Not sure I buy into the “impossible to undo” assumption, which seems to be evolving into tacit fact. It would be difficult, surely, but just as buildings can be bulldozed, money routed one way can be re-routed another, and people working for the Government can, frankly, be not working for the Government anymore. And yes, I grant and concede the insidious nature of the attempt. But simply put, this ain’t England. Between the Bill of Rights and the very concept of Federalism, there are roadblocks in place that the Progressives simply refuse to acknowledge.

Also: NEVER underestimate these people’s ability to self-destruct. Their denial of Reality always catches up in the end.

Obama is saying anyone who voted for healthcare in November and December is going to be lambasted by us (the GOP) no matter how they vote now. So here is my idea for a pledge:

From the RNC, RSCC, RCCC to House and Senate Democrats: The Republican Party believes Obamacare is a tragic mistake for the Country. We also believe defeating this bill is more important than any one political party and its defeat is the first step in moving our country to fiscal sanity. Therefore, we pledge to act as follows in the case of any Democrat who votes against Obamacare resutling in the defeat of the various Obamacare bills:

1. Prior to the 2010 elections we, the RNC, RSCC, and the RCCC, will not air any advertisement of any kind accusing any Democrat who voted for Obamacare in the past and votes against it now as flip flopping,

2. Prior to the 2010 elections we, the RNC, RSCC, and the RCCC will not air any negative advertisement of any kind about healthcare or healthcare flip flopping related to a Democrat who votes against Obamacare now resulting in its defeat.

3. Prior to the 2010 elections we, the RNC, RSCC, and the RCCC, will request any candidate running against a Democrat refrain from criticizing a Democrat’s prior position on Obamacare for any Democrat who votes no on Obamacare resulting in its defeat.

4. In the event a Republican candidate chooses, prior to the 2010 elections, to ignore our request to refrain from criticizing a no voting Democrat on healthcare or healthcare flip flopping we will provide to the Democratic candidate a donation equal to the costs of the critical advertisement to allow the Democrat candidate to purchase rebuttal advertisement or use the funds as he or she sees fit.

Signed,

Michael Steel
Mitch McConnell
anyone else they can get to sign it. Ideally, every single Republican house or senate candidate should sign here.

The U.S. economy has been the motor that has fueled the European Nanny State. When health care and the rest of these crazy policies cripple the U.S. economy, who will pick up the slack? There won’t be anybody there.

that the whole healhcare plan, even if enacted, will never come to pass, simply because there will be no money for it. They’ll collect taxes for four years before implementing it. Well, MAYBE they’ll collect the taxes. If the economy gets as bad as I think it will get between now and then, there aint gonna be enough money for nothin’ nohow except unemployment benefits, the interest on the national debt and congressional pay raises!

“Consent of the Governed” … Our Constitution was setup to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It had best be lived up to, as the polls are now slipping precipitously towards the federal government is out to get the people.

Everyone is beginning to feel it, and knows it’s not right.

Read what the Declaration of Independence had to say about exactly this.

This is classic Cloward-Piven. Get a benign-sounding entitlement started and then blow the doors off the fisc by putting every person who could ever possibly collect enrolled….

The Founding Fathers muttered something about us being dead when we discovered we could vote ourselves rich….

years from now, it won’t matter. Government will never be able to afford to take care of the healthcare of its citizens. Then, people will have to be responsible for their own insurance and their own healthcare costs, as it should be. Not even the elderly should expect a government safety net. Sounds cruel, but society must have winners and losers.

Perhaps it’s time to punt partisan Pelosi from the Speakership? I mean, why wait for mid-term elections?

I was driving home from work today and thought that Nancy Pelosi has become such an embarrassment, even to her own party, I wondered aloud if she could effectively be voted out from the House Speaker position (*after all, she ain’t my Speaker). Take her gavel away, but how?

I found a few answers in my cursory web search. I cannot vouch as of yet for them, but if the last paragraph of this bears true, I am sure there’s a few congressmen that would delight in even making the attempt, if to do nothing more than draw attention in a Senator Bunning-esque sort of fashion.

…”In short, the rules of the US House of Representative for the 110th Congress provides for the removal of a seated Speaker, during session, for the purposes of preserving the “dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings” under the constitutional prerogative of its function with respect to impeachment. ”

===(block, copied, and pasted)===
“The Process to remove a seated Speaker of the House during session. It is well-settled that the U.S. Speaker may be removed from office by a resolution presenting a question of privilege declaring the office of Speaker vacant. 6 Cannon § 35.”

According to the 110th Congress House Rules Manual – House Document No. 109-157 From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database [DOCID:hruletx-66] [Page 410-428] ;

Rule IX : The Question of Privilege:

1. NOTE: Sec. 698. Definition of questions of privilege.
Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only.

2. (a)(1) A resolution .NOTE: Sec. 699. Precedence of questions of privilege.
Reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered from the floor by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution, shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. A resolution offered from the floor by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn only at a time or place, designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule within two legislative days after the day on which the proponent announces to the House his intention to offer the resolution and the form of the resolution.

3. NOTE: Sec. 701. Questions relating to organization.

Privileges of the House include questions relating to its organization (I, 22-24, 189, 212, 290), and the title of its Members to their seats (III, 2579-2587), which may be raised as questions of the privileges of the House even though the subject has been previously referred to committee (I, 742; III, 2584; VIII, 2307). Such resolutions include those: (1) to declare prima facie right to a seat, or to declare a vacancy, where the House has referred the questions of prima facie and final rights to an elections committee for investigation

A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of the privileges of the House (July 31, 1997, p. 17021; Feb. 6, 2007, p. —-). A resolution declaring vacant the Office of the Speaker is presented as a matter of high constitutional privilege (VI, 35). For further discussion with respect to the organization of the House and the title of its Members to seats, see Sec. Sec. 18-30, 46-51, 56, and 58-60, supra.

4. NOTE: Sec. 702. Questions relating to constitutional prerogatives.

”Privileges of the House, as distinguished from that of the individual Member, include questions relating to its constitutional prerogatives…”

“The constitutional prerogatives of the House also include its function with respect to: (1) impeachment and matters incidental thereto…”

In short, the rules of the US House of Representative for the 110th Congress provides for the removal of a seated Speaker, during session, for the purposes of preserving the “dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings” under the constitutional prerogative of its function with respect to impeachment.

Any member of the House can bring forth a resolution presenting a question of privilege to declare the Speakership vacant based on this provision.

Via PA at AoSHQ;

We can’t let this camel get its nose in the tent, because apparently there’s a full size camel hiding in back of that nose.

Everyone knows Democrats are planning to use the budget reconciliation process to get ObamaCare through the Senate. Less well known is that Democrats are plotting add-ons to that bill to get other liberal priorities enacted—programs that could never attract 60 votes.

One of these controversial measures rewrites the Higher Education Act to ban private companies from offering federally guaranteed student loans as of this July. Congress has already passed laws in recent years discouraging private lenders from making loans without a federal guarantee. But most college financial-aid departments still want private companies to originate and service the guaranteed loans. That’s because the alternative—a public option run by the Department of Education—has been distinguished by its Soviet-style customer service.

The Democratic plan is to make this public option the only option mere days before colleges send out their financial aid packages to incoming students…

At. All. Costs.

Note to lefties;
“Don’t be afraid to see what you see.” -Ronald Reagan

Activists taking Action

Join the RedState Strike Force

Senate Conservatives Fund	House Conservatives Fund
The Precinct Project	Jeff Gorell for Assembly

Conservatives Victorious in 2010

We all know that the Obama administration is trying to ram government health care down our throats and is planning to use the rate increases applied for by Blue Cross/Anthem in California to justify their position that government control is needed. This is untrue for several reasons, but the rate increase asked for in California is largely due to having to shift the cost of health care for illegal immigrants to people who DO have insurance.

Very few people have an understanding of how insurance companies work. Theoretically there are “uninsured” people in the USA, but in actuality, everyone’s health care is paid for or the hospitals would have to close their doors! The very poor have Medicaid which is the government health insurance and the illegal aliens use it by having an anchor baby who is a US citizen at birth. The baby is then used to qualify for welfare benefits and Medicaid and it is automatically granted to underage US citizens. The illegal aliens along with those who choose not to buy health insurance are covered by what is known as “cost shifting”.

Cost shifting is the process by which hospital bill the insurance of covered people for the cost of their care AND THE CARE OF THE UNINSURED. Do you really think that two aspirin cost the hospital $30 to provide? Of course not!! The $30 pays for the aspirin and the care of the uninsured. The hospitals shift the cost of the care of the uninsured onto the bills of those of us who DO have insurance—if they didn’t do this, they would have to close their doors since they are legally required to provide care for any sick person or emergency. NO ONE in America is denied health care because of inability to pay because they either have Medicaid, health insurance or the cost of the care is shifted to the insured. It’s been going on forever and worst of all, the illegal aliens know that they cannot be denied care in an EMERGENCY ROOM so they use ERs as their primary physician which is horrendously expensive. Hospitals routinely deny that they are shifting the cost to the insured people, but they are. Just from a business standpoint, they MUST in order to remain open and provide care—and Medicaid is also billed through cost shifting.

To bring down costs, we need to change the incentives that govern spending:
* Right now, $5 out of every $6 of health-care spending is paid for by someone other than the person receiving care — insurance companies, employers, or the government.
* Individuals are insulated from the reality of what their decisions cost.
* This breeds overutilization of low-value health care and runaway spending.

To reduce the growth of costs, individuals must take greater responsibility for their health care, and health insurers and health care providers must face the competitive forces of the market. Three policy changes will go a long way to achieving these objectives:
* Eliminate the tax code’s bias that favors health insurance over out-of-pocket spending.
* Remove state-government barriers to purchasing and providing health services.
* Reform medical malpractice laws.

I intend to drop a bill in the hopper immediately after being sworn in that will repeal Obama-care if it should manage to become law before the election. It will be my very first act as your Representative and then I will work towards a sensible set of insurance reforms.

http://www.opencongress.org/people/voting_history/412299_Eric_Massa?q=h.r.3590&submit.x=34&submit.y=12&submit=Search

Eric Massa voted FOR the health care bill on November 7th 2009!!

the progressives getting their hands on the throats of every freedom loving American. they will control every aspect of your life, you see it now, from less cancer screenings, to the food we eat, to fertility drugs in various vaccinations they gave in Africa to lower population, Gates and Zoros and other very rich, had secret meetings to discuss how to keep the world population, below a certain level. these self ordained elitist, progressives., know what is best for us, the great unwashed, who are so stupid, they need to take care of us for our own good. there is a lot more at stake here than just being a socialist nation they will shred every Constitutional right we have, unless the people wake up and stand up, and let them know we are first and foremost free Americans. this has been going on far too long, in my lifetime.
I will not have this serfdom imposed on my grand kids, how about you?
Support Our Troops!
One Old Dog

My initial post seems to have brought out a vehement response in some, which I only find comforting. Believe me, I’m right there in the foxhole with you when it comes to acknowledging the purely destructive nature and intent of our current “leadership.” But that said, I stand by my opinion that we as Conservatives sometimes attribute the better aspects of our own fundamental nature to the opposition — if not to our own detriment, at least to an unnecessary cost to our own collective blood pressure. Fact: history proves once Entitlements are in place they tend to stay that way. But this situation is different: previous examples are the equivalent of putting bad oil in the engine, while feathering the nests of various Democratic causes. Health Care, as Steyn so cogently notes, is an entirely different matter. It will prove the equivalent of putting water in the gas tank, and cannot be explained away or ignored when things sputter to an absolute halt. And as an above poster noted, it is also to put water in the gas tank of the engine which provides momentum for the entire world. But again as I said, we can make the mistake of ascribing our own most basic assumptions to people who have been educated to believe their goal is worth any moral or ethical transgression. They are not bound by Truth, Reality or even Possibility. Thus they will fail. What they see as empowering, Alinsy-esque strength is in practice a tremendous weakness, which tends to end in farcical disaster. But that does not mean we should stop screaming at the top of our lungs.

I’m from the UK, and yes, I’m indeed a statist drone, overwhelmed with gratitude at the benevolence of my government for giving me free health care. So what? Despite the flaws in our National Health Service, it is still twice as cost effective as yours at delivering the same results. You are burying your heads in the sand if you think you can go on the way you are…why are you effectively subsidising the rest of the world by paying far more than you should to middle-man health insurance companies and big Pharma? Why shouldn’t the government by the people and of the people buy in bulk ‘for of the people’? Your empty arguments that this somehow decreases your freedom speak nothing of what solutions you have…only irrational fear of the unknown.

We’ve watched as the US Department of Education basically took over education. What we get is vastly increased costs and kids with HS diplomas who can’t read or make change and don’t have a clue which century the Civil War was fought or why. Then there’s Amtrack and every new light rail system in the country.

I could go on, but I don’t have the interest. We’ve seen what happens when government gets involved in running what should be a private sector issue, whether it’s education, railroads, individual retirement or medical care – and I include medicare in that – the cost increases exponentially and the service and quality go to hell in a handcart.

And yes, you are a statist drone. Feel free to back to the Islamic Republic of Britain.