An Ambitious, Lame-Duck Session

The Democrats are about to get their clocks cleaned. That doesn't mean that they will just go away. They are planning a humongous lame-duck party where they can pass huge whopping gobbs of legislation in a big fat "Fuck-You!" to all of the American people that have voted them out of office.

See: The Obama-Pelosi Lame Duck Strategy

Democratic House members are so worried about the fall elections they're leaving Washington on July 30, a full week earlier than normal—and they won't return until mid-September. Members gulped when National Journal's Charlie Cook, the Beltway's leading political handicapper, predicted last month "the House is gone," meaning a GOP takeover. He thinks Democrats will hold the Senate, but with a significantly reduced majority.

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That's why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.

"I've got lots of things I want to do" in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June.

Get ready people. This is going to be an ugly Autumn.

Can The Federal Government Mandate That You Buy A Private Product?

Washington State's Attorney General will be making the argument that it can't. A surprisingly supportive editorial from the left of center Seattle Times editorial board explains.

See: AG Rob McKenna has a case to challenge the health-care law's individual mandate

The main challenge here is on one point — whether the federal government can require people to buy a private product: health insurance.

The argument centers on the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause, which gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce ... among the several States ... " The lawsuit argues that requiring a citizen to buy insurance goes beyond regulating commerce. It is, says McKenna, "forcing people into the stream of commerce."

The law calls its mandate a tax. But if you comply, your money goes to the insurance company. You pay the government only if you don't comply — which means, McKenna says, "It's not a tax. It's a fine."

We think McKenna has a good case, and one the progressives who condemn him ought to appreciate. These critics are so often right about the dangers of corporate power, and particularly the rapacity of insurance companies.

Click on the link – Read the whole editorial.

I am hopeful that Rob McKenna and the other states Attorney Generals will make a good case before the Court.

Republicans Score A Huge Victory For The Constitution

In the battle over the Democrat's Health Care Rationing scheme, the Republicans have won a huge victory against the Democrat's consideration of using a shady and frankly unconstitutional gimmick to pass the bill in the house without a direct vote, with a slight-of-hand trick called the Slaughter Solution.

The Slaughter Solution is now dead.

See:House Opts Against 'Deeming' Health Care Bill Passed

House Democrats on Saturday decided against using a controversial tactic to pass the Senate's version of the health care bill,  a senior House source confirmed to Fox News.

The decision capped an ongoing discussion on whether to use a so-called "deem and pass" strategy that would allow House members to approve the Senate version of health care bill without an actual vote before casting votes on a second "fix-it" resolution, known as reconciliation.

This is a big win for Republicans.

Now the Democrats will have to put their names on the Yea's and Nay's of their plans to ration health-care. Now we can hold them accountable for this monstrosity without them being able to pretend that they did not vote for the damnable thing.

See also: Rules Committee meeting descends into chaos

HT: JCM, PiGuy & CC

The Democrat Health-Care Rationing Scheme Legislation As A Vote Winner

Can the Democrats really believe that their Health-Care Rationing Scheme will be good for them in the Midterms and beyond?

In a word, Yes.

See: EXCLUSIVE: Biden Says White House Getting Earful from Nervous Lawmakers Over Health Care

Biden said once these provisions take effect and the American people feel the impact, lawmakers who vote "yes" will reap the benefits.

"They're going to see right off the bat the horrible [things] aren't real and there are some very good things that become apparent immediately," Biden said. "Once the American public realizes that ... [legislators are] going to be rewarded."

Can the Democrats really believe that?

Yes they can.

We are talking about true-believers.

Many on the left believe that the rightly guided (god) state can make for a paradise on earth. To us, that is a madness, but to them it is in the realm of the possible.

In fact, our oppositions to their efforts to bring about thier new and inherently benevolent god-state is seen by them as proof our meanness and selfishness.

Sure, they understand that some of the things that they will do will make some people unhappy for a time, but they believe that the paradise of the god-state that they are ushering in is worth a few minor discomforts that some may experience. They believe that once the god-state is in place, that everyone that was discomforted will realize that it was selfish of them to complain of their discomforts and come to support with the whole of their heart and soul the greatness and the glory of the benevolent new god-state.

Can they really believe that the ends justify the means?

I think that they really do believe that they are doing a right and good thing. They believe that they are doing a good thing worth every effort and with an end so worthy that any means to bring it about can be justified.

We have seen the Democrats seriously entertain the Slaughter Solution. I think that made it clear that they really are based in a "the ends justify the means" world-view.

They are only held back by the limits of what they can get away with.

.

We are about to embark on a brave new future.

FIghting The Democrat's Health-Care Rationing Scheme The Idaho Way

Idaho points the way.

See: Idaho challenges national health care proposal; more states may follow

Washington (CNN) -- Idaho on Wednesday became the first state to pass a law saying no thanks to part of President Obama's health care proposal.

The Idaho Health Care Freedom Act says in part, "every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty."

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, a Republican, said Wednesday he signed it because he believes any health care laws should ensure people are "treated as an individual, rather than as an amorphous mass whose only purpose in this world is to obey federal mandates."

The Democrats are not just a federal party. They operate on the State and local levels as well. They should all be made to feel the heat from the Federal Democrat's attempt to ration Health-Care.

The Democrats at the State level need to feel threatened by the blow-back from what their partners are doing at the federal level.

One way to do this is to contact your State government Representatives and ask them to pass a bill like Idaho's.

No Democrat should feel safe, no mater how low or obscure the office they hold. All Democrats need to know that they will be held accountable for the Federal level Democrat's attempt to screw the citizens of the United States.

Call your local state representatives and ask them (politely) to follow Idaho's lead.

There is no time to hesitate or wait. Call them today.

Rationing Health-Care By A Procedural Slight Of Hand.

By hook or by crook, the left-wing extremist that run the Democrat Party are going to get their "Health-Care" bill onto the President's desk one way or the other. The Slaughter Trick is beyond the pale. They will set them selves up to ration your healthcare if they have to rape the Constitution to do it.

See: House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

We are down to the wire. Now is the time for you to do something.

Here are two toll-free phone numbers to the Capital Switchboard.

Try these ones first
877 762 8762, 866-877-4455 (Should work for both the House and Senate.)

800 965 4701 (House)
800 828 0498 (Senate)

As always, be civil and polite.

When you call these numbers, you will reach an operator. Ask the operator to transfer you to your congressman's or Senator's office. You will need to know your critter's name. Don't rely on the operator to know who your congress critter is. If you don't know, try this website. Enter your zip-code and your State. It will give you your congress critter's name and contact information.

This is important.

It is a game changing.

This is a watershed moment in our nation's history.


~

And here is one that needs to hear from all of us.

Nancy Pelosi - Phone (202) 225-4965, Fax (202) 225-8259

Will The Democrats Slaughter The Constitution For Socialized Medicine?

Nancy Pelosi is expressing confidence that the Democrat's Health-care bill will pass. Her confidence may be well founded. The Democrats are contemplating a maneuver that has been dubbed The Slaughter rule. Named after Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), Chair of the House Rules Committee.

See: The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution

Under her proposal, Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate's health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on the bill. This would enable Congress to vote on legislation that fixes flaws in the Senate health-care bill without facing a Senate filibuster, and without requiring House members to vote in favor of a Senate bill that is now politically toxic.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution may pose a problem for the Democrats, but since the Health-care bill is an “all the marbles” play for them, I think that they would be willing to risk a constitutional chalenge, thinking that if in the off chance the court rules in their favor, they will own the whole of the Republic outright.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

M. Connell explains in the Wall Street Journal Article cited above:

As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text."

Again, I think that the Democrats may be willing to gamble that the present makeup of the Supreme Court could possibly rule in their favor.

If they lose, its back to the status quo with a loss of a few seats in congress. The voting publics notoriously short memory will help them regain the lost seats in a few election cycles. No real penalty will be paid.

However, if they were to win at the Supreme Court, they will have made everyone in the Republic dependent on them for their health-care.

Lose a little versus win the whole damn enchilada.

(See also: Slaughter Solution Unconstitutional)

Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"

Pelosi on why the health care bill should be passed.



Would you give a Democrat a blank check?

Elections have consequences.