has not only protected him from public scrutiny for over a year, but openly resisted asking him to relinquish his leadership of the committee until public outrage forced her to reconsider. Oh by the way….Charlie supported the Healthcare Bill and since he only gave up the chairman position and not his Congressional seat, was allowed to vote for the bill this Sunday. It could just be coincidence but knowing what else was done to secure the votes, I seriously doubt it.

Not only are House Republicans furious with the tactics used by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer but there are reports of disgust and outrage from quite a few Moderate Democrats as well. There are many Democrats that secretly equate the passage of this bill with the mass suicide at Jonestown and are left now with trying to figure out how they are going to try and explain their vote to the folks back home. Let’s not forget what they faced in the town hall meetings last August. Now that they betrayed their constituents, they are not sure what they can do to salvage their careers this November. There are unsubstantiated rumors that many of the Democrats that voted for the Healthcare Bill have already mumbled that they will not vote on another piece of controversial legislation until the elections are over, saying that they have “stuck their necks out too far already”. That does not bode well for an ambitious President or his arrogant Speaker and I suspect, the President’s agenda may well be on hold no matter how much Pelosi says it’s time to move forward.

That may present a problem for Obama. The writing is on the wall for the November elections and while some analysts say the Republicans may not gain control of both houses, the President will certainly not be able to move radial or expensive parts of his agenda through the Senate. With this in mind, the President may attempt to a push to get a few more of his pet projects through such as card check, immigration reform or Cap and Trade before the November election brings his agenda to a screeching halt. The problem he has, even today, is that Pelosi and Reid have so deeply angered Congressional Republicans that after the election of Scott Brown, he may find everything he wants dead on arrival in the Senate.

San Franciscans may find themselves with a deeper problem than the President has. Even though House Progressives are falling over themselves to talk about the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, secretly there are many moderates that despise her abusive use of the Speaker’s power over the past year. It is almost a certainty that she will no longer be Speaker by the time January rolls around but the anger runs far deeper than that. I can envision a scenario where Republicans gain enough seats that combined with moderate Democrats; they will see that Pelosi’s district in San Francisco will never receive another nickel for pet projects, pilot programs or economic stimulus as long as Nancy Pelosi is their elected representative. She has proven over the course of the past year, the depth that she would stoop to get what she wants and like a cannibal, even resorted to eating some of her own to get it. That is something not easily forgotten or forgiven in Congress; especially when the cameras are off and the lights go out.

Pelosi may have acted the way she has in part because she is secure in the idea that her district is one of the more liberal areas of the free world. Except for her first bid for Congress, Pelosi has enjoyed the overwhelming support of her constituents and expects the same in 2010. It was only her confidence that she would not suffer the fallout personally that emboldened her to ask her colleagues to jump off a cliff for healthcare. But is she really as secure as she thinks?

Her approval rating across the country is at an all time low of 11% and her approval rating in her own district has slipped well below the 80% she has enjoyed for the past twenty years. She may represent the most Liberal city in America but those Liberals have always seen her as a champion of the people’s rights and the revelation that she is little more than another dried up, old devious and corrupt politician apparently has shaken some of that faith in her. There are already several campaigns forming for the sole purpose of firing Nancy Pelosi and they intend to drive the message home that she is just one more power hungry politician that let her position and power blind her to her obligation to the people she was elected to represent. In the end, we know that San Francisco will offer us another Liberal Democrat to take he place, but if we don’t have to look at or listen to Nancy “Skeletor” Pelosi anymore, the change will be refreshing.

The people of San Francisco should come to their senses and realize that while they might like a good Progressive, she is poison now and having her in Congress to represent them may well cost San Francisco billions in a new Congress. My advice to the City by the Bay is to drop Pelosi like a bad habit. San Francisco has enough to worry about between earthquakes, wild fires and mudslides…..why would you want to risk your future economic security on someone who won’t be able to sell a winning lottery ticket by this time next year?

Paul

Deem and Pass Wasn't Used - This Time

The use of “deem and pass” was narrowly averted when two Democrats sitting on the House Rules Committee voted against the use of the “Slaughter Solution” that was intended to forward the Senate Bill through the House of Representative without requiring members to actually vote on the Bill. While the deem and pass rule has been around since the 1930’s, it has never been used to forward legislation of this magnitude through the House without an actual vote. Deem and pass was dubbed the “Slaughter Solution” after Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee that proposed its use to move the Healthcare Bill out of the House.

Louise Slaughter, that ironically represents Erie and Niagara Counties in New York, expected fellow Democrats on the Rules Committee to climb into their own barrels and follow her over the “falls” by approving the use of this legislative trick. Fortunately, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) and another, yet unnamed Democrat on the Rules Committee realized that this was tantamount to political suicide and voted against the measure. This reduced the vote in favor of deem and pass to the slightest margin of seven for and six against, making it’s use politically dangerous as each one would be seen as the deciding vote in their own district.

America may be a diverse culture with a vast chasm between the political ideologies of the people but they all agree that our government should act with honor. To use this rule would be seen as a corruption of the legitimate process of government. It’s true that deem and pass has been used by both Parties over the past eighty years and pretty much for the same reasons; to pass unpopular or costly legislation while still providing more cowardly members of Congress the ability to go home and tell their constituents they didn’t vote for the Bill. This time, the healthcare bill is so widely despised and has been so closely followed that even deem and pass would not provide the cover that nervous Democrats had hoped for. In fact, once the light of day had been shown on this process, the American people issued a thunderous rejection of the apparent misuse of power so loud that even the Rules Committee thought twice about the consequences.

What I found disturbing is the media’s ready acceptance of this incredibly deceitful process. Except for right wing TV and talk radio, the main stream press had no problem with using deem and pass; citing the historical use of the process. I said I found it disturbing, but does not mean I found it surprising. After all, there are many versions of deem and pass that can be found all over America. The press itself is guilty of similar practices; writing entire stories based solely on damaging quotes by unreliable sources. Since they were merely quoting someone else, they could run with a story that would politically hobble someone they considered an enemy without actually having to bear the responsibility of slandering them. “Hey…I didn’t say it…I just reported on someone that did!” Of course if the subject screamed loud enough, had proof that the accusations were false or threatened a law suit, the press could always bury a single sentence retraction in a rarely read section of the paper that would satisfy the legal world that they corrected the misstatement.

A perfect example of the use of a deem and pass look alike can be found in the global warming / climate change debate. The UN climate panel relied heavily on reports issued by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia; the same CRU that has recently been exposed willingly manipulating climate data, thwarting the release of information under the British equivalent to the Freedom of information act and conspiring with other global warming proponents to hide information that was contradictory to their claims. The UN climate panel had also created alarming climate reports warning of catastrophic consequences if CO2 levels were not drastically reduced. As it turns out, the UN climate panel used an article about melting glacial ice from a rock climbing magazine and a non-professional paper on the subject authored by a college student. When confronted with these damaging facts, the UN climate panel shrugged it off saying that they apologize for the errors but there is still overwhelming evidence to support climate change (and the U.N.’s global money grab to fight it) but they would conduct further study into the materials they use for their reports. In other words, they deem the crisis is real and passed the blame.

I wonder if I can use deem and pass myself? I could pay sales tax on a new home entertainment system and “deem” that my Federal taxes have been paid as well. No, that wouldn’t work because the Federal government really doesn’t like competition where criminal acts are concerned. I could have a sugar free coke with six slices of pizza and “deem” that I am on a diet or perhaps I could throw out one of the cigarettes in my newest carton of 200 and “deem” that I am cutting back. Yes, we could all use some version of deem and pass but somehow, it just doesn’t feel right to an honest person and it shouldn’t feel right to our elected officials.

Congressional procedure has become so corrupted by lawyers and modern politicians that nearly anything seems possible and the only justification they offer these days is “Well, they did it!” Have things descended that low? Has the Congress become so corrupt that they no longer think about whether or not it is the right thing to do but instead rationalize their actions on what someone else has already gotten away with? If that is true, then what will the future hold? Will we leave morality out of the equation and clone humans to use their bits and pieces for organ transplants or medical experiments? After all, what makes us human? We have already cloned chickens and sheep so cloning is possible and can it really be murder if these unwilling donors were never born? Impossible? Well, the abortion argument has already cheapened our conception of human existence and turned that into a question of when is a person really a person? What would happen if lawmakers began to deem people “non-people”?

As it stands now, our society’s view on the rights of the unborn are left entirely up to the woman that is carrying the unborn. The right to choose is based on the sovereignty of one’s own body and those that choose life have in essence, chosen to deem their unborn child a person worthy of protection. While pro-choice advocates fear that a woman’s right to choose abortion is threatened by the religious right, what they should fear more is the radical left. John Holdren, President Obama’s “Science Czar” has already weighed in on the right to choose and it is truly frightening. In the 1970’s, Holdren was one of the eco-kooks that believed the greatest threat to the earth was the explosion of human population. In a book Holdren co-authored with Anne H. Ehrlich titled “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” the pair proposed forced abortion and mandatory sterilization to stave off an impending overpopulation crisis. Holdren and his Hench-woman actually went as far as suggesting retroactive abortion where children below the age of two that faced severe physical or mental disabilities could be “deemed” to be unviable and in fact, unborn since they were incapable of life independent of special means. Children deemed “unborn” could be disposed of neatly and legally within the framework of existing abortion legislation once they were lawfully considered unborn.

Oh yes, there are number of ways that deem and pass have made it beyond our legislature and into everyday life. It is the ways that it could be used in the future that should make rational people very nervous indeed. Just because the Congress didn’t have the nerve to use it this time does not mean it won’t rear its ugly head later when the public is too occupied with something else to notice. After all, that’s how it was used before and with great success. Whatever the political landscape is after the 2010 and 2012 elections, it is clear that the Democrats have provided us with some valuable insights. These devious rules and procedures must be routed out with strong enough language that they can never be used again. While the Party in control may be tempted to used the same rules to move their agenda forward, those temptations must be resisted and these rules must be forever retired if we are ever to return to a lawful, honorable and pure constitutional Republic.

Paul

Bart Stupak caves on abortion - Healthcare passes

The debate is over and the healthcare bill has passed the House by a vote of 219 to 212. Pro-life turncoat Bart Stupak announced late Sunday that he had reached an agreement with the President that an Executive Order would be issued upon passage of the Bill that would uphold the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of Federal funds for abortion. Stupak is either a fool or he was merely holding out for his share of the free-flowing money the House leadership used to purchase the votes of so many of his colleagues. Truthfully, I think his support was needed to provide a margin of comfort so Nancy Pelosi and the President leaned hard enough to make him fold like a cheap suitcase. I’m sure he waited too long to get one of the sweetheart deals his other friends received so in the end, all Mr. Stupak will get is an Executive Order from the President so that he can claim he stood fast on his principals.

First of all, considering the track record this President has at keeping his word, I doubt the Executive Order that Stupak will receive contains little more than a confirmation of the language that is already in the bill; language that is woefully inadequate to accomplish what Stupak claimed was essential to gain his vote. Why am I so cynical? The President has far more pro-choice Democrats to placate than the block of so-called pro-life Democrats that Bart Stupak had spoken for. The bill contains language that would allow someone purchasing insurance through the exchange to write a separate check for abortion coverage in order to claim that no Federal funds were used. Asking people to write a separate check for abortion coverage when purchasing insurance through the exchange means very little when the policy itself is subsidized with Federal money. This is a neat little accounting trick that amounts to little more than shifting money from one pocket to the other.

An iron clad guarantee would be the elimination of abortion coverage in the insurance available through the exchange, allowing insurers to offer a separate rider that people could purchase individually and totally outside of the exchange if they so desired. But that really isn’t the issue; now is it. The Hyde amendment already allows the use of Federal funds for abortion in the case of rape or incest but that does not go far enough for Progressive Democrats. Abortion may be a medical procedure but is it healthcare? For abortion to be considered healthcare one would have to place unwanted pregnancy in the same league with disease or illness instead of calling what it is….the natural and expected result of unprotected sex. One would think that abortion wouldn’t be an issue after the advent of AIDS or the less catastrophic but equally chronic plethora of sexually transmitted diseases but apparently, even the threat of disease cannot quell the fever of human desire.

I find it interesting that the pro-choice advocates that have, for years, rallied around the battle cry of “Leave my body alone” are now signing up in droves to support a bill that will give the government an incredible amount of control over those same bodies. Pelosi already said that this more about diet than diabetes indicating that our pro-choice friends may have retained control over their wombs but through this bill, have surrendered freedom of choice in nearly everything else that makes them human.

Progressives operate under the firm belief that there needs to be controlling power at the Federal level because the general population is incapable of making rational and informed decisions for themselves. The exchange was not a compromise to cure a healthcare crisis; it is phase one in the creation of a single payer national healthcare system that will make all of your healthcare choices for you; eventually using monetary penalties to force behavioral changes to reduce government healthcare costs. Even that will not be enough and as the deficit and debt increase because of this malignant entitlement program, the actual rationing of care is as inevitable as the collapse of the private insurance system that is already written into the bill.

The provisions in this bill that mandate changes to the level of coverage that must be offered by approved plans coupled with the proposed caps on premium increases can only have one consequence. Those provisions are intentionally designed to drive private insurance out of business because there is no way they can compete with the subsidized plans offered through the exchange. As the availability of private insurance becomes scarce, the Federal government will “have to” come up with a public option to shore up the exchange with full knowledge that the destruction of private insurance is imminent. When the last private insurer is driven into extinction that is when the public option will morph, out of necessity, into the single payer system Progressives wanted from the start.

No? Well, an employer that currently pays more than $10,000 per year per employee for private healthcare insurance will find some curious things. If even one of his employees seeks a “better deal” through the exchange, the employer will be fined approximately $2,000 for EACH of his employees. If he provides no insurance at all he will pay a fine of $3,000 per employee and be assessed an additional payroll tax for healthcare. As it turns out, the penalties for not providing healthcare insurance are less than the insurance itself. Maybe that’s the $3,000 reduction in employer costs the President said your boss would see if this bill passes? Almost, but then there is the loss of the Bush tax cuts in 2011.

The Executive Order that Stupak will attempt to use to placate his constituents is not a law so it can be rescinded by a future President with the stroke of a pen and I predict we won’t have to wait that long. If this bill becomes law, Obama will need those pro-choice Democrats to continue his agenda and I fully expect that Stupak’s “piece of paper” is one of the bargaining chips that will be auctioned off to obtain future votes for card check, cap and trade or immigration reform.

The American people have been riveted on the healthcare debate and are solidly opposed to this monstrosity. They are watching the debates and saw Bart Stupak not only as one member of Congress that actually stood for principal but as their last hope to defeat this bill. Defeat would have allowed us do something for healthcare that didn’t involve expanding the power of government to that of the level of a totalitarian dictatorship but that hope was stolen from the American people by Stupak today. The Executive Order that Stupak will wave at his constituents to gain their forgiveness for voting for this bill will not shield him from the fallout (or the rotten tomatoes). Let’s face it….if he had said he was opposed to the bill over money or the expansion of government and changed his mind later, he might have been forgiven. Since he made himself the poster boy for Congressional principals, the surrender of his convictions will be used by those that run against him as a clear display of his lack of character and pro-life organizations began that assault the moment the vote was concluded.

The healthcare debate is far from over and even though the Senate has promised to use reconciliation to pass the bill, there are points of order that will be raised by the Republicans for every component of the reconciliation package that is not a budget issue. After all, reconciliation is a budget procedure and anything that is not related to budget, will most likely be stripped from the reconciliation package if the Senate Parliamentarian agrees that it violates the rules of reconciliation. If anything in the reconciliation package is changed, it will have to go back to the house for a new vote; a vote that will take place after these poor Democrats have gone home for the Easter break, faced their constituents and tried to explain what they have already done. I seriously doubt Mr. Stupak’s piece of paper will make a damned bit of difference to any of them.

The Democrats have ignored the American people and that has enraged more of us than a sequestered Congress could possibly imagine. Pelosi and Reid forced this through on strict timelines to avoid the same harassing town halls Congressional members were subject to last summer. The leadership tried to convince their members that the opposition to the bill reflected by the polls is that people want more, not less and that since this bill will eventually achieve that, they will be vindicated. Well, the leadership has misread the people and this vote will go down in history as a political suicide pact. Too bad Nancy Pelosi represents a district that is even further to the left than Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez or she would be packing her office this November too. The only solace I have is that it is virtually guaranteed that by the time January of 2011 rolls around, she will no longer be Speaker of the House.

Paul

Target 2010 - James Oberstar (D-MN)

In preparation for the 2010 election, I am preparing a weekly series to expose those members of Congress that are deserving of special attention this election year. To open this series I have selected Representative James Oberstar (D-MN). James Oberstar is another career politician that has made a mockery of his office and has spent the last thirty years doing everything possible to add to the deficit and debt that countless generations of Americans will have to repay.

Of course, as a member of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, one would hardly expect that Jim would be a fiscal conservative. In fact, there isn’t a tax he doesn’t like as long as it’s progressive enough to buy all the votes he needs through massive social spending. While Oberstar is not a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, his affiliation with the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party provides him with enough ownership of the increasingly disturbing title of “Progressive” as the Party most comfortably identifies itself with a Liberal / Progressive ideology. There are several members of Congress that are members of the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, most notably, the recently elected Progressive screw-ball Al Franken.

The Democratic-Farmer Labor Party, or “DFL”, was born after the 1944 merger between the MN Democratic Party and the Farmer Labor Party. The Farmer Labor Party was part of Minnesota’s political landscape since 1918 and was a direct descendent of America’s passing interest with Communism and Socialism at the turn of the century. Most of America eventually grew up and realized that these ideologies were wholly un-American while others, like members of the Farmer Labor Party, took their Socialist leanings underground until they could safely reemerge as Liberals. Of course, they quickly tarnished the name of Liberalism, which forced them to eventually adopt the name of Progressive. During the formation of the Farmers Labor Party, they were politically aligned with American Socialists and American Communists until they decided to break ties with any group that would plot to overthrow the United States through violence and that was the good news. The bad news is that the DFL is closely modeled after the British Labour Party and to bring about the collapse of the Republic using our own laws against us is clearly something they can live with.

My most notable opposition to James Oberstar has to do with his decision to change his vote and support the current healthcare bill being forced through the House of Representatives. Mr. Oberstar sold himself as a pro-life Democrat. Of course now that the bill was in jeopardy, his Progressive (Socialist) spots have shown through and he is willing to turn his back on something that is very important to his constituents in order to help Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi take the first step towards to socialization of America’s healthcare system.

Oberstar refused to vote for the first bill that passed through the house until the Stupak Amendment provided an iron clad guarantee that Federal funds could never be used for abortion, upholding a long standing belief and principal of most Americans. Even Pro-choice Democrats have no problem with banning the use of Federal funds for abortion as long as abortion would remain a choice that people could make as their conscience dictated. Of course we know the Senate rejected the House bill as well as the Stupak Amendment, crafting their own bill under the leadership of Max Baucus in the Senate Finance Committee. It was almost guaranteed that the block of pro-life Democrats in the House would reject the Senate Bill unless there were guarantees that the prohibition of Federal funds for abortion would be promised in a resolution conference; a promise the Senate will not make and a majority of the House Progressives don’t want.

Instead of standing by his principals, Jim Oberstar sold his vote to Nancy Pelosi. Of course, after all the controversy surrounding the “Cornhusker Kickback”, the “Louisiana Purchase” and “Gator-aid” that benefited no one but Nebraska, Louisiana and Florida; nothing quite as controversial would be advertised this time. I predict that once the bill is passed, we will see huge sums of that unspent stimulus money make its way into Minnesota and a few other States that happen to be represented by Congressmen that had one of those crucial, last minute changes of heart to finally support the bill. Why else would so much of that critically important stimulus money still be sitting around? Unfortunately for this gang of thieves, we will be watching this time and will connect the dots as they appear.

Jim Oberstar did something far worse than prostitute himself for some undisclosed, undercover bit of Federal funding. Oberstar sold his integrity. His constituents did not want this bill and they especially did not want their tax money paying for abortions. He promised them he wouldn’t vote for a bill that would help fund abortion and now he will have to answer to them. The biggest problem with selling your principals is what can you run on after that? Can you ask the voters to trust you when you can’t even be trusted with your own convictions? Can you claim to be an honest man when haven’t even been true to yourself? Can you look your constituents in the eye when you now find it hard to look in the mirror?

This goes beyond anything the Federal government has ever done and Jim Oberstar knows it. For the first time in the history of this nation, people will be forced to pay taxes knowing that their money will be used to fund something that many of them not only find morally reprehensible but forbidden by their faith. How can Congress claim to abide by our First Amendment protection of Religious freedom and then force people to violate their own religious principals by knowingly funding abortion? It might be easy for Jim Oberstar to sell his soul but what about his fellow Minnesotans? What about his countrymen?

America is a Republic; a representative government, but it is becoming increasingly clear that what is being represented in Washington is not the will of the people or the voice of the majority. What is being represented is the ideology of a small but powerful group of Progressive radicals that will stop at nothing to transform our nation into the latest “Socialist Utopia”. Oh sure, Progressives don’t actually say “Socialism” because they know freedom loving Americans will reject that. They use carefully crafted code words designed to make people feel good about change like “social justice”. After all, what American would oppose justice? Superman was for justice…even Underdog was for justice! But social justice is different. Social justice is nothing more than stealing from the responsible to help pay for the irresponsible.

Progressives also love to talk about a “truly Democratic Society”. Again, most Americans confuse democracy with freedom and there are quite a few that are not even sure what a Republic is let alone that America is one. Democracy is a society where everything is decided by a direct vote. There are no representatives because none are needed. On the surface, that sounds awesome but Progressives know that only a Democracy can elect a dictator. Think about all of the “Democracies” around the globe like Communist China; the Soviet Union; Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; Ahmadinejad’s Iran and Chavez’s Venezuela. "Truly Democratic Societies" really aren't worth a damn because the ruling party first decides who and what is on the ballot and then controls the counting of the votes.

Mr. Oberstar has brought us one step closer to Socialism and has emboldened the people that want to bring us seven dollar gasoline, five hundred dollar electric bills and a "truly democratic society". This is only the beginning because once this is passed they will move on to energy, housing, food, etc. The goal of the Progressive movement is total control because they can provide nothing for the masses unless the individual surrenders control.

Paul

Social Justice or Progressive Slavery?

Glenn Beck spoke out against the concepts of social and economic justice, citing that they have always been the code words of Socialists, Communists and the radical Left used to bring about societal changes in favor of those ideologies. He recently told his audience that if their church mentions social or economic justice to run far and fast; seek another parish and inform Church officials of what you have found. While some members of the clergy like Evangelist Jerry Falwell Jr. understand and support what Beck is saying, radicalized ministers and priests left over from the crazy 1960’s aren’t quite as understanding.

The usual routine of a radical is to shut out opposing views rather than engaging in debate but that is the good news. In areas where radicals have already attained control and realized their ultimate goals, those with opposing views are usually murdered instead. Religious radicals are no different and those that espouse social justice and other Marxist views are firing back. Rather than debate Beck’s charges, they are trying to organize yet another boycott of the advertisers that support Beck’s programs. The Rev. Jim Wallis is an evangelical leader, CEO and president of Sojourners, a Christian networking group in Washington, D.C and was the first to cry foul over Beck’s focus on religious radicalism. But anyone that knows who Jim Wallis is should not be surprised by his outrage.

Jim Wallis was raised in a traditional evangelical Plymouth Brethren family. The Plymouth Brethren are a conservative evangelical movement that can be traced back 1820’s Ireland. The “Brethren” rejected the Church of England because they felt the Church had ignored or distorted many of the old traditions of Christianity. Apparently, the conservative nature of the Brethren didn’t appeal to Wallis as his slithered over to the radical left. While attending college at Michigan State University, Wallis was President of the Socialist front group, “Students for a Democratic Society” where he developed an interest in political activism that would eventually lead to more than twenty-two arrests for civil disobedience. While studying at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois, Wallis joined with other young seminarians to form the core group of what would become the Sojourners.

Wallis is actively fighting Beck’s claims that Churches speaking of social justice are promoting Socialism but wouldn’t you know it, the Sojourner’s teachings are overwhelmingly Socialist in nature and even the name of their first published news paper, “The Post American”, speaks volumes about their basic ideology which is more about radical politics than religion. Yes, Jesus spoke about charity and caring for the poor but the charity Jesus spoke of was to be willingly offered by the faithful. Government redistribution of wealth is not charity and even if your money happens to end up in the pockets of the poor through the some government entitlement, it holds no weight in the balance books of heaven because the contribution is neither conscious nor willing. Wallis is more concerned about the loss of political momentum that was steering the nation towards Socialism than he is about the poor and so-called disenfranchised. Like any good Marxist, Wallace simply uses the impoverished to forward an agenda and he shouldn’t be taken serious by anyone.

Not that Wallis has much to worry about. Even as we face the reality of a twelve trillion dollar national debt, Congress hasn’t found the nerve to say “no” to deficit spending and the crippling agenda of an equally radical President. International organization such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank could care less about our financial burdens because their member nations, like many of our own citizens, have become used to the flow of Federal money to relieve them of the burden of developing their own economies. Billions flow from the United States each year to fund development projects in foreign nations while many of our own people are hungry and homeless. Truthfully, we probably wouldn’t have as many hungry and homeless as we do now if they weren’t so useful to the Progressive agenda. Government largess will not relieve our poverty, only the renewal of the American free market and the restoration of our Constitutional right to self determination can break the cycle.

Oh I can see it now. The forces of Progressivism including Jim Wallis, will gather like a storm cloud to block any initiative that may roll back government social programs and unfortunately, many Americans have become so used to the idea of government solutions that they will reluctantly agree. After all, we can’t do that….people will starve! Oh really? In 1887, Texas suffered a severe drought that devastated hundreds of farms in that area. The farmers needed new seed because the crops had failed so completely that it couldn’t even provide a sufficient quantity of seed that the farmers could use to begin again. In response, the Congress passed the “Texas Seed Act” and passed on to then President, Grover Cleveland for his signature.

President Cleveland vetoed the bill saying: “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood…”

Can you imagine the outcry if a modern President took such a courageous stance in the defense of the Constitution? Why, he would be called a murderer or worse. When Reagan tried to reform welfare he was called “mean spirited”; when Bush tried to re-privatize Social Security he was called a “Nazi” and these were just reforms, not the total dissolution of the government entitlement structure. Some claim that is because Progressives have no faith that people can attend to these needs without government while I have a far more cynical view. I fear that Progressives actually use a campaign of carefully crafted propaganda to convince the general public that those that have are mostly too corrupt and greedy to help their fellow men and the few that aren’t do not possess the resources. They even argue that to force people to accept charity is demeaning and that an enlightened society must be able to provide for the poor and destitute without that horrible stigma attached to it.

I would argue that the stigma Progressives refer to used to be called gratitude and for them to claim the recipients of charity are demeaned somehow, they would first have to confuse virtuous humility with shame. So what happened to those poor Texas farmers that President Cleveland thumbed his nose at? The resolution Cleveland vetoed would have appropriate ten thousand dollars for the purchase of seed for the stricken area. The President’s faith in the brotherhood of the American citizenry was not only justified, but surpassed. Private donations to help the stricken farmers totaled over one-hundred thousand dollars; more than ten times the amount authorized by Congress.

The net effect of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” is that we now spend incredible amounts of money to keep people in poverty and if someone should take a menial entry level job and attempt escape the system; they are pretty much guaranteed the loss of all of their government benefits. With that kind of societal “compassion” in place, what hope or incentive do these people have of becoming contributors instead of recipients? In contrast, the programs FDR’s enacted to combat the effects of the Great Depression only spent one one-billionth of what the Federal government currently spends on social programs. He did however, set the stage for future Progressives, like Johnson, to justify nearly anything in the name of “social justice”.

Paul

Kucinich caves - will now support Obamacare

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) appeared on television this morning to announce his reluctant support for the healthcare bill. Kucinich had originally signed a letter along with 77 other Democrats opposing the healthcare bill because the current bill failed to include a “robust” public option. He maintained that this was not the bill he wanted to support and while he wanted the nation to finally embrace a European style, not-for-profit national healthcare system as opposed to working with for-profit, health insurance companies, he decided to surrender his opposition so that some measure of reform could take place. Dennis Kucinich has made a career out of convincing people that he fights for “the little man”. Well, I suppose that’s true; at 5’7” Kucinich is a little man and there is no doubt that he fights very effectively for his own interests and his interests alone.

There were several areas of Kucinich’s statement that made absolutely no sense and left me wondering if these people even listen to their own words before the cameras are turned on. Kucinich began by recounting storied from his own past and how he survived a youthful brush with poverty that had him living in his car at times. Now I’m not calling the man a liar but I have found very little to substantiate his claims of poverty. His father was a truck driver of Croatian ancestry and his Irish American mother was a homemaker. Since he grew up in the 1950’s, his father was apparently the only truck driver that couldn’t find steady work in the boom times that followed World War II. Curiously contradictory to his story of an impoverished youth is the fact that he somehow managed to attend Cleveland State University from 1967 to 1970 and in 1973, managed to pursue and obtain a Master of Arts Degree in speech and communication from Case Western Reserve University.

Kucinich spoke about how he has been afflicted with Crohn's Disease for much of his adult life which led him to “take charge” of his own healthcare decisions, prompting him to follow the recommendations of traditional physicians and to modify his diet and lifestyle, embracing a more holistic approach of self care. Apparently, Dennis Kucinich doesn’t see the irony of his statements that display the contrasts between his personal life story and his political beliefs. On one hand, he speaks of how he took command of his own healthcare choices in his fight with Crohn’s Disease and then speaks forcefully of his belief that government has to take action to provide a healthcare system that would prevent anyone else from having the ability to exercise that freedom of choice within their own lives.

Kucinich would undoubtedly argue that his belief in a national healthcare system is prompted in part, by his own experience in dealing with Crohn’s Disease and therefore, in trying to make those battles easier for others. I would suggest that his experience not only displays that our current healthcare system worked but when he was faced with the challenge, he found the care he wanted and made the choices that needed to be made to obtain that care. To have government provide health care would relieve people of the responsibility of making beneficial choices for themselves and cheapen the outcome. I submit that is was the absence of a national healthcare system that forced Kucinich to take his participation in his own treatment far more seriously than he would have if some massive government entity relieved him of the responsibility of making his healthcare choices for himself.

While angry Socialists and Progressives may believe that Kucinich has turned his back on the last credible chance to bring about a national healthcare system, I maintain that his opposition is simply window dressing designed to conceal what is hidden deep in the bowels of the Democrat’s 2700 page Progressive manifesto. Kucinich may have wanted to skip a few steps and force a vote for socialized medicine now but the end game will eventually bring that about anyway. You cannot force insurers to provide more coverage, cap the cost and expect that they will stay in business; especially since the health insurance industry only posts a 3.5% profit margin now.

Wait a minute! I thought those evil insurance companies were making billions of dollars? The President said so. Yeah, well that was a cute little trick designed to anger people and create some false support for the bill. If you take all of the insurance companies in the industry and pool all of their profits together, it is billions of dollars but those billions still only represent a measly profit of just 3.5%. The Federal number crunchers know very well when to use dollars and when to use percentages to make their point. In the end, private insurance cannot survive this healthcare plan and that will “force” the government to step in and take their place. It’s a neat little trick to get socialized medicine in through the back door but we know what they are doing and we will blame them when they do it.

The Progressives in Congress know their numbers don’t add up so most have abandoned using them altogether and have resorted to one sob story after another in an attempt to soften the opposition to the bill by appealing to our humanity. Too bad all of the stories they have used are full of lies and half truths. The President spoke of Natoma Canfield during his visit to Ohio. Natoma Canfield is a cancer patient who could no longer afford her healthcare premiums for fear of losing her home. The President made an impassioned plea for his healthcare plan, challenging people to “remember Natoma” and support this plan. Of course what he didn’t tell you is that Natoma was being treated at the state of the art, Cleveland Clinic. Spokesmen for the Clinic said that Natoma is not only eligible for Medicare but that the Clinic itself, has a large charitable endowment of more than one-hundred million dollars with which they can provide free care for people like Natoma, who have no other options.

In another shameless display, Senate Democrats paraded 11 year-old Marcelas Owens before a press conference on Thursday. Coached by his activist grandmother, Gina Owens, Marcelas told a packed room of reporters that he wanted the president and Congress to come together and pass health insurance reform. “I am here because of my mom,” said Owens. “My mom was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension in 2006. She missed so much work she lost her job. And when my mom lost her job, she lost her health care. And losing her health care ended up costing her her life.” As it turns out, Marcelas grandmother is an activist with the Washington Community Action Network, which is another misguided group of community activists that espouse a platform of socialist ideals. If fact, Gina Owens is now preparing Marcelas 7 year-old sister to play her part in this disgusting display of emotional manipulation. Grandma….have you no shame? Of course not…Socialists have no shame because the ends justify the means.
The truth is that it is the existing government healthcare programs that failed Tiffany Owens. If a sick, single mother of three cannot get Medicaid….who can? Where was the activist grandmother during this travesty of justice? Where is her outrage at the social programs that should have saved her daughter’s life? Better still…why wasn’t the activist grandmother actively involved in helping her navigate the Medicaid application process? After all, isn’t that what activism is all about?

There is no doubt that Tiffany Owens succumbed to her illness (pulmonary hypertension) but there are so many pieces of the puzzle still missing. Tiffany had already received care, including an 8 day hospital stay, but when she began vomiting blood, she failed to seek additional care which eventually contributed to her death. Was she too weak to get to a doctor and where was her activist mother at the moment when her needs were greater than anytime before? Where was the Medicaid system that was specifically created to provide care for people just like Tiffany? Most importantly, why should we trust a government with our care when they failed so miserably in the case of Tiffany Owens?

One would think that if seventy people a day are dying because of the lack of affordable healthcare insurance as Progressive Democrats claim, that the President could easily pick case after case where the death of an individual can be solidly linked to the lack of health care but instead, they choose ones that fall completely apart under the slightest scrutiny. The reason they don’t is because they can’t. This nation has had a long standing practice of providing care for anyone that needs it and while there are stories of financial difficulties, those come after the care has already been given and the money is sorted out later. No one in America dies because of a lack of care. Kucinich can claim that insurance companies, from time to time, may unfairly deny paying for a procedure, leaving the patient with the bill but that truth is also a hard indictment of government care. What Kucinich and his President never told you is that the insurance companies that lead the nation in claim denial are the Federal government programs of Medicare and Medicaid. Imagine that!

Paul

Here Lies the Rupublic - May She Rest in Peace

While the talking heads tally the latest count of pro and con votes for healthcare, Nancy Pelosi predicts a vote will take place by late next week. The President has postponed his trip to Asia so he can strong-arm…oops…I meant persuade wavering Democrats for an additional three days. One thing is clear; Pelosi will only proceed to a vote if she is certain of the outcome and that certainty will either be purchased in more promises through back room deals or through the threats of retribution in the form of base closures and the diversion of stimulus money.

A sizeable amount of the stimulus funds remains unspent and many could not understand why the Congress would pass a jobs bill for even more money when so much stimulus money is still waiting for distribution. A quick accounting of stimulus dollars show that the funds that were distributed were focused in areas that were represented by Party faithful by a factor of two to one and that districts represented by Republicans with higher unemployment rates and more dire economic expectations were largely ignored. The eyes of the nation are on the healthcare debate and talk of backroom deals like the Louisiana Purchase (Hi Mary) and the Cornhusker Kickback have infuriated the public so intensely that Democratic leadership can no longer risk such blatant examples of vote buying. What they can do is point to the huge pile of stimulus money still waiting to be spent and wink at those that are on the fence.

Democratic leadership will stop at nothing to get this vote done before the Easter break because the one thing they fear more than anything else is the possibility of the public getting to speak with their representatives before a vote can be taken. After all, those angry people that attended the town hall meetings last August nearly upset the whole reform conversation. Now that the opposition to this bill has been cemented even further and Congressional approval ratings are at their lowest point in recorded history, any contact between Congress and constituent would damage the chances for passage beyond repair. Apparently, this latest push and deadline is meant to prevent that contact from ever happening. Is this democracy? Is this representative government?

The argument has been made that in a Republic, we elect representatives that best reflect our values and then trust them to vote their conscience. If that were true in every case and the will of the people can only be counted on Election Day, then why do so many elected officials claim a “mandate” if they win election by more than a mere majority? When there is overwhelming opposition to any legislation then the will of the people must determine the outcome or the validity of representative government becomes impaired. A Republic can only survive if the governed have confidence that they are actually being represented.

Today, we have little confidence in that representation and even less faith that our confidence can be restored. The 2010 elections will be more than a commentary on this President and his Congressional colleagues; it will be a turning point in the history of our nation. I sadly predict that healthcare bill will pass by hook and mostly by crook and that the Democrats will suffer a major defeat in November because of it. However, if the November election does not usher in a new breed of politician that will act with dignity and honor to restore the faith of the electorate, I have little hope that the United States will escape the grave consequences brought on by the last hundred years of Progressive meddling.

The latest assault on our Constitution is already being planned if the White House and Nancy Pelosi cannot secure the votes to get the bill past the house in the manner prescribed by law. As I discussed Friday, Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has suggested that since the House and the Senate have already passed similar bills, the Senate bill should just be sent to the President without a House vote. If that is attempted, I can envision a fire storm among the electorate that can only end in disaster. People were already incensed at the news that if the Bill passed through the house, the Senate intended to use reconciliation to effectively negate the vote of newly elected Republican, Scott Brown. The Slaughter plan would represent a new low for the most corrupt Congress of the century; negating not only Scott Brown’s vote, but the representative vote of the American people.

Not even during a state of emergency has this amount of power been seized by an obvious minority of elected officials. This is not the opening day of World War III and there is no looming threat of an asteroid collision with earth. There is nothing about this bill that would require such extraordinary and dictatorial measures be taken to secure its passage. If Congress can perpetrate such a clear and dangerous abrogation of due process then the rights guaranteed by the Constitution may only be a signature away from extinction. The legislative rules that Louise Slaughter and Nancy Pelosi obviously consider an issue of mere formality are really the basis of representative government. To use this tactic means that the sheer will of Progressive ideologues can and will create laws, administrations and regulations without the need for even a simple majority. Where is your Republic then?

Blatant chicanery has marred the healthcare bill ever since it was proposed. The kickback schemes that encouraged members of Congress to prostitute their votes (Hi again Mary…and you thought I forgot you!) were only the beginning. The President promised he would not sign a bill that added to the deficit so they began skimming major spending deals out of the bill only to be hidden within other less obvious resolutions. The “Doctor Fix” that would stabilize Medicare payments to doctors is valued at nearly three-hundred billion dollars, would have added every penny of that fix to the deficit. They needed that “fix” to secure the silence of doctors so it was cut from the healthcare bill and now resides quietly and uncounted in the latest jobs bill. It still adds to the deficit but just not as part of the healthcare bill.

The Presidential promise of “If you like your current insurance, you can keep it” has slowly transformed into “If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” Not many picked up on that because it was repeated so often that the minor change of two words was barely noticeable. But the change of those two words makes all the difference in the world. Certain plans will be grandfathered in as long as they meet the new government established requirements while the rest will be replaced. Even grandfathered plans have a shelf life and will be terminated under this bill by 2019.

The President assured everyone that the cost of insurance plans would go down with passage of this bill but now it seems that the reduction the President was talking about is relative to the new expanded coverage mandated by the bill and in fact, current plans will see an increase of ten to thirteen percent almost immediately. The President also said that abortion is not covered under the healthcare bill but even Planned Parenthood is calling for support for the President’s bill because of the new access to abortion the plan will provide.

Lie after lie has been told to gain support for this bill and now that the lies have failed and the truth is too widely known to obscure it with platitudes and sob stories, Progressives are desperate to save it. Reconciliation would have shoved it down your throat but Ms. Slaughter and Ms. Pelosi are now planning a different and more painful route to the gastrointestinal tract. Progressives are like roaches. Most of their work must be done in the dark and they usually scatter when the lights go on. Hopefully, enough people will launch a preemptive strike and flood the Congress with letters and phone calls to warn them we are watching. The Slaughter plan must not be allowed to stand or the Republic will fall as an emboldened President and his Congressional henchmen continue chopping away at our Constitution to create more loopholes in order to advance his radical agenda.

Paul