Harry Reid, Spin Master Extaordinaire

Harry Reid, who is known to spin anything in a positive way, had some fun with his great, great uncle...

No matter what side of the AISLE you're on, THIS is ......FUNNY!

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogy researcher in southern California , was doing some personal work on her own family tree. She discovered that Senator Harry Reid's great-great uncle, Remus Reid, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. Both Judy and Harry Reid share this common ancestor.

 The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows in Montana territory:

On the back of the picture Judy obtained during her research is this inscription: 'Remus Reid, horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.'

So Judy recently e-mailed Senator Harry Reid for information about their great-great uncle.

Harry Reid:

Believe it or not, Harry Reid's staff sent back the following biographical sketch for her genealogy research:

" Remus Reid was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to government service, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic event held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed ." 

 That took some talent. 

Hat tip, Linda D.

Harry Reid on Silicon Graffti

Here's Ed Driscoll's newest installment of Silicon Graffiti:

The Nuclear Option: Reid's Stupidity Will Come Back To Bite Him on the ...

On Thursday, Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader crossed the Rubicon.  His decision to invoke the "nuclear option" that limits the ability of the minority party to add amendments and force debate on any issue will come back to bite him on the ass. 
Why is this issue important?  Well, as the Washington Examiner editorial tells it,

For more than two centuries, the U.S. Senate has been known as the world's greatest deliberative body because of its rule ensuring the right of every senator to force consideration of, and a recorded vote on, any issue. The rule made the Senate unique as the world's only legislative entity in which the rights of majorities and minorities were equally protected. But 221 years of tradition and majestic debate mean nothing to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who, for no better reason than avoiding an embarrassing vote, used procedural legerdemain to obliterate minority rights in the upper chamber.

In 2012, the Democratic Party will have to defend 23 seats in the US Senate that are up for reelection, versus 10 for the GOP. 13 of those seats could very easily be won by the GOP as the current incumbents are facing stiff challenges or are unpopular in thier states. By attempting to save senators who are at risk from a vote that would hinder their relection chances, he is guaranteeing that the "nuclear option" will be used by the GOP once they almost certainly regain control of the US Senate in 2013.

The mere threat of the use of this "option" in 2005, during the Bush administration sent Democratic Senators and their MSM enablers into screaming fits...but it was done in relative silence last week.  The GOP declined to use it because they understood that "what goes around, comes around," and doing so would irrevocably damage the legislative system of the Senate.  But, after the shenanigans during the passage of ObamaCare, where in both the House and Senate, the Democratic majority trampled on the democratic process, hiding behind closed doors to lock out the GOP, Reid has shown he doesn't care about minority party rights, just about his party's agenda. 

This will come back to haunt in 17 months when it bites him on the ass...

Economic History 101: WaPo Blames Bush...again

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL. So once more, a short civics lesson

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 & FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 & FY 2011. (FY = fiscal year)

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi

& Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until

Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.  And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Submitted by a regular reader,  who asks to remain anonymous.

Bad Economic Indicators...

Via IBD:

The 3 Stooges

GOP Buyer's Remorse? Think It's Congressional Remorse...

In today's NY Times there's a column by yet another tool of the Democratic media complex named Charles Blow.  He quotes a Pew poll that buyer's remorse has set in over the recent national election. 

Democrats still searching for a silver lining to the waxing they took last Tuesday can cheer up a bit. According to a new poll, the public may already be experiencing a bit of buyer’s remorse about the choices they’ve made,

I submit that there was far more "remorse" prior to the election due to the suicidal spending policies of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.  Basically voters chose the GOP because the suck just a little bit less than the alternative...an alternative that in four years has added more than 1/3 to the national debt, much of that within the past 2 years.  Here's my comment:

Your Submitted Comment

Display Name  Rich Vail
Location  Pikesville, MD
Comment
I think the common fallacy here is that the country \"trusts\" the GOP more than the democrats. What it really is that the GOP sucks a little less than the Democrats. That's it pure and simple. Under the GOP when they controlled Congress, last in 2006, the largest deficit was \"only\" $485 billion dollars. That number has been dwarfed by the last to Congresses controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid...who have added $5,000,000,000,000.00 to the debt, that's more than 1/3 of the cumulative national debt of $13 trillion dollars.

That along with a tone deaf White House who pushed a health care seizure that the country doesn't want, led by a Speaker who said \"we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it...\" has led the country to repudiate that agenda. America, whether you like it or not here in the NY Times echo chamber, is a centre/right country. The Democratic Party refused over the past two years to listen to what the voters wanted.

You think this election was bad...just wait until the 26 GOP controlled state legislatures reapportion Congressional districts. You'll see ever more losses of House seats. Additionally, there will be some 20 seats in the Senate that now hold Democrats...more than half of which are considered to be \"vulnerable.\"

If the GOP doesn't FUBAR the next two years, you'll see even more losses in the Senate (10-15, perhaps 18) and another 30 or so in the House...think about that...Even should Mr. Obama gain reelection, the GOP would then hold a veto-proof majority in both Houses of Congress as well as a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Rich Vail
Pikesville, MD
http://thevailspot.blogspot.com

comments?

Mad Duck Session

I expect that we'll see in the rump session of Congress, an attempt by Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi to push through all those agenda items that they refused to see to prior to the election, rightly thinking that this would further inflame voters.  After all, with the loss of 60 seats, many of them committee chairmen and thus senior members of the Democratic leadership, the party thinks that it has nothing to lose...

 I expect to see "Cap & Trade" pushed through the Senate, as well a "Card Check" and a few other sundry items that Democratic constiuencies have been pining for for decaes.  This "Mad Duck" session will only make the election of 2012 much, much worse for the Democratic Party...voters have much longer memory than we did just a few years ago...

Are You Better Off Now Than You Were 4 Years Ago?

I'm not.  My wife can't find a full time job since she was laid off two and a half years ago.  I only just started back working in a cabinet shop three weeks ago.  We're perpetually behind on all of our bills and the worry of being evicted is always there.

In 2006, the Democratic Party took control of Congress and did nothing to the economy except to make it worse.  Of course big government Republicans who controlled the GOP at the time were, and are still, merely "Democrat Lite."   But, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid systematically set out to create the economic chaos that we have  now by refusing to do anything about Freddie Mac and Fannie May. 

Democrats fought every Republican effort to clean up the impending Fannie-Freddie catastrophe with their standard class-warfare rhetoric and racist sliming. The Democrats had a field day fighting off Republican attempts to reform Fannie-Freddie before it brought the mortgage business to full-blown crisis. Then, when the whole thing exploded in all our faces — bringing the cascading collapse to banks and every other industry in America — the Democrats turned right around in the blink of an eye and wagged their dirty little fingers at Republicans as though none of the citizenry would be the wiser. The Democrats weren’t worried. They presumed that once they got control of the Congress, they could bury their own malfeasance and incompetence under the rug of majority rule. And that is precisely what they have done. No investigations. No hearings. Democrat rulers think the public is still in the dark ages — before the internet.

In the four years since the Democratic Party has been in control of Congress, they have systematically waged economic warfare against business by implementing ruinous regulations.  Furthermore,

They have used their majority status to ram through mountains of anti-business, regulatory legalese that literally shackles the recovery they disingenuously proclaim. Even as Democrats have run around the country all summer like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off, yelling “Recovery!” at the top of their little lungs, the recovery isn’t happening on Main Street and they are the very reason why it isn’t. They won election with their crass gospel of envy, bashing the job creators at every turn and then shake their heads with wonder at why these same small businesses have the life too scared out of them to hire people.

These Democrats openly admit they haven’t even read the bills they’ve passed and then ponder why the citizenry is upset with them. They act as though the U.S. Constitution is nothing more than a doormat that they can step upon as they enter the halls of taxpayer-funded, personal enrichment. They’ve turned the words “public servant” into a synonym for lying thief.[ed see Charlie Rangel & Maxine Waters]
Ever since wresting control of Congress, the Democrat rulers have done all in their power to finagle their way to bureaucratic tyranny, all the while blaming the out-of-power Republicans for having the temerity to say “No,” as strongly as their puny numbers will allow them.

It's time for a change and change we need.  Vote every single incumbent out of office.  Vote in fiscally conservative candidates who won't spend money the government doesn't have and will begin to roll back both the size of the federal and state bureaucracies as well as the scope of government intervention in business.  Candidates who will end ALL government bailouts of the private sector.  Any business "too big to fail" is too big to suceed, and must be permitted to collapse else we will enter a perpetuall cycle of shoring them up...with our great grand childrens money.

Dr Seuss On Obama Care

I do not like this Uncle Sam,

I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks,
or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker Nan ,
I do not like this 'YES, WE CAN'.
I do not like this spending spree---
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free.
I do not like your smug replies,
when I complain about your lies.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it. nope, nope, nope!

Go green - recycle Congress in 2010!

Democrats Plan Ambitious Lame Duck Session

As I've posted before, if the November election is as bad for the Democratic Party, which presently controls Congress seems to predict at present, we'll see the rest of their agenda rammed through in December in a "Mad Duck" session.  If you think chicancery behind the passage of Obama Care is bad, just wait until these men and women will have nothing to lose...

In the Wall Street Journal, someone prominent is finally reporting on this possibility.  This despite rumours pooring out of Washington by the boat load, that this just what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will do as their "last hurrah".   We'll see a raft of massive new taxes,

"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. North Dakota's Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama's deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. "It could be a huge deal," he told Roll Call last month. "We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path." By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

The elimination of the secret ballot in union elections.  

In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like "card check"—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—"the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future."  Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that "to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again." He told Mr. Press "we're still trying to maneuver" a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

Other bills that will probably be considered is the constitionally shakey mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws (um...this sort of throws away the 10th Amendment), as well as a budget resolution that would seek to permanently lock in the vastly increased spending levels that this Congress has imposed.  More importantly, we can't forget  the pork: 

A Senate aide told me that "some of the biggest porkers on both sides of the aisle are leaving office this year, and a lame-duck session would be their last hurrah for spending." Likely suspects include key members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress's "favor factory," such as Pennsylvania Democrat Arlen Specter and Utah Republican Bob Bennett.

The last issue will be the Cap & Trade bill.  A very weak energy bill will be passed in September, then in the Mad Duck session it will be "amended" by replacing it with the radical Cap & Trade bill. 

Mike Allen of Politico.com reports one reason President Obama failed to mention climate change legislation during his recent, Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill was that he wants to pass a modest energy bill this summer, then add carbon taxes or regulations in a conference committee with the House, most likely during a lame-duck session. The result would be a climate bill vastly more ambitious, and costly for American consumers and taxpayers, than moderate "Blue Dogs" in the House would support on the campaign trail. "We have a lot of wiggle room in conference," a House Democratic aide told the trade publication Environment & Energy Daily last month

Officially, the Democratic leadership is saying that nothing sweeping will be done during the lame duck session this year, but privately, legislative aides are bracing for a whole slew of sweeping legislation.  Expect to see the same tactics that were used to ram through ObamaCare used to ram through this radical agenda.  If this is done, the present anger of voters will be NOTHING like what will happen in 2012.  My biggest feara is that the GOP leadership will be what they were from 2002-07, Democratic lite...

63% Support Repealing ObamaCare

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama told us that we'd learn to appreciate ObamaCare after it passed and was signed into law.  So far, that hasn't worked out too well.  A week or two ago, the Congressional Budget Office reported that it would cost an additional $115,000,000,000.00, above the roughly $850,000,000,000.00 the Democratically led Congress said it would.  Now, in a new poll, Rasmussen Reports finds that,

63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.  Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.   Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.

That's the public at large.  On the other hand, our political masters are still insisting that its a good plan for the country,  despite all the conniving deals struck in those back rooms with unions giving them all sorts of tax exemptions on their plans, while the rest of us foot the bill.  So, the political class,

continues to be a strong supporter of the plan, however. While 67% of Mainstream voters believe the plan will be bad for America, 77% of the Political Class disagree and think it be good for the country.

Which I think contributes to the roughly 20% approval rating for Congress as a whole.  I think that they collectively are out of touch with American and it's time to vote all of them out of office.  The harm they're doing to the country is incalculable and will  take decades for us to recover.

REMEMBER NOVEMBER, RE-ELECT NO-ONE!!!

ObamaCare To Cost More Than Expected

As expected, they projections on the cost of the government's seizure of health care are already rising.  Today the Congressional Budget Office announced that ObamaCare will cost at least $115,000,000,000.00 more than Congress and Barack Obama promised before it was passed on a straight party line vote.  For the first time in our history, a massive entitlement program has been enacted without ANY bipartisan support.

Now, the cost of this huge program is going to be at least 12% higher than the $850,000,000,000.00 cost that was promised by a lying Democratic Congressional leadership.  The CBO says that it will be nearer to $1,000,000,000,000.00... that's a staggering sum. 

The additional spending...would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to over $1 trillion.

We can't afford that now, what will the real cost be in 10 years...after all, Medicare was projected to cap in the late 1990's at $40 billion dollars...the real cost is 10 times that at $400 billion dollars per year.  If the projected costs are going to be 12% higher now, six weeks after passage...what does that say for the real dollar amount we will be forced to pay?  ABC is reporting that,

The revised figure is due to estimated costs to federal agencies to implement the new health care reform bill – such as administrative expenses for the Internal Revenue Services and the Department of Health and Human Services -- and the costs for a "variety of grant and other program spending for which specified funding levels for one or more years are provided in the act."

The time has come to vote ALL INCUMBENTS OUT, regardless of party.  These idiots have spent our treasure wastefully and have refused to secure the borders of this country.  It's time for a change...

REMEMBER NOVEMBER!





Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html#ixzz0nm4faayg

A Mad Duck Congress?

If the GOP wins large majorities in this November's election, could the Democrats presently in control of Congress become a "mad duck" congress.  That would mean that during the December's final session of the present Congress, they would pass all sorts of legislation that would be difficult or impossible to reverse, like granting anmesty to 20 million illegal workers, or Cap & Trade bill now stalled in the Senate.  How about a Value Added Tax (VAT). 

These are all presently on the Democratic leaderships agenda, but are stalled or not yet introduced as bills.  Would the Democrats actually attempt to implemeent these very unpopular proposals against the will of the people?  You betcha!  If they passed the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 against the wishes of (as polls showed) 57% of the voting public, you can just about guarantee that they'll pass these items, as they've been on the liberal wish lists for decades.

Micky Kaus, a long time journalist from southern California, now running for the US Senate against Barbara Boxer, says,

The only sure solution to Mad Duckism that I can see is for the Republicans to not win too big, leaving at least a substantial number of Dems with something left to lose. ...

In my opinion, just the opposit should happen, the GOP should win such large majorities as to guarantee repealling all of these items in numbers large enough to over come the certainty of veto by this president (who has already proven to be a far left ideologue).    Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard thinks this is a likely senario as well.  In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Mr. Barnes comes to this conclusion,

It's unpopular, but one can imagine Democrats might seek to enact it. The president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which began its work last week, is required to submit a plan for serious deficit reduction by Dec. 1, four weeks after the November election.


Its recommendations are non-binding, but a lame duck Congress would be in position to take them up, including a possible VAT. Should Democrats suffer a landslide defeat, their large majorities would still be in place for the lame-duck session. What would Democrats who'd been defeated for re-election have to lose by voting for a VAT? Not much.

This scenario isn't as far-fetched as you might think. In a speech at a Democratic reception in Boston on April 1, Mr. Obama boasted of his willingness to do the unpopular: "If you govern by pundit and polls, then you lose sight of why you got into public service in the first place," he said. His "job," he said, isn't to "husband my popularity [and] make sure that I'm not making waves. . . . So I resolved to do not necessarily what was popular, but what I thought was right."

Does Mr. Obama think a VAT would be "right"? Take a guess.

I think because this on that "wish list" of items Democrats want dearly, that this will likely be what happens.  If the GOP wins less than 100 seats in the House and under 10 in the Senate, that the present Speaker of the House and a lame duck Senate Majority Leader will convene a whirlwind session and attempt to pass as much of thier agenda as possible, without any bipartisan effort at all.   After all, with the passage of the extremely unpopular America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 without ANY Republican votes, something unprecidented in our history, why would they shirk at the rest of their agenda?

Overbearing majority

In the Federalist Papers, No. 10, James Madison warns of the "Overbearing Majority" wherein a majority party in Congress would lose sight of it's political mandate and begin enacting legislation that is diametrically opposed by a majority of the populace.  The men who wrote the Constitution put into place a number of procedural safeguards to keep this from happening.  It appears that many of those safeguards were violated when the Democratic Majority passed their "reform" of the health insurance industry.  I believe that this "reform" was more in line with a government seizure of the  health care industry. 

In a Weekly Standard column, Jean Kaufman has begun making an excellent case for this. 

The process by which this bill was passed didn’t just feature corruption and violate traditional ethics. It revealed a president and a congressional leadership that in concert have shown more callous contempt than any in history for the will of the American people, the safeguards against the tyranny of the majority built into the Constitution, and the parliamentary rules by which Congress operates. And there’s every indication that, if need be, the same will be true of cap and trade, immigration reform, or whatever else Obama, Pelosi, and Reid may deem the next morsel they plan to cram down the recalcitrant throat of the American public.

By violating the ethical rules put into place, the majority party has begun to upset the delicate balance that was  installed withing the Constitutional frame work. 

…[M]easures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority…By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community…


But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society…It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm…


Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people…

Even after the passage of this bill, when the majority party in Congress claimed that once passed, the bill would become popular.  This has not in fact occured.  Rasmussen Reports and Gallup Polling have both indicated that opposition to the legilsation has increased by more than 4 points with 58% now favouring repealing all of the legislation.  Generally, when one party has gained a huge majority in Congress as well as control over the Executive branch such as now, the  desire to retain that control has, in  the past, kept the majority party from enacting fractious legislation.  Heretofore, that has been the case.

At the present time, that seems to no longer be the case.  The Democratic leadership seems to have taken the consious decision to enact as many of its long desired legislative goals regardless of public opinion. 

(1) Never before have we seen such a drive to pass a profoundly unpopular bill.


(2) Never before has a bill been passed when it has immediately afterward become clear that the best way for candidates to win an election, or to gain traction in the polls, is to say that they will work tirelessly to repeal that bill.

(3) Never before have a party and a president so publicly and boldly discounted the very idea that procedures in the legislature matter.

Mrs. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House has publicly stated that her goal though this bill was to enact much more legislation that has a far greater impact upon the country. 

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

Thus it now appears that this Democratic leadership has decided to commit political suicide in order to utterly wreck the ecnomic system that has been working fairly well for over 100 years.  

Pelosi argued that the debate over health care reform can begin after the bill is passed. "Pelosi said passing the bill would allow Dems to undertake a 'debate' with Republicans over 'what is the balanced role that government should have,'" writes another pro-reform blogger at the Post, Greg Sargent. According to Sargent, Pelosi explained, "We have to take it to the American people, to say, this is the choice that you have. This is the vision that they have for your health and well being, and this is the vision that we have." Again, in Pelosi's scenario, that debate would occur after the bill is passed.

That is completely against the entire American system of checks and balances.  Debate about legislation under our system must take place during the legislative process, not after that process has ended.  This fall's elections will be a referendum, not just on this majority party's platform, but upon it's actions while in power.  Never before has the party in power utterly ignored the will of the people.   Ms. Kaufman defines it well in her closing...

Pelosi’s phrase was profoundly aggressive, although perhaps she used it without complete consciousness of what she might be conveying. But it was no accident. This is an extraordinary way for a speaker of the House to talk, congruent with the Democratic Party’s newly combative attitude towards the wishes of the American people. This approach is (to use one of Obama’s favorite words) unprecedented for a major political party—at least in this country.

The Democratic Party has placed itself in a precarious position...it can either continue with it's precipate agenda, or pull back and attempt to save what it can.  I suspect that the leadership will continue on it's course having decided that it's too late to turn back.

A Democrat Opposed To Obama Care

I think that the entire problem of the opposition to the Health Care Debate has been to allow the label "reform" to be successfully applied to what is occuring. The government's seizure of yet ever larger portions of the economy has nothing to do with health care reform. What it has to do with is government power, and direct control over the citizens of this country. Those on the left here in the United States have been attempting for decades to take direct control over the economy. This is merely the most recent attempt to do so. A good friend was sent a copy of a constituent's letter.  The letter I'm posting here is to Ron Klein, Congressman from the 22nd District in Florida.

My Dear Mr. Congressman:

I have been a Democrat for more than half a century, and I am thoroughly disgusted with the behavior of the party leadership and many of the sheep Democrats.

I am thoroughly and unalterably opposed to the Obama health care bill, although no one in the leadership of my party seems to care.

You apparently support this bill, without even knowing in advance what is in it, and seemingly without concern for the cost.

I am going to make you a promise: If you vote for this bill, and even if it fails, I will support your opponent in a primary challenge. If you are the Democrat candidate, I will support, campaign for, and vote for the Republican.

Moreover, I will bring along a lot of my friends and neighbors in this endeavor.

If you like Obamacare, then kiss your job goodbye.

M. Ross Shulmister
One Disgusted Democrat

M. Ross Shulmister is a highly respected trial attorney in Pompano Beach.  You'll recall that trial attornies are an important constituency of the Democratic party.  He is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, and a retired career Air Force officer (as was my father).  Additionally, Mr. Shulmister is decorated combat veteran seeing service in Vietnam as well as many direct confrontations with Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War, intercepting Soviet Bears (long range bombers and reconnaissance aircraft) when they violated US Air space in Alaska and Canada for NORAD.

Here is a video response to Mr. Klein by a retired physician.  Mr. Klein's constituents just don't support this bill, which makes it evident that he just doesn't represent his constituents on this issue.

New Gallup Poll finds Americans suddenly souring more on Obama; Now, why could that be?

As hard to believe as that is...that's the headline in today's LA Times article.  But the entire article is dripping with sarcasm that's an even better desciptor of the journalists feelings on this. 

Americans, apparently unhappy with President Obama insulting Asian allies by twice postponing his long-planned trip there this week, have turned against the Democrat in a major poll.


Now, a new Gallup Poll finds, Obama's public approval rating has suddenly fallen to the worst level since he took office however many years ago that seems. He was right around 70% in January of 2009.

Today, Gallup reports, the ex-senator has plunged to a 46% approval rating.

Today, even more disapprove of his presidency, 48%. That seems right down there in the Sarah Palin neighborhood.  [It seems that only Palin is less popular than Obama, ed.]

True, Obama's approval ratings had dropped faster during his first year in office than any recent rookie president. They had hovered around the 50% level the last couple of months.

But in recent days Gallup found Americans suddenly souring even more until more disapprove than approve.  [but it couldn't possibly be about wasting his entire 1st year on seizing control of the health care industry could it? All emphasis is mine, ed]

 Had Mr. Obama actually paid attention at the beginning of last summer, he'd not be in this hole.  Of course stupidly pursuing something that is as unpopular of the government taking control of the health care system in this country wasn't very smart either.  After all, when normally rather docile American voters begin to agitate against a stated policy in ever growing numbers most politicians are intellingent enough to heed the warnings.  But not Barack Obama.  He must have the most incompetant advisors in our history...

He's appointed the brother of one wavering Congressman to the 9th Judicial Circuit.  Promised another that he would be appointed as head of NASA, and yet another would be appointed to be the Ambassador to NATO...when you combine that with all the bribes in the Senate (GatorAid, Louisianna Purchase, CornHusker Kickback), as well as the latest plan to "deem the bill to have passed" by voting for a "rule change" leads me to believe that this administration has no idea just how angry the electorate is becoming with this whole sham.



To exascerbate matters, now Congress, the Democratic leadership is held in the lowest esteem since polling this issue began. 

Oh, speaking of Congress, the new Gallup Poll also finds that barely 16% of Americans approve of its job while 80% (as in eight out of every ten Americans) now disapprove of the work being done by both bodies and their Democratic leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Both of whom are up for re-election in November.

It doesn't get much lower than that, does it?

Swinging Against Health Care Bills

It appears that voters in "swing" districts, that is, those districts which usually vote GOP but elected Democrats in the past two cycles, are turning significantly against the bills being considered for passage this week.  In a new survey by the Polling Company for Independent Women's Voice, a huge majority of voters in those districts are now against passage of the bill.

The survey shows astonishing intensity and sharp opposition to reform, far more than national polls reflect. For 82% of those surveyed, the heath-care bill is either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November. (That number goes to 88% among independent women.) Sixty percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan health-care reform proposal or stop working on it this year. Majorities say the legislation will make them and their loved ones (53%), the economy (54%) and the U.S. health-care system (55%) worse off—quite the trifecta.

I seems that 70% would vote against their Congressman if he votes for the Senate bill (or any of the three now before Congress).  That number includes a large minority of Democrats, as well as a very large number of  independents (72%) as well as 88% of Republicans. 

Over 70%—indeed in several districts over 80%—of respondents, across party lines, said that the following information made them less supportive: the bill mandates that individuals purchase insurance or face penalties; it cuts Medicare Advantage; it will force potentially millions to lose existing coverage; it will cost an estimated $2.3 trillion over its first 10 years; and it will grant unprecedented new powers to the Health and Human Services secretary.

It's not all bad news though, the survey does show that a Congressman can bail himself out of this hole (if he had previously voted for the bill) by voting against it now.   Almost half of the respondents (49%) said they would vote for a Congressman IF they voted against it now.   

More dramatically, 58% of voters say they will be more supportive of their congressman's re-election if he votes against the bill a second time. However, for those members who voted against it in November and vote yes this time, 61% of voters say they will be less likely to support their re-election.

So, if the Democrats do pass this horrendous bill, they will at the very least lose control of the House of Representatives, because fully 35 of those seats are in these "swing" districts.  I predict that voter anger will be so bad that Democrats will lose at least 100 seats if not 150...because the growing backlash against this bill has begun to spread broadly across the middle class, as they will be the ones who ultimately foot the costs of this bill.

The Declaration of Independence

This is one of those times that it become important to actually read the document upon which we, as a country took control of our own future.  This is important as the leadership of the Democratic party has decided upon a course that is probably unconstitutional and dangerous.  They are exploring a method to pass a bill that will in effect seize control of a huge portion of the economy without actually voting on it.  Think about that for a moment.  By simply passing a "rule" the House of Representatives is going to attempt to ram through, a law that will nationalize a sector of the economy, without actually voting on that law.  So...I submit that you should read the first two paragraphs of the following and really think about what this party is attempting to do...the implications of that are enormous...

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776



The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.


He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.


He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.


He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.


He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.


He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.


He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.


He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.


He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.


He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.


He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.


He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.


He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:


For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:


For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:


For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:


For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:


For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:


For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:


For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:


For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.


He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.


He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.


He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.


He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.


He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.


Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.


— John Hancock


New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton


Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross


Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean


Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton


Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn


South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton


Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Constitutionality of the "Slaughter Rule"

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy is a very lively discussion of the constitutionality of the so called "Slaughter Rule."   The Slaughter Rule is a solution proposed by NY-D Congresswoman, Louise Slaughter,  to break the impass on the Obama adminstration's desire to seize for the government, control of the US health care industry. 

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Basically, in my opinion, if the House of Representatives passes such a rule...it would be unconstitutional.  But, thankfully, I'm not a lawyer...so my opinion is moot.  On the other  hand, if the House were to pass such a "rule" would be extraordinarily dangerous...not just that using such a "rule" to extralegally pass legislation without actually voting on it, but a large majority of the country wouldn't take setting aside the Constitution lightly.  It would either see the destruction of the Democratic Party...or would be the start of a revolution.  It could go either way.

Here is Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution:

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.

That seems rather straight forward...but, go to the Volokh Conspiracy and read ALL of the comments.  They are very interesting.  Also take a look at the blog entry at Redstate as well.

Hat Tip:  Instapundit