Sneaking Obamacare through the Reconciliation Process

I am not a big fan of Newt Gingrich, but he makes a lot of sense in Turning the Senate into the Chicago City Council, published yesterday in Human Events.com. Go read the whole thing.

The issue is using the Senate's "reconciliation" rule, to pass a version of Obamacare instead of going the normal route requiring 60 votes, which may need some explaining. As it stands, a threatened filibuster will require 60 votes to overcome, which process is known as "cloture." So, instead, Sen. Reid plans to invoke the reconciliation rule, wherein he only needs 51 votes to pass the bill. The problem is that reconciliation was only intended to be used for budget bills:

“Using the budget reconciliation process to pass health reform and climate change legislation…would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the constitutional role of the Senate.”

These are not the words of a Republican or a conservative activist.

This is a warning issued on April 2 of this year from the former Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).

Of course, the Democrats have changed the rules in the middle of the game before, when they started filibustering conservative nominees to the federal courts. The filibuster had never been used that way before. Unfortunately, if Senator Reid does this, he is likely to sooner or later regret it. The party in control of the Congress has changed before, and when it does, Republicans may take the same tactic. But this was not the intent:

In a famous conversation between the two presidents, Thomas Jefferson is said to have asked George Washington why the Framers had agreed to a second chamber in Congress at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. "Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" Washington asked him. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," said Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."

Getting the snake off of America

A comment, left in response to School Blues by Matt Spivy at American Thinker today was very eloquent and on target:

This vignette sums up much of the political problem until now. Normal Americans tend to go along to get along in situations like the one Mr. Spivey describes. Their silence is by no means always consent, but the practical effect of such silence can often be the same as consent. Never was Burke's famous saying more a propos: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. An excessive timidity that approaches moral cowardice has long caused many Americans to keep quiet about matters that ought to have been loudly and vehemently resisted on behalf of reason and liberty. America herself now struggles to breathe and survive in the coils of the deadly ideological anaconda trying to squeeze the life out of her. This huge serpent could not wrap itself around its victim in one quick move. An insidious attack over decades has taken place. With the Obama presidency the last deadly coils are being applied to a victim only now starting to realize the mortal peril and beginning to struggle for survival. It is late, very late to commence such a resistance. In the beginning, as the first coil of the snake sought to slither around the ankle of its prey, little would have been required to brush it off. Decades of delay have changed all that. Now the serpent has wrapped itself many times around its victim, is impossible to escape by simply kicking it aside, and is constricting with all its might to weaken and finally kill its target.

The author, whose nom de plume is Teleologicus, makes the point that had we been as vigilant in keeping "progressivism" out of every institution, both public and private, at all costs, we would not be in the present danger of losing our Constitutional Republic, our freedom and our liberty. True enough, but few recognized the evil at first, and those that did were thought to be some kind of crank. (I know because I have been so accused for pointing out the end result of this or that policy.) No, instead it was "can't we just compromise on this 'reasonable' (insert law or policy here) to stop this (name the emergency here.)" After everyone got used to the new regime, then another "reasonable" law or policy was passed to solve yet another crisis that had been, as often as not, ginned up by a press eager to sell newspapers to panicked customers. That has certainly been the story with gun control. Not enough people actively resisted the gun grabbers in the beginning because they believed the press, and the initial efforts seemed "reasonable." In addition, most people genuinely believed that the government was usually benign, and that the press usually told the truth. It is only recently that a significant number of people have awakened to the fact that we have been lied to at nearly every point for our entire lives, and are still being lied to.

We may be turning the tide, if certain reports are to be believed, but we must never go back to way we were. We must from now on be vigilant and jealous of our liberties. We must also teach our children to be equally vigilant and jealous for it will take another generation or two to get the snake off our backs.

Mike fires for effect

Mike Vanderboegh takes apart a "journalist" with the Washington Post, one Richard Cohen. Please go read his letter back to Mr. Cohen. The specific claim that piqued Mike's ire is that "healthy debate doesn't involve threat of guns.

Actually, I would agree if this was a debate. But it has ceased to be a debate and instead has become an attempt to ram a statist agenda down the throats of at least half the country against its will. Obama was elected by a 53% majority, which while it gives him the win, certainly was not a "mandate" to impose his agenda. In any case, the Constitution sets strict limits on what the government can do. The TEA parties, the 9-12 project, and the letters to Congressmen have been an attempt by those of us who wish to restore a Constitutional Republic to tell them to stop. This is not about left and right, nor about Democrat vs. Republican, but about our individual, natural rights. Indeed, while we argue policies, with substantive objections, they answer back with cries of racists, and accuse those of us who would like to see our grandchildren grow up in freedom of being kluxers.

Mike outlines what are, in effect, a train of abuses, and points to a line drawn in the sand, and says no farther. Apparently a lot of other people agree with him. I certainly do. If Mr. Cohen doesn't understand, I suggest he re-read the Declaration of Independence.

PolyKahr
III

Armed and Safe: Gun sales up; crime down#links

Armed and Safe: Gun sales up; crime down#links

I agree with the approach taken here by Kurt. While John Lott's work has been excellent, and exhaustive, in proving that the very idea of gun control is fundamentally flawed, in the end it is arguing on the gun grabbers' terms. For sure, the argument needed to be made, and made convincingly. But ultimately arguing the statistics is a Utilitarian argument, when we are trying to instead argue Natural and Civil Rights.

Joe Wilson, National Treasure

Joe Wilson distinguished himself last Wednesday, when during a speech by the President to both houses of Congress he called out to the President "That's a lie." I especially liked Thomas Sowell's take on it. Thomas Sowell, the indispensable maker of sense in a seeming irrational situation has another such article today entitled Fables for Adults in Townhall.com today. Without saying so in so many words, as Congressman Wilson, Sowell calls the President out for lying to the American people. Here's a quote:

The dog looked down into the water and saw his reflection. He thought it was another dog with a bone in his mouth-- and it seemed to him that the other dog's bone was bigger than his. He decided that he was going to take the other dog's bone away and opened his mouth to attack. The result was that his own bone fell into the water and was lost.

At the time, I didn't like that story and wished they hadn't told it to me. But the passing years and decades have made me realize how important that story was, because it was not really about dogs but about people.

Today we are living in a time when the President of the United States is telling us that he is going to help us take that other dog's bone away-- and the end result is likely to be very much like what it was in that children's fable.

Read the whole thing. (Warning-mixed fables ahead-Warning) The majority of people can see perfectly well that the President is lying, even some on the left who support his signature legislation. What Sowell is saying is that we are likely to sell our birthright for a mess of porridge if we listen to the siren song of this guy. To quote Joe Wilson, "That's a lie!"

Meanwhile, Sandy Rios says that They Can't Handle the Truth in a piece today also on Townhall.com. The "They" are the Representatives and Senators of "We the People" who have become so enthralled with the status, the decorum, and the collegiality of their offices, that they seem to have forgotten how to rebuke their fellow members when those members deliberately mislead, dissemble, and out and out lie. The money quote:

I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have shared Senator McCain’s sense of outrage? I don’t know if they called King George a liar, but they called him a tyrant, several times—in the Declaration of Independence. The King of England (and, at that point, America) a tyrant. Pretty strong words, spoken and declared in writing one by one within those sacred chambers.

Strong words emanate from strong convictions. Oh, for the passion of the Founding Fathers to sweep across the Congress. And if the current Congress is so offended by honest concern and passion, perhaps 57 percent of the people are right, let’s replace them all and fill the chambers with those willing to fight to preserve the nation—representatives less concerned about their political futures and reputations and more concerned about the future of the country.

Joe Wilson should quit apologizing, and start demanding apologies from Pelosi, from Waxman and Reid, and most of all, from the President himself.

Disgusting display of willful 9-11 ignorance

Today is the 8th anniversary of 9-11-01. On that day, I was in my office at the Navy Yard when one of the women in our office came through yelling that a plane had just struck one of the Twin Towers. I ran down the hall to a section that had a television. While there, I saw the second plane hit the Twin Towers. At that point I commented to the person next to me "we are truly at war." So it was with disgust that I noted this from Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs. A quote:

September 11, which should be a somber day of mourning and reflection (on how the hell we got here), will be a day when Obama -- in a celebratory mode -- makes his big announcement. The whole thing is depraved. And yes, it really is mandatory. The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act - the GIVE Act - calls for a commission to study "whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed."


Meanwhile, an unclassified State Department "action request" encourages State officials to "consider organizing an Interfaith Day of Service in their host countries as a way to commemorate the anniversary of the tragic events of September 11, 2001."

Of course, by "Interfaith" he means Muslim.

Although it refers to other "faith communities," Islam is the focus of the entire initiative. The action request asks State personnel to support mosques: "Organize a food-drive for the end of Ramadan with religious leaders and citizens in Muslim communities to donate to a local mosque or community..." And it directs State personnel to a handy "list of Ramadan 2009 outreach materials for Muslim communities."


Not only is State indulging in more Muslim outreach garbage, but this also raises religion (Islam) and state issues. The State Department is organizing donation drives for mosques?


For his part, Obama said at his White House Ramadan dinner: "Islam, as we know, is part of America. Together we have a responsibility to foster engagement grounded in mutual interest and mutual respect." He said that this was one of his "fundamental commitments as president both at home and abroad. That is central to the new beginning that I've sought between the United States and Muslims around the world and that is a commitment that we can renew once again during this holy season."

I am frankly tired of this president trying to accommodate Muslims. I know others will disagree, but I believe Islam to be a false religion, that should be tolerated, as we do Wicca, Voodoo and other odd ideas. But we should tolerate it only so long as they practice it peacefully. Christ said there would be other false prophets, and Muhammad was one. But to go out of our way to make nice to these people after they deliberately killed 3000 of our own is outrageous. Once again Obama is thowing gas on the fire of righteous American anger.

But what can you expect from a president who bows to the "king" of Saudi Arabia.

Boy Scouts no longer "prepared"

Thanks to David Codrea and the War On Guns for this article in the London Telegraph by Chris Irvine entitled Scouts to no longer bring penknives on camping trips. Go read the article. These are pen knives! Every boy, and for that matter, every girl should have a knife on his or her person at all times.

"I think it is safest to assume that knives of any sort should not be carried by anybody to a Scout meeting or camp, unless there is likely to be a specific need for one. In that case, they should be kept by the Scout leaders and handed out as required."

Troops leaders however have said the decision is "very sad". Sheila Burgin, from 4th Sevenoaks Scout Group in Kent, said: "Scouts by law are allowed to have Swiss army knives. I think this is going too far – you just don’t know when a Scout will need a knife.

That sentiment, that you never know when a scout will need a knife, could be applied to anyone. A knife is a tool with a thousand uses, and the traditional Boy Scout knife is one I carried for a time instead of carrying a Swiss Army knife. Over the years, though, I have settled on stockman knives. These have the traditional clip point blade, and spey blade, but then also have a straight edged, drop pointed blade that serves very well as a box cutter. I was at a wedding this last weekend, followed the next day by a "day after party" for close friends and relatives. While there, the new bride began opening wedding gifts, with the groom at her side. The groom had to use a key to try opening taped up boxes and such. I was painful to watch, and would have gone much easier with a pocket knife.

"Scouting helps to prepare young people with valuable life skills, while keeping them safe by not carrying knives."

Oh really? So teaching boys to ask "Does anyone have a knife or something to cut this with" is now teaching valuable life skills? I realize this will come a something of a shock to those in the formerly great Britain, but if knives could be effectively eliminated, those who wish to do harm could use pointed scissors, or do like prisoners and sharpen the handles of their toothbrushes. In fact, knives can be made with minimal tools from old hacksaw blades, old worn out files, and other tools. If you have access to a grinding wheel, and a Burnz-O-Matic torch, and have a few finer gradations of abrasives, you can make an excellent blade from old hand wood saws. By the way, screw drivers make excellent stabbing tools, as do ice picks. Are you going to eliminate those too?

The fact of the matter is that it isn't the knife, or the gun, or the sword or spear that causes violence, but the intent of the wielder of the instruments. What we are seeing in Britain is the inevitable result of following the instrumentality theory of violence. First it was handguns. Now it is knives. But it doesn't take much imagination to look down the road and see that when all the tools that can be used to kill another human being have been outlawed, people will be reduced to sharpening bits of rock and lashing these to a stick. But violence will remain. It isn't the instrumentality, but the criminal heart of the wielder that needs to be addressed.