Keith Hennesey assesses this awful legislation
HT: KeithHennesey.com
On January 22 of this year I recounted the last words of King Charles the 1st, right before Oliver Cromwell, uh, showed him the error of his ways.
‘Their liberty and freedom consists in having laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not having share in government, sirs; that is nothing pertaining to them.”
King Charles the First…moments before being hanged for treason
“The public doesn’t much care what procedure we use to pass this thing”
Democrat Congressman John Larson, today (he wasn’t hanged…sadly)
“Americans ‘Don’t Know or Care Much About’ Parliamentary Procedures”
David Axelrod, still exhaling CO2 at an alarming clip
Amazing how history repeats itself…except for the hanging part, of course. They’ve got the “treason” thing down pat, however. Like Charles the 1st, the Democrats truly feel this whole “government thing” is just NONE of our business…and/or we’re just too stoooopid to understand it. Where’s Cromwell when you need him, eh?
Remember what I said last week about being ready to paint my face blue and start yelling HOLD!
Well, someone else had the same idea!
__________
H/T: I Stand With Stupak! (via The Corner).
The Obama Administration and its supporters on the left have to be the most dishonest in our nation’s history. Rahm Emanuel has stated that they will use any means necessary to pass ObamaCare. For at least ten years, the left has created and supported dissident “Catholic” groups to undermine the Church and support its causes (from abortion to gay marriage). The administration is using these front groups to give the impression that the Catholic Church supports ObamaCare.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Over the weekend, the Bishops issued a letter that was to be read at all masses. Today, Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver, duiscusses phoney front-groups:
In a piece to be released later this morning, Catholic archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver comes out swinging against the health-care push in Washington this week. He writes, in part:
“Groups, trade associations and publications describing themselves as “Catholic” or “prolife” that endorse the Senate version — whatever their intentions — are doing a serious disservice to the nation and to the Church, undermining the witness of the Catholic community; and ensuring the failure of genuine, ethical health-care reform
. By their public actions, they create confusion at exactly the moment Catholics need to think clearly about the remaining issues in the health-care debate. They also provide the illusion of moral cover for an unethical piece of legislation.”
Do not be misled, in other words, by a Speaker’s liesor by anyone claiming to speak for the Catholic Church telling you a Catholic’s conscience will be clear if he supports this legislation.
Chaput concludes:
The long, unpleasant and too often dishonest national health-care debate is now in its last days. Its most painful feature has been those “Catholic” groups that by their eagerness for some kind of deal undercut the witness of the Catholic community and help advance a bad bill into a bad law. Their flawed judgment could now have damaging consequences for all of us.
Do not be misled. The Senate version of health-care reform currently being pushed ahead by congressional leaders and the White House — despite public resistance and numerous moral concerns — is bad law; and not simply bad, but dangerous. It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community. In its current content, the Senate version of health-care legislation
And he adds words of praise for Bart Stupak, among others:
the health-care reform debate has never been merely a matter of party politics. Nor is it now. Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak and a number of his Democratic colleagues have shown extraordinary character in pushing for good health-care reform while resisting attempts to poison it with abortion-related entitlements and other bad ideas that have nothing to do with real “health care.” Many Republicans share the goal of decent health-care reform, even if their solutions would differ dramatically. To put it another way, few persons seriously oppose making adequate health services available for all Americans. But God, or the devil, is in the details — and by that measure, the current Senate version of health-care reform is not merely defective, but also a dangerous mistake.
Gratitude! And clarity! This is what you call shepherding (and he’s not new to any of this, and specifically on health care). And leadership. Someone else to say “thank you” to when you have the chance.
Warner Todd Huston illustrates how the Lamestream Media is using fake Catholic groups to create the false impression that the Catholic Church supports ObamaCare.
Hat tip: National Review Online and publiusforum.com
Wasn’t the world supposed to love and respect the United States once Barack Obama became President? It appears that just the opposite is true. Our relations with Israel are at a 35-year low and they are planning demonstrations to “greet” Obama when he arrives in Indonesia.
JERUSALEM – Israeli-U.S. relations have hit a 35-year low over a West Bank settlement plan that threatens to derail peacemaking efforts with the Palestinians, Israel’s envoy to Washington was quoted as saying on Monday.
The comments attributed to Ambassador Michael Oren, a noted Middle East historian, clashed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assurances that the row resulting from a settlement announcement deemed “insulting” by the Obama administration was under control.
“Israel’s ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975 … a crisis of historic proportions,” the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper quoted Oren as telling other Israeli diplomats in a telephone briefing over the weekend.
The remarks, also carried by other Israeli media, appeared to refer to U.S. pressure in 1975 for an Israeli redeployment in the Egyptian Sinai, occupied by Israel since the 1967 war and the site of renewed fighting in 1973.
Hat tip Reuters.
“I can understand the Israelis – typical white people – but the Indonesians? They should love me because of my Muslim, er, I mean Christian faith.”
Just to take a break from the Health Care debate.
It was a big weekend for Mitt Romney as he addressed 4,000 people Saturday at the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City and his book became #1 on the New York Times Best Seller List (even though it has never broken into the top ten at Amazon.con or Barnes & Noble).
Romney’s appearance in Salt Lake City was part of a fundraiser for the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics, and was expected to raise $50,000 for scholarships. The Deseret News (which is owned by the Mormon Church) described Romney as a “rock star.”
Tracy Parker, a wedding hostess from Centerville, was already starting to read her pre-autographed copy of his book, included in the ticket price. Parker said the evening was a surprise 50th birthday present from her husband, Rich.
“I’m excited to read it. Oh my gosh, there are so many things I think about,” she said, tapping the cover of the book. “I have no idea what we should be doing. But this man is so smart.”
Some Utahns in the audience paid extra to spend time with Romney at a reception held before the speech that also was attended by fellow Republicans politicians, including Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch and Rep. Jason Chaffetz.
Chaffetz joked about the large turnout for Romney. “He’s a rock star. Jon Bon Jovi doesn’t get this many people.”
Unfortunately, once again Mitt was overshadowed by a petite former Alaskan governor. While Romney failed to sell out the Salt Palace, Sarah Palin was in Tulsa speaking as part of Taking our Country Back Tour, which drew 6,000. To be fair, Sarah Palin shared the stage with Glenn Beck, John Rich and Gretchen Wilson, but she actually received greater press coverage than Romney.
Romney’s book signing tour has not attracted the crowds that Palin brought out last fall. The Detroit News reported that about 450 attended Mitt Romney’s book signing in Birmingham, MI (Mitt’s childhood home) and 200 showed up in Sacramento, according to the Sacramento Bee.
We’re about two years away from the heart of the 2012 primary season. Polls show Romney is the favorite of GOP “insiders” and those within the Beltway. Can Mitt Romney generate enthusiasm with the party’s base? Can Sarah Palin overcome the negative media treatment she receives from MSM? What other candidates will appear: Jim DeMint, Mick Huckabee, John Thune, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich or Jeb Bush? Will John McCain try another run? Will an unknown appear? How will the 2010 mid-terms affect the 2012 primaries? What effect will two more years of Barack Obama have on the race? What effect will the Tea Party have? Whom will the party brass back if Romney fails? Whom will conservatives back if Palin falters or decides not to run?
What do you think?
Hat tips: Deseret News and the Oklahoman.
I see that Pinocchio has broken into the wine again
“Analysis” of the HellCare debacle
HT: Washington Composte
Yup, the Bi-Partisan Bill supported by only one Party that was transparently crafted in secret will finally more-or-less come to “light” (depending on the definition of “light“).
It’s going to:
- lower Health Care costs
- lower the deficit
- create jobs
- do something loveable (“you’ll be surprised” – N. Piglosi)
Best of all, ObamaCare is SOOOO popular with the American people we’re going to have to use a 6-cushion bank shot, a gallon of white-out (for that pesky “Constitution” thingee), and sacrifice a goat (don’t ask, don’t tell) in order to “pass” it (depending on the definition of “pass“).
So gather ’round lads and lasses, gather ’round! The game is easy and FUN, just follow the pea BILL…
Let us assume for a moment that the Slaughter move is triggered and the Nits in Congress fall for the flim flam. What might be the next step as far as an escalation? I Might suggest expulsion in the House and Impeachment Proceedings in the Senate. However considering the Democrats control both Houses such a move is unlikely. I suggest a different methodology.
The charge of course is ‘failure to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic’.
First their trespass –
“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Proscribed under Article 6. But there is more. Article 3, Sec 4 states –
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
It is that first part that I refer. Certain aspects of the Federalist system are bidirectional. That is both the Central govt and the State govt must hold up their end of the bargain. No State govt can unilaterally under our system abandon the vote, dissolve the legislature and provide the governor of that State unilateral dictatorial control. Well the opposite most likely is true as well. Failure to have a direct ya or nay on the Senate bill might be in violation of a Republican Central government.
I therefore suggest that any one or several State AG’s bring action in federal court vis a vis Art 3 and that the voting representatives of that State be brought up on charges of Sedition. The operative language, USC 18, Sec 115, P 2385. –
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or …
The problem with this approach is of course you can’t bring charges till the ‘crime’ has been committed. So the milk will have been spilled when the AG pulls the trigger. But should 20 or so States do this in each of their respective federal judicial districts the confusion that would be sown would surely kick this rapidly to First Circuit in DC if not SCOTUS directly. In the meantime should a Representative of the State show their face in that State they most likely could be indicted pending outcome of the respective AG’s actions. Should the AG’s actions be affirmed it brings up the interesting possibility that the State could call for immediate special elections to replace the knave.
A different and long winded way to serve notice. Discuss.
I wanted to discuss American exceptionalism as a companion piece to TLS’ excellent post this morning, Transnationalism v. The Constitution. Earlier this week, Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru published: An Exceptional Debate: The Obama administration’s assault on American identity.
What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.
The survival of American exceptionalism as we have known it is at the heart of the debate over Obama’s program….At stake isn’t just a grab bag of fiscal issues, but the meaning of America and the character of its people: the ultimate cultural issue.
Our Republic came from the hearts and minds of men who had thought and debated long and hard about law, liberty and government. The structure of our government was not superimposed on a people. The specific historical and religious heritage of this nation yielded in men the substance of thinking that gave birth to the structure of our government. In the strands the Founders drew together to form our Republic they created an archetype of government.
According to cnsnews.com:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that the State Department is soliciting comments from citizens, advocacy groups and other non-governmental organizations on the human rights record of the United States.
(snip)
Clinton said the U.S. is now gathering facts on its own record because – as a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council – it is participating in the UNHRC’s “universal periodic review” process.
One troubling aspect of this plan is that it will gather “human rights complaints” from apparently any source, including the “social justice” crowd, and then pass this national internal assessment to the U.N. From the link:
The U.S. State Department Web site says the collection of complaints about human rights abuses in the United States is part of its goal of “transparency” in the UPR process. “In the pursuit of a transparent and effective UPR process, the Department of State is encouraging the American public, including non-governmental organizations and civil society more broadly to provide input regarding human rights in the United States directly to the Department of State,”
For obvious reasons, there are concerns about the “fair and balanced” nature of the information that will be collected:
Austin Ruse, president of a United Nations watchdog organization, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, said the State Department’s process for preparing its report to the UNHRC may not be objective.
“It will give pretty left-wing groups a forum for criticizing the U.S.,” Ruse told CNSNews.com. That internal criticism will then end up at the U.N. Human Rights Council. “This is a two-step process,” Ruse said. “The second step is another opportunity for the U.S. to come under fire, this time by the United Nations.” (snip)
Ruse said it remains to be seen if the report provided to the United Nations by the State Department will include the human rights concerns of all Americans. “I would hope that on their listening tour, the State Department will listen to social conservatives about the rights of the unborn child being violated,” Ruse said. “We shall see if the State Department is interested in the proper understanding of human rights.”
But the larger concern is not our reputation in the international community, but rather the effort of the “transnationalists” among the liberal left to submit the United Stated to International Law and courts. Many of the liberals in Obama’s administration (past and present) favor transnationalism and “application of United Nations protocols and international law over the Constitution, such as Harold Koh, Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, and Cass Sunstein, as well as Judicial appointment Sonia Sotomayor.
But www.npr.org goes so far as to ponder if Attorney General Eric Holder is looking to use the international courts to prosecute Bush Administration officials to uphold Obama’s campaign promise without actually having to get his hands dirty:
Put it all together and it’s really not that hard to figure out what is going on here.
Transnationalists from outside and, now, inside our government have been ardent supporters of prosecutions against American officials who designed and carried out the Bush counterterrorism policies that kept this country safe after 9/11. The U.N.’s top torture monitor is demanding legal action, almost certainly as a prelude to calling for action by an international tribunal such as the ICC if the Justice Department fails to indict. Meantime, law-enforcement authorities in Spain and elsewhere are weighing charges against the same U.S. officials, spurred on by the CCR and human-rights groups that now have friends in high American places. In foreign and international courts, the terrorist-friendly legal standards preferred by Europe and the U.N. would make convictions easier to obtain and civil suits easier to win.
Obama and Holder were principal advocates for a “reckoning” against Bush officials during the 2008 campaign. They realize, though, that their administration would be mortally wounded if the DOJ were actually to file formal charges. This week’s announcement of an investigation against the CIA provoked howls, but that’s nothing compared to the public reaction indictments would cause.
Nevertheless, Obama and Holder are under intense pressure from the hard Left, to which they made reckless promises, and from the international community they embrace.
The way out of this dilemma is clear. Though it won’t file indictments against the CIA agents and Bush officials it is probing, the Justice Department will continue conducting investigations and releasing reports containing new disclosures of information. The churn of new disclosures will be used by lawyers for the detainees to continue pressing the U.N. and the Europeans to file charges.
(snip)
The Left will get its reckoning. Obama and Holder will be able to take credit with their supporters for making it happen. But because the administration’s allies in the antiwar bar and the international Left will do the dirty work of getting charges filed, the American media will help Obama avoid domestic political accountability.
Whether or not they are right in their assessment of Holder’s intentions, or even if this is just pursuing the transnationalism dream of the liberal left, NPR’s final conclusion is right on:
Meanwhile, Americans who sought to protect our nation from barbarians will be harassed and framed as war criminals. And protecting the United States will have become an actionable violation of international law.
What’s on your mind?
Hat tip HotAir and Ramirez.
