Barack Obama
The following was posted as a comment to one of Erick Erickson’s posts by a user called “lakeworthcane.” It’s so spot on that I felt it needed to be seen in as many places as possible.
“Having watched and listened to Obama for six or seven years now, I think the man has a cartoon-like idea of life in general. He’s dominated by his cynicism: seems to have come to believe that all of life is nothing more than talking bologna and shining it on. That’s all he’s ever done. That’s all he’s ever had to do. That’s all that those who’ve elected him on the state and federal levels have ever required of him.
Continue reading »
Continue reading »
I never thought I would be tempted to leave America. But, with the developments of the past 5 years, the Progressivization of America, the election–and re-election–of a man who has no business being anywhere near the White House for any reason, much less for the fact that his election was secured simply because skin is black, and the prospect of being weighed down by debts impossible to bear or pay off, I have begun to think some place of refuge may be in order.
How far is too far for the Democrats?
Louise Slaughter, a Pelosi minion and Chair of the powerful House Rules Committee, is considering a rule that would allow the House Democrats to pass a corrections bill that would automatically assume a majority vote on the Senate version of the health care reform bill, thus ensuring that ObamaCare becomes the law of the land without anyone in the House actually having voted on it!
Dave Schnittger, aide to House Minority Leader John Boehner, said:
“The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply ‘deeming’ the Senate bill passed in the House — without an actual vote by members of the House.”
The Progressives are really showing their true colors now. They proved they could pass legislation without reading it. Now they are working on passing legislation without even voting on the actual bill. If this passes, what is to stop them from unilaterally declaring bills passed without ever even considering them? What will prevent them from passing raw ideas as legislation? Only their fear of the American Public. And, at the moment, that doesn’t seem to give them even a moment’s pause.
National Review’s Jim Geraghty wrote in Thursday’s Morning Jolt newsletter,
“Are they out of their minds? What, the town hall meetings of last summer were too genteel and conciliatory for House Democrats’ tastes? Trying some sort of stunt like this in order to pass a bill without actually making members vote for it — that’s the sort of thing that takes “armed insurrection” talk out of the realm of chat rooms. We’ve long suspected that the Constitution means nothing to our counterparts on the left, but the idea of working around the requirement that bills be passed by the House strikes a new and disturbing we’ve-lost-democracy note.”
This maneuver doesn’t just violate the Rule of Law. It goes way beyond that. This is an attack on the fundamental principles of our form of government. This is so foreign to our Constitution, the only word that truly fits is Sedition.
If the Progressives pull this off, you’ll find me at the nearest Militia recruiting station.
Caught in a lie.
That’s essentially how Republicans and Conservative talkers have been described by MediaMatters.org and other liberal bloggers.
But a quick Google search revealed that MediaMatters is being dishonest in its portrayal of Conservatives and Republicans as trying to “falsely accuse Dems of hypocrisy.” In fact, MediaMatters actually expose their own complicity in the promotion of this red herring.
The accusation is that the Right is conflating the terms “reconciliation” and “nuclear option” intentionally in an effort to discredit Democrats for wanting to use the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, which would bypass the regular Conference Committee process. However, MediaMatters shows that Conservatives and Republicans are not alone in making that connection.
Here is video that shows CNN anchor Anderson Cooper describing the Democrat maneuver as “the Nuclear Option.”
“Tonight: Breaking news that could change everything in the White House battle for health care reform. Call it the nuclear option.”
And CNN’s Kiran Chetry, on American Morning, said,
“We’ve heard about the nuclear option before, right? I mean, that was when there was talk about maybe bypassing Democratic concerns when it came to judicial nominees. Well, now, the nuclear option is something that we’re talking about yet again. This time it has to do with Democrats considering going it alone when it comes to health care. We’re live from the White House next hour.”
Let’s take a stroll backward through time.
Sean Hannity was condemned by MediaMatters on Feb. 10, 2010:
“Sean Hannity aired clips of Democratic leaders he falsely claimed were criticizing GOP use of the reconciliation process, and accused them of “hypocrisy” for currently supporting the use of reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. In fact, those Democrats were criticizing a 2005 Republican proposal to change Senate rules that was unrelated to reconciliation, which is a procedure that is part of the Senate rules.”
Then, on August 20, 2009, MediaMatters attacks RNC Chairman Michael Steele:
“Nuclear option” term for reconciliation makes jump from media to RNC chairman Steele”
But, the CNN story appeared on MediaMatters.org the day before, on August 19, 2009:
“Echoing Fox News’ Bill Sammon and Sean Hannity, CNN hosts Anderson Cooper and Kiran Chetry both falsely compared Senate Democrats’ potential use of the reconciliation process to pass health reform legislation to the “nuclear option.” In fact, the term “nuclear option” was coined by then-Republican Sen. Trent Lott in 2005 to refer to a possible Republican attempt to change Senate filibuster rules, while reconciliation is already part of Senate procedure and Republicans have used it repeatedly in the past.”
Finally, MediaMatters blasted Bill Sammon in a story that appeared on June 23, 2009:
“Echoing a reported Republican talking point, on Fox News’ Happening Now, Fox News vice president of news and Washington managing editor Bill Sammon falsely compared the budget reconciliation process some progressives have suggested be used to advance health-care reform legislation to the “nuclear option,” a term referring to the Senate rule change Republicans proposed in 2005 that would have prohibited filibusters of judicial nominations. In fact, there is no comparison between progressives’ proposed use of the budget reconciliation process, which already exists under congressional rules and has been used by Republicans in the past to pass legislation with only a majority of votes in the Senate, and the Republicans’ prior proposal to change Senate rules to require a majority of votes to confirm judicial nominees.”
Now, no-one can claim that Anderson Cooper is sympathetic to Republicans or Conservatives. He was, after all, 0ne of the first to use the term “teabagging” when talking about the Tea Party movement. The point is that CNN’s use of the term “nuclear option” to describe reconciliation renders the accusations of MediaMatters and others against Republicans and Conservatives meaningless.
Can we please stop pretending that Liberals Progressives are decent people?
The good folks over at HotAir.com have compiled a list of responses from the nutroots on three different Progressive sites. As they say, it ain’t pretty (Warning: Language).
You have to wonder how some of these people can justify their ideology, when what they propose is nothing short of German Fascism, e.g. propagandizing. Case in point:
MHB: What we’re witnessing is the product of a corrupt media and a dumb, distractable electorate. I’m not sure that anything can be done at this point, but one thing I am sure of is that continuing to operate on the premise that the majority of Americans are reasonable, intelligent people who will do the right thing if the facts are presented to them objectively is not going to work. I know that it’s not what most people who come to this site want to hear, but most Americans need to be manipulated into doing the right thing. Reasoning with them might be the morally correct thing to do, but is simply not going to get the job done.
And let’s not forget the tolerance and “bi-partisanship:”
Joe the Liberal: It absolutely sickens me… to see this solid blue state have some sleazeball, degenerate, scumbag filth republican as their “representative”. I’m even more sickened and disgusted to see Ted’s seat, that he held for decades on end go to this piece of garbage, cookie cutter, bottom feeding, dirtbag republican.
Someone’s off their meds:
TwixVoy: They are chanting like Nazis at his victory rally. Chilling. A glimpse of things to come.
I guess for TwixVoy, the chanting of “Yes, We Can!” signifies Nazism…but wait, didn’t we hear that same chant at all the Obama rallies and victory parties? Oh yeah, we did.
Losers.
Remember how irresponsible the Liberals said George W. Bush was for spending money on Iraq when the economy was in such bad shape, by their reckoning?
Well, he doesn’t hold a candle to Obama’s spendfest in the face of the single largest one-year drop in tax revenues since the Great Depression.
At this rate, Social Security is on track to collapse by 2037, earlier than previous estimates.
Associated Press Image
This is a political cartoon from the Chicago Tribune, April 21, 1934.
Planned Economy or Planned Destruction?
We are apparently pursuing the same, stupid policies that the Progressives did during the Great Depression. Is there anyone out there who believes it will end up differently?
Recent Comments