Caterpillar says health bill would cost $100 million in year one.
Monthly Archives: March 2010
Oppressive governments enslaving their people.
VP Biden says “we’re so close to doing what has never been done before.” It has been done before- oppressive governments enslaving their people. That has been done before. Many, many times. Usually for “a good cause”.
The plan: will allow preexisting conditions at any point (more costs), will include people who can’t pay (more costs), has no limits on amounts paid (supposedly-more costs) and with all that, will save money. Makes sense.
“if you don’t tie our hands, we will keep stealing.”-Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA)
“if you don’t tie our hands, we will keep stealing.” – Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA)
Truer words haven’t been spoken in Washington in decades. Thank you Rep Perriello. Now do something about it.
300 million people chained at the neck to each other over health insurance.
Senator Harry Reid is hitting back at ads that claim that Sheikh Mohamed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, ruler of Dubai, is using slave labor at home to build the Gulf city-state. And they state: “Slave labor in Dubai. Union labor in Las Vegas. And both the slave bosses and the union bosses want Harry Reid re-elected. Go figure.”
Slave labor outside the US? That is small potatoes compared to what happens when you can have 300 million people chained at the neck to each other over health insurance. But it leaves Reid and others as the masters over everyone else, with power over life and death. Just want the power-hungry politicians want – dependent parasites.
[Deem and pass is] disingenuous. It would really call into question the credibility of the House.
“It’s disingenuous. It would really call into question the credibility of the House.” Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) on the “Slaughter solution” of deeming a bill passed without a vote.
“It is absolutely astonishing that Speaker Pelosi would consider advancing a multitrillion-dollar piece of legislation that would completely overhaul one-sixth of our nation’s economy without even holding a vote in the House of Representatives,” U.S. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).
Kenyan Born Barack Obama from AP
The AP reporter stated the following:
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
Democrats adopt the Jim Crow “one drop rule” to attack critics of President Obama as ‘racists’!
The “one drop rule” was one of the most odious and infamous rules of the Jim Crow era. Now it being given new life by the Democrat Party in order to silence criticism of President Obama. The Democrat machine uses it to impugn the “race” of President Obama. Instead of accepting the fact that critics of the President are attacking his policies, the Democrat establishment attacks those who disagree with the President as “racists.”
Ignoring for now the stupidity of believing skin color or eye color or hair color is an indication of “race” – we’re all part of the human race – what the Democrat defenders are saying is that “since the President is ‘black’ anyone who attacks him is a racist.”
Now why is that relevant? Simple. President Obama’s father was “black” from Kenya. President Obama’s mother was “white” from Kansas. Now to be labeled a “racist” for attacking the President’s policies, one has to accept that President Obama is “black.” Given that one parent was “white” and the other “black,” one must accept the most repulsive, vile, and repugnant “one drop rule” from the Jim Crow era – which meant that “one drop of ‘black blood'” essentially made one “non-white.” In fact, it was much worse than that. In 1911, Arkansas pass Act 320, a.k.a. the “one-drop rule,” making “interracial cohabitation” a felony and defining as “Negro” anyone “who has…any negro blood whatever.” The Supreme Court remedied this stupidity in 1967 when it over-turned the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, but now the racists in the Democrat Party want to bring it back. (For an authoritative discussion, see the book “Who is Black” by F. James Davis, excerpts of which are available on the internet).
Are the people who say that attacks on the President’s policies are racist really advocating adoption of the “one drop rule”? Are the racist Democrats really espousing the “one drop rule” for the President? They are making the argument that the most infamous racists in history were making: that one drop of “black” blood makes you black. The “one drop” rule, infamous in the Jim Crow era. Talk about the critics embracing the worst of the racist past and using it to call others racist!
Skin color is irrelevant, freedom and policies are the only concerns. The true racists are those who think that one’s skin color is relevant and that the “one drop” rule should apply to the President. The President would get the same criticism whomever his parents were, just as President Bush did for some of his idiotic policies. Under the Jim Crow system employed regarding criticism of President Obama, a black mother can never have a white baby, while a white mother can have a black baby. Is that rational? Is it even relevant? No, dividing people by skin color is a technique used to gather power by the divide and conquer mentality. People have the right to be free no matter their eye color, hair color or skin color. This policy means so much for Thurgood Marshall’s insistence that “classifications and distinctions based upon race or color have no moral or legal validity in our society” and Martin Luther King’s wish that his children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Family history and genealogy is a wonderful treasure, but it has no place in government policy. “Race” is a bad concept who’s time has long gone. Everyone in the United States is “American” without any hyphens. It is time that people started to behave that way.
“I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate” President Obama
“I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate. What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.” Obama, interview with Bret Baier when asked about the use of a vote to “deem the bill passed.” The “Slaughter” strategy is an apt name to the slaughter of the Constitution and the slaughter of freedom in the United States.
The most disgraceful, dispicable, and dishonest occupant of the White House – ever. The President decides he can ignore the Constitution when convenient. Someone who is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution abdicating responsibility that the Congress actually vote on a bill. Under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution such a tactic is un-Constitutional, whomever is doing it. Passage of one bill can not be “deemed” to be passage of another – it is un-Constitutional on its face. Both the House and the Senate must pass the exact same text according to Supreme Court rulings – and the language of the Constitution (Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)). And it must do so taking count of the yes and no votes. Anything else raises significant Constitutional issues. It is disgraceful that the power-hungry Pelosi, Reid and Obama would consider such a move, but for the power-hungry, anything goes.
So much for the President’s statement that the American people are “entitled to an up or down vote.” Good rhetoric, bad reality for Washington.
Between the so-called Conhusker kickback and Louisiana purchase that bought the votes of two Senators – both utter disgraces to the Senate, ethics, and morals – and tactics like this, the power-hungry socialists in Washington are willing to sell themselves, their descendants and the country into servitude.
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential VetoAll 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.
MA Democrat Treasurer-health care plan ‘will “bankrupt” the country’
“health care plan ‘will “bankrupt” the country’. The real problem is that this . . . sucking sound of money has been going into this health-care reform. And I would argue that it’s being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.”
NAAFA – National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance?
NAAFA – the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance – has links to some articles on their website. For example, they link to “Do the obese really deserve contempt?“, “For Obese People, Prejudice in Plain Sight“, and “Fatties, it’s time to fight back“. In one of the articles the author states “Not only is such casual obesity-bashing considered harmless, some people
actually seem to believe they are ‘helping’ the overweight person by ‘giving advice.'”
If the obese think it is bad now, just wait to see how bad it will be if we have socialized medicine where others are being forced Continue reading NAAFA – National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance?