What We Never Wanted to Know about Politics but Were Forced to Find Out

This post is about "Government by Crisis." It should not be necessary. Anyone with the least political savvy, and it's hard to avoid having a little now days, should already know what it is all about. Yet still Barrack Husein Obama comes on the radio (I don't watch TV) and says: "Now look! these (fill in the blank) caused the mess we're in and now they don't want us to fix it. The few common sense measures in this legislation (of 3,000 pages) will prevent (fill in the blank) in the future. Don't worry. Pass this bill, It will save us from... (whatever)."

This was the tactic used for the bank bail-outs, auto take-overs, health care take-over, student loan program take-over, etc. It is being used this minute for the Wall Street Regulation, (or take-over?), bill. It will be used for internet and other media control and/or bailout and for Cap-and-Trade. BHO has a solution for any crisis (or pseudo crisis that the Central Committee can invent). All we have to do is surrender some more liberty (and money). As Ben F. said, "Those who surrender freedom for a little security, deserve neither freedom nor security."

That is why the Tea Party Movement says that this is a "Time for Choosing:" liberty or otherwise.

By the way, I think that BHO's slow response to the Gulf oil leak was because it took him by surprise. He and the Central Committee did not yet have a plan to exploit that crisis. If it got worse while they waited, all the better. Anyway, it shows that oil is bad, and that is good... whatever.

All We Are Saying Is Give Freedom a Chance

The Tea Partiers, unlike how they are being characterised by the major (lamestream) media, are peaceful. Basically, tea party goers have better things to do than become active in politics. They (and me too) just want to be left alone, both by others and by the government. We are being forced into politics. (Michael Savage makes this point.) I have been called a Nazi by a local politician when I told him that I always vote Republican. He was a Democrat. I was called a racist and sexist by a passing driver just because I had a John McCain bumber sticker. (I plan to paste "Sarah Palin" over half of my bummber sticker that says veterans for McCain.) I have seen violent riots and I have seen violent protesters on television. They were left wing protesters and rioters of course. Everyone knows this. Obama, his Central Committee, his commissars, his lap-dog press, his Obama Squads are obviously trying to deceive the simple minded.

The Tea Parties remind me of non-violent anti-war protests of the 60's and 70's. When and if the tea partiers are confronted by left wing provocateurs, they should sit down and sing "All we are saying is give freedom a chance."

Obama vs. the Constitution

There is a recent book titled, "FDR vs. The Constitution." It is the political history of FDR's "Court Packing" plan. He intended to undermined the separation of powers in the constitution by appointing hand-picked justices to the supreme court. In 1933 and 1934, five of the nine justices generally blocked his New Deal legislation. Because they were appointed for life, he couldn't remove them but he planned to appoint up to six more justices who would vote his way. With an overwhelming Democrat majority in congress, FDR planned to get his court plan enacted by congress. Only principled Democrats, led by Senator Burton Wheeler, of Montana, defeated his plan.

Are there similarly principled Democrats in Congress now? That remains to be seen. Obama's legislative plans involve getting the health care bill adopted by unconstitutional means. This may be necessary for him and his central committee because the House does not have a majority that supports the Senate bill. The Senate cannot pass a bill acceptable to the House because the recent election of a Republican to replace the late Teddy Kennedy gives the Republicans enough votes to use the filibusterer to stop any bill. Therefore, Obama, Ried, and Palosi have to adjust the procedural rules. They may do this by "passing" the bill in the house without actually voting on it but with a rule change. This violates the US Constitution which states that a bill, "which shall have been passed," by both houses is presented to the president for his signature to become law.

This actually should not work if the members of the House of Representatives who object to the bill realize that by voting for a rule change, they would really be voting for the bill. I guess they could kid themselves, but not their constituents. This is reminiscent of the situation a few months ago when Olympia Snow and the other Maine Republican voted for the Senate bill because they said they really were not voting for the bill but for "discussion of the health care issue." This blog and others stated at the time that they were opening the door to this sort of procedure to make a health care bill law.

The senate created the filibusterer rule to avoid passing significant legislation without substantial support in congress, and, as in this case, without popular support of the people of the country. Reagan realized that his plan for a line item veto did not meet this test of substantial congressional support and that his plans to override the regular procedure was unconstitutional. He dropped his plan. His legal advisers and others made the constitutional case against it. Reagan saw that the constitution was more important that his plans, so did Senator Wheeler. Not so FDR or BHO.

(Mark Levin has been and will be discussing the constitutional issues extensively.)

Profiles in Courage?

Senator Ben Nelson (Nebraska) is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite. He says that he opposes the healthcare bill but will vote for opening the debate. This is the procedural vote that the Democrats and BHO need to get around the 60 vote majority in the US Senate and Senator Nelson knows it. He thinks that he can lie to his constituents who he knows oppose the bill. That's why I refer to them as the Democrat party not the "Democratic Party." There is nothing democratic about them. Mark Levin clearly states this. Does Judge Napolitano? (That is of Brian and Judge talk show fame.) No, I do not think so because he seems to have a large blind spot when it comes to trusting Democrats and taking their statements at face value once in awhile.

Probably no Democrat Senator will oppose the healthcare bill because they are on the take. The fix is in. BHO and the Central Committee of the Party will threaten them and/or promise the world. (Cf. Senator Laundry of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.) They will point out that with their approval already down, they won't be reelected anyhow and they will promise either hundreds of millions for their state or a cushy, prestigious job for themselves. So even if they oppose it and have promised to vote against it they may end of voting for the healthcare bill anyway. It would take real courage to oppose the Central Committee (Axilrod, Emanuel, BHO, etc.).