No Serenade From The Rotund Maid

I'm not sure whatever happened to decisive action on matters of great import, but this is one instance in which I am grateful for a process that allows for the temporary victory of the irresolute. As a body, our Congress has proven as such, even as the combatants have not.

To be certain, that is not as true of Democrats as of Republicans who - despite having earned well the ire of their own constituency over the past few years - have fought the good fight, as one, in this battle of the health care revolution. Democrats, on the other hand, have exposed themselves as the invertebrates most people have known them to be, albeit to little fanfare thanks to a media all too eager to see them succeed.

As a result, too many citizens have been lulled into believing that Democrats were on the right path with ObamaCare, despite the chicanery employed to get it passed and the candor by which such subterfuge was waged. While that last may seem contradictory, I remind the reader of the concept of hiding in plain sight.

Congressional Democrats, known for a low pain threshold, were understandably queasy about the Slaughter Solution. They did not want to be tied to a procedural rule that was never intended to be used in an instance of this magnitude. They were more willing to squeal at the mere grabbing of their arms by the "leadership" long before the act of twisting was even contemplated.

But now, as we near the final capitulation of Congressional members with alleged principles, and as the House of Representatives moves to pass the Health Care Bill, Republicans have already mounted a counter in the Senate to fight this travesty, and they claim to have the backing of the Senate Parliamentarian.

Tonight, Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Judd Gregg had this to say:

“Immediately after receiving the final reconciliation bill language, Senate Republican staff was ready and willing to meet with Senate Democratic staff and the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss the fact that the House reconciliation bill may be brought down by the 310(g) point of order in the Senate. Senate Democrats are mysteriously unavailable until after the House votes on the health care bill tonight. The Senate Democrats appear to be pushing off this meeting so that House Democrats will remain in the dark about what is likely to happen to the reconciliation bill on which many have staked their careers in Congress. House Democrats should be alarmed by this latest development, since the survival of the reconciliation bill is clearly at risk in the Senate.”

Considering the political jeopardy Republicans place themselves in, especially when the media will most assuredly attempt to portray them as uncaring bastards, this stand is somewhat remarkable. Is it possible that the Republicans have merely felt the winds of rage from the Tea Parties blowing on their raised, wet fingers?

That is also a distinct possibility, but I for one am comfortable at the moment to accept an obsequious representation in light of the majority of which it is borne. This is an historic time. The stakes of this legislation are enormous, and the mark it makes on our nation cannot be ignored nor taken lightly.

Sphere: Related Content

Slaughtering The Constitution

Barack Hussein Obama the other day said the "time to talk was over", and that the time to vote had come. Yet even now the Democrats are preparing to stop talking and not vote, but to deem that the House considers that it has passed the Senate version of ObamaCare. Not only do we have 535 elected "leaders" who vote on bills they haven't read, they apparently have not read the Constitution that every one of them has sworn an oath to uphold and defend.

Or worse, they simply consider themselves above the tenets of that cherished document and plan to rule by decree. After all, it has become common knowledge that leftists sneer at the rigid constructs of the Constitution and its incessant insistence on the rights of the individual. They have expressed many times in the recent past - our president included - their disappointment with the Founders' lack of vision concerning modern America, and a deep-seated desire to right those perceived wrongs.

In fact, in 2006 then-Senator Obama gave a radio interview in Chicago in which he complained that the Founders laid out in the Constitution too much of what the Federal government can't do and not enough of what it must do. And now he is the president.

There once was a time when even Liberals cared about the will of the people even if they disagreed with it. Now, however, they have changed gears and have decided that the people really are too stupid to understand what they need, and so will make those decisions that need to be made for the good of all.

This became evident in the long and arduous negotiations for ObamaCare, and the subsequent birth of the Tea Party movement. Or perhaps it was earlier than that when, last summer, recessing Congresspeople were confronted by extremely agitated constituents over the bailouts and the alleged "stimulus" package.

Then, when the wheels began to fall off the Democrats' bus, with the loss of several seats - and votes - through both attrition and choice, Obama, Reid and Pelosi (the Triad) began formulating ways to circumvent the legislative process to facilitate their whims. Losing their super majority in the special election in Massachusetts, in which Republican Scott Brown became the 41st vote for the party, the Triad began dangling the prospect of reconciliation to further their wretched dreams of Universal Health Care.

While history sadly has become subjective, recorded history is irrefutable, and the video and audio record of Democrats in 2005 - when they were the minority party - railing against the use of reconciliation became too much for even the wicked to bear, so an alternate plan had to be drawn up.

In rides Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) with a convoluted and completely unconstitutional plan to run the end-around without reconciliation, perhaps relying on the stale notion that most people aren't paying attention to politics anyway. Being called-out on reconciliation should have provided a clue to these politicians, but we may have misjudged their acumen and understanding of the real world.

In effect, the Democrats are now planning to enact legislation that a majority of the electorate does not want, and they are planning to violate the Constitution in doing so. Slaughter's plan (The Slaughter Solution) is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation that they have not recorded a vote upon, marking the first time it has ever been done.

Some would call such a foray "innovative", while others would properly identify it - especially in this context - as illegal. For all of Obama's complaints about the way the Constitution was written, it remains true that it is not his place to rewrite it. He is merely the 44th steward of the structure and vehicle laid out by much better men, but I fear that he has not learned that lesson despite his generous education.

Perhaps the only lesson that will permeate such a skull will be learned at the polls, both in 2010 and 2012. Provided that there will still be free elections by then.

Sphere: Related Content

Irreconcilable Differences

Convince the people that your opponents are lying about your lies by telling a bigger lie. If that isn't a bona fide part of the liberal/progressive playbook, it should be. Truth be told, I was too lazy to research the phrase's existence since I just made it up. If someone beat me to it, please advise in the comments section.

Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly and abundantly clear that Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have nothing to fear from a media that once relished the prospect of exposing the lies of our government. It must be noted, too, that the fortunes of that media relic have turned south in direct correlation to their obsequious behavior regarding the system of which they have obviously dreamt. Talk about a veritable Monkey's Paw.

But I digress. Gloating over the self-inflicted demise of a once venerable institution such as journalism accomplishes nothing more than a brief and empty sense of vindication, with no real reward other than being proved right. Further, if no one steps up to accept culpability, the vindication is only imaginary, no matter how true.

So, casting aside the flotsam, lets examine the events leading to Obama's overhaul of America, and the subterfuge utilized to accomplish such a heinous goal.

He has complained bitterly of the "blatant misstatements of the facts" by his opponents, citing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data as some form of certification of his own numbers. Yet the CBO analysis of Obama's policies on Friday predict that they will add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

He also accuses Republicans of misrepresenting the facts on his health care agenda, then blatantly attempts to trick the public into believing that reconciliation has been used in similar fashion many times in the past, which is an outright lie. (Where's Joe Wilson when we need him?)

There have been twenty-two instances since reconciliation was created that the practice has been used, true. But for Democrats to attempt its use in this instance is the equivalent of using a screwdriver to hammer nails. It was never intended to exclude the opposition party, first and foremost, and it was never intended to be used for anything other than budgetary measures, not sweeping overhauls to anything on the magnitude being proposed here.

Of the twenty-two times reconciliation has been used, only seventeen of the measures passed, and virtually all of them had true bi-partisan support, many of them in large numbers. It has never been used when one party is united in opposition. So for Obama - who, along with his fellow Democrats were vehemently opposed to the use of reconciliation just five years ago - to suggest that it would be a pretty good idea now is ludicrous, not that the media has noticed.

One must also wonder if Obama called Senator Robert Byrd - a co-author of the reconciliation process - after a letter he wrote to his colleagues just under a year ago was brought to light to demonstrate his then-opposition to the use of reconciliation. Of course, Byrd has recently come out in support of reconciliation, but his April 2009 letter clearly says otherwise.

The disingenuousness lies in that Byrd now claims he is still against reconciliation being used for health care reform, but it's perfectly legitimate to use it for the "fix" currently being promulgated. I'm reminded of a father telling his teen that he can't have the car, but he can have the keys, and then being shocked to see a fresh hundred miles on the odometer.

It shall be interesting in the coming weeks to see if these inglorious bastards inflict this travesty on the American people, and then watching the reaction in November.

Sphere: Related Content