We all know that (mmm mmm mmm) Barack Hussein Obama talks a good game and says what people want to hear but then does what he wants to. He said no lobbyists but they donated to him and he has hired them to work in his regime. He said he would close Gitmo and did not. He said his people did not speak to Blago about his open Senate seat but they did. So we know he is a liar and we know that he will asy or do anything for political gain, especially when it comes to pushing his Socialist agenda.

Wall Street is full of bad guys and Obama gives them a tongue lashing and promises financial reform. They happen to be huge donors to him and other Democrats so the financial rules will help them immensely.

Obama also painted the pharmaceutical companies as evil and regularly bashed them during the health care takeover debate. While he was speaking to America about how evil they are he was behind closed doors cutting deals that favor them for inclusion in the health care bill.

The evil Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) [and all the affiliated drug companies] are not really all that evil to Obama and they don’t mind being slapped around publicly as long as they get their rewards for being the whipping boys. And they have been rewarded handsomely for their efforts.

Harry Reid helped push the health care bill through so the drug companies owe him quite a bit and to show their thanks they have been contributing a great deal of money to his campaign. They want him reelected because they know he will look out for them rather than for the American citizens and the people of his home state. Harry Reid sold out the majority of Americans in favor of the drug companies (among many special interest groups) and they want to continue that relationship. They need their own personal stooge in the government to help them get sweetheart deals at the expense of taxpayers.

The drug companies are not only donating lots of money to Reid but have also paid for TV ads in support of him. I reckon that the libs are not really all that upset with the SCOTUS ruling that says companies can spend as much as they want or Reid, as a matter of principle, would not accept the help. Of course, Reid is not a man of principle or he would not have sided with PhRMA over the people.

Barack Obama made the drug companies his regular patsy and made them out to be friends of Republicans. If you believe Obama and his Democrats then you would think that the drug companies gave lots and lots of money to Republicans while the lowly Democrats were fighting against their evil ways.

The reality is, Obama and the rest of the Democrats are quite friendly with PhRMA and take lots of money. Obama will be in Nevada next week to do a fundraiser for Reid so it will be like old home week with Obama and Reid there and the drug companies financing things.

Do you think Obama will bash them and tell them not to spend their money on Reid? After the insult he threw at the SCOTUS in his State of the Union Address one would think Obama is so opposed he would demand that it stop.

No, these people only want to win and they do not care how they do it. They will run a massive Democrat voter registration drive and call it immigration reform and they will make bogey men out of businesses that they are in bed with all in order to look like they are taking up for the little guy when what they are really taking is lot of special interest money.

The next time some liberal/progressive twit (like Obama or Reid) starts talking about Republicans being in bed with the drug companies inform the moron that the Democrats took lots of money from the drug companies and gave them sweetheart deals as part of the health care takeover.

Point them to this post or the linked article and ask them to explain why Harry Reid takes so much PhRMA money.

Its because these guys are in bed with the special interests and will do anything to retain power.

Vote them all out in November and cripple Obama’s agenda.

Source:
Washington Examiner

Never surrender, never submit.

Nancy Pelosi was all weepy one day discussing the terrible rhetoric that she hears and stated that she has heard it in the past and it led to violence. Of course, the violence she was talking about was the murder of Harvey Milk and George Moscone in San Francisco. The murderer, Dan White, was a Democrat and it was over a political dispute involving White’s job.

So Pelosi made this big deal in order to marginalize those opposed to the current administration’s actions. These TEA Party members are some violent folks, you know.

Except at every TEA Party event, there have been no confirmed reports of violence involving them. Some of the TEA Party members have been attacked by the other side but the members themselves have not resorted to violence even though the left is provoking them in hopes of making them turn violent.

Since this is obviously not working, the left has resorted to manufacturing violence. At the ceremony where members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked arm in arm to the Capitol several claimed they were spat upon and that they were called the N word. There is no evidence that these incidents took place. So far no video has surfaced to show that it happened. If that evidence existed we would have seen it non stop on the MSM. Olberman would loop it and play it for the entirety of his show.

It did not happen. Andrew Breitbart however, is offering a cash reward (now up to $100,000) for video evidence that it did. I think his money is safe.

So this gets play in the MSM but once calls for evidence go out they have nothing. What next? Take a small number of calls threatening violence and couple them with a few acts of vandalism and blame them on the TEA Party and right wingers. There is no way of knowing who did this, only speculation. The very left that calls people Islamophobes for saying that a Muslim was involved in a bombing incident are quick to indict the right for acts that could have been done by anyone.

If black lawmakers will invent a racist story to advance the party line then it is not beyond reason that the left was involved in these incidents in order to pin the blame on the right.

Make no mistake, the people who committed the vandalism and who made the threats need to be found and dealt with appropriately. But let’s find them and determine ideology before we make claims. Even then, the nut jobs involved are the only ones responsible.

For real violence, Andrew Breitbart tells of Harry Reid supporters who threw eggs at the TEA Party express bus and threatened him with harm. Since we must apply the same standard, I will need some evidence that this happened so if anyone has video, please post it. [See update below]

We do know that the left is engaged in many acts of violence and vandalism. They slash tires, break windows (sometimes their own party’s), and bite off fingers.

Sometimes they even have members of the New Black Panther Party stand outside polling places with nightsticks intimidating voters.

But the violence claim is aimed (is aimed a word that incites violence) at TEA Party members who have been peaceful.

This is by design because they know they are in trouble and need to marginalize the opposition if they hope to avoid a bloodbath in November.

Let’s keep our powder dry (oops, another phrase linked to violence) and focus on our agenda. Don’t be goaded into violence.

This is what they want.

And the last thing we want to do is give them what they want.

UPDATE: I asked for it and I got it. The video that shows eggs hitting the TEA Party bus, a guy holding an egg and a moron saying it was TEA Party people who threw the eggs is now available. There is also a man threatening Andrew Breitbart, he says that if Breitbart does not leave “I am going to jail today.” So it looks like Breitbart backed up his claims with video. Can the Congressional Black Caucus do the same with regard to the alleged racist remarks and spitting directed at them?

Video 1
Video 2

Never surrender, never submit.

Bart Stupak and his cohorts who claimed to be pro-life are nothing more than typical Democrats who put party before principle. Stupak pushed for anti abortion language in the original House bill and he vowed not to vote for the Senate Bill unless language was added that would take away the funding for abortion. By mid-afternoon today he had changed his mind and decided to vote yes.

Did he do it because language had been added to the “fix-it” bill? Did he do it because one of his eight proposals was adopted?

No, he did it because Barack Obama promised to sign an Executive Order spelling out what is and what is not allowed. Stupak gave his yes vote for a promise that Obama would sign a piece of paper that cannot change a law (if there is a court battle the law will win) and that can be rescinded at any time by Obama or future presidents. Stupak became a Dupe-Hack. And he demonstrated that there is no way for one to actually be pro-life and be a Democrat. When push came to shove the Democrat shined through and the so called principled position took a back seat. As Phyllis Schlafly wrote:

“It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as ‘pro-life,’ to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama’s first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion.”

“Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world.”

~snip~

“Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn’t willfully align themselves with the Party of Death.”

“This vote will expose the myth of the ‘pro-life Democrat.’ With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same.” Yahoo News

There is no doubt, barring a miracle like a sink hole swallowing the Capitol, that this will pass in the House. I have a feeling that the Senate version of the bill will not only be signed into law but will remain the law minus the so called “reconciliation fixes” because many items in the bill are not budget items and will be struck down. Democrats do not have the votes to over rule the motion to remove the items in question. In fact, the entire reconciliation bill might end up being tossed because it contains items dealing with Social Security and reconciliation bills cannot contain any SS items in them.

Republicans have been trying to discuss this with Senate Democrats but they are all out of reach. Republicans claim that the Senate Democrats are slow walking in order to have the House vote on the Senate bill first so that their bill will become the law of the land.

I do not like this entire mess and I know it will further divide our country while bankrupting us despite what liberals claim. They do not know what they are talking about and see things through the intoxication of Kool Aid and some really good weed.

I do think though, that it would be absolutely hysterical if the Senate bill passes and they cannot deliver on reconciliation like Reid promised. Many Democrats will be unhappy and left hanging in the wind.

Now that will be funny. At least we can all laugh while on the road to ruin.

The health care summit was held yesterday and I don’t think Obama and the Democrats were ready for the Republicans who came ready to discuss issues. In the end the thing was a waste of time because Obama’s position was basically, here is what I want now sign on or we will have to use reconciliation.

What? Come now Big Dog. Reconciliation was addressed a number of times by Republicans and the Democrats said that no one was discussing using it. As an aside, please do not get confused between reconciliation and the filibuster as Rachael Maddow did. Harry Reid said this:

No one has said — I read what the President has online — no one has talked about reconciliation but that’s what you folks have talked about ever since that came out, as if it’s something that has never been done before.” (“Transcript: White House Health Summit, Morning Session,” Kaiser Health News, 2/25/10)

So there you have it right from Harry Reid, no one has been discussing this except the Republicans who are getting all worked up over nothing.

According to The Hill, Harry Reid was interviewed and in a posting from 2/20/10 Reid was indeed discussing reconciliation.

“I’ve had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff, and Speaker Pelosi,” Reid said during an appearance Friday evening on “Face to Face with Jon Ralston” in Nevada. “And we’re really trying to move forward on this.”

The majority leader said that while Democrats have a number of options, they would likely use the budget reconciliation process to pass a series of fixes to the first healthcare bill passed by the Senate in November. These changes are needed to secure votes for passage of that original Senate bill in the House.

“We’ll do a relatively small bill to take care of what we’ve already done,” Reid said, affirming that Democrats would use the reconciliation process. “We’re going to have that done in the next 60 days.”

Remember now, Harry Reid was before America at the summit and said no one was discussing this. No one was discussing it except him, Pelosi, Obama and his staff. All of these no ones have been discussing reconciliation.

So, if as Obama says, no one cares how this gets done or America does not care about the procedures, why did Harry Reid lie?

The reality is that a lot of people do not like this bill. People like parts of it but they do not like it, especially how much it will cost and all the unnecessary things that give government more control over our lives. Reid lied because he knows people do not like it and it would be real difficult for him to explain why reconciliation has been decided upon prior to the summit.

Reid is a liar and he will lose come this November.

Remember folks, never trust a Democrat. The summit was full of deception and theater so they could say they tried.

From Frances Rice, NBRA:

Wielding a sharp racial sword, Democrats ruthlessly destroy the careers of Republicans on racial matters, accepting no apologies. Yet, using a glaring double standard, those same Democrats quickly give a pass to any Democrat, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who again displayed egregious racism.

Hardly a ripple of protest was made in 2004 when Reid shamelessly slurred Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as an incompetent Negro who could not write good English. “Slap at Thomas stinks of racism,” was the headline of the New York Daily News’ December 7, 2004 editorial.

Now, Reid has described then-Senator Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” With this racial slur, Reid denigrates not only Obama, but also the entire population of black Americans as being uneducated Negroes who cannot speak standard English, the same type of disgusting remark he made over five years ago about Justice Thomas, a graduate of Yale Law School. A tribute to Justice Thomas [link in original] that includes details about his stellar career is posted on the NBRA website. Read the rest

It strikes me that Al Sharpton said Reid’s comments disturbed him but that it was not the same as what Lott said. Lott was praising a 100 year old man and he made the comment that if Thurmond had been elected in 1948 we would not have these problems. It is only speculation as to what Lott meant but he apologized all over for offending people. Though Diane Feinstein says no Democrats jumped up and down about it she was actually one of those who did as did Barack Obama. How is it that Reid’s apology allows him a pass and Lott’s did not?

I remember Barack Obama saying that he could not be accountable for his association with a man who did despicable things when he (Barack) was only 8 years old. When Strom Thurmond ran for the presidency in 1948 Lott was 7 years old.

How can we hold him accountable for what he said about a guy who ran for president under segregation when Lott was only 7 unless we can now believe that Obama is guilty by association with Ayers?

What Lott said was wrong depending on what he meant. He never explained that. What Reid said was wrong unless he can tell us not what he meant, that has been explained, but whether he also holds those beliefs. If this had been Reid’s only foray into the world of racism then it might be excused but, as the NBRA piece points out, Reid made a racist remark about Justice Thomas.

The other thing that people miss in this is the implication of what Reid said and that is that Obama is attractive because he is not your typical black guy (before you lefties call that racist remember you gave Obama a pass on the typical white person remark).

The explanation is that Reid was saying that Obama was attractive to Americans because he is light skinned and does not speak negro. Does this not mean he believes that the racists in America will not vote for a dark skinned person who speaks negro, whatever that is.

Americans will vote for a person who can lead regardless of color (and as has been shown with Obama and Carter, they will vote for someone who can’t lead regardless of color). And since the left bashed Bush daily about his manner of speech we have to assume that speech is not a big issue with regard to getting elected.

I wish Reid were held to the same standards as a Republican but that is never going to happen as long as liberals continue to excuse racism from the left. So, since he will not be forced to step down, it will be just as much fun watching this brain damaged moron bumble his way through life and it will be even more fun watching him be removed by the voters.

Barack Obama said it would be up to Republicans to drive Lott out. They did but as Obama showed by accepting Reid’s apology, he does not hold Democrats to the same standard.

Maybe when it is all said and done Obama can have a beer summit with Reid and invite Robert Byrd to explain racism and the history of the Democrat organization known as the KKK.

Might be a bit much to ask since Reid and Byrd might expect Obama to serve the beer. After all, a few years ago he would have been getting Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy coffee…

When Trent Lott made comments to a 100 year old Senator that the country could have avoided all these problems if Thrumond had been elected president in 1948 the left went nuts. There was no indication of what problems he meant or if he meant anything racist by it but the left went nuts. The Chicago Defender published this from Barack Obama on 12 December 2002:

“It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do,” said Obama.

He said: “The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.” [Highlighted text at source, unknown if it was in original]

Barack Obama was also very hard on Don Imus who, after his off color remark, kissed the ass of every black leader in the country begging for forgiveness. Imus was eventually fired, just like Al Sharpton and Barack Obama wanted.

There are racists in all political parties and there are people who are not racist but make remarks that are deemed offensive. Some are and some are merely blown out of proportion so the left can scream RAAAAAAACCCISSSSSSSST and keep black votes on the Democrat plantation. It also helps Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to stay in business as race baiting poverty pimps.

You can bet that Democrats who say racist things are treated just as badly from the enlightened left. There is NO tolerance for these kinds of people and they are made to pay when they say things that can be racist. Look at Joe Biden. He pulled an Archie Bunker and told us Obama was one of the good ones:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” American Digest

Barack Obama made sure that Joe Biden was removed from his Senate Seat but only by selecting him to be his running mate. Hmmm, Obama went from it being difficult to forgive a guy who made statements that people assumed were racist to selecting a guy who made overtly racist remarks as his running mate. I guess having Joe Biden working around one of the good ones will help reeducate him…

OK Big Dog, Lott was the Senate Majority Leader and Biden just an aged Senator with a propensity for saying stupid things. If Biden had been the Senate Majority Leader then Obama would have found it hard to forgive him and would have called for his resignation.

When Barack Obama was running for the ofice he now holds Harry Reid (the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER) said this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Obama is the nation’s first African-American president. Yahoo News

Harry Reid apologized for using such offensive language. Negro is such a politically incorrect word that people are up in arms that it is on the Census Form this year even though many blacks asked that it be included and negro is actually a race (technically, African American and Black are not races). Certainly Obama said this could not be forgiven and said that Democrats had to drive Reid from office. He had to have done that because he is post racial, the savior, a fair and even handed politician, one who never plays politics with race and one who demands equal treatment. I know Barack Obama is treating Harry Reid the same way he treated Trent Lott.

OK, just kidding, Obama forgave Reid. It took a matter of minutes for Obama to issue a statement saying he accepted Reid’s apology. It takes Obama months to actually arrive at decisions, a trait his defenders say shows contemplation and intellect and he forgives Reid in minutes. How come he did not deliberate over how it is difficult to accept the apology of a man who uses racist remarks? How come he did not say it is up to Democrats to force Reid from the party? Why did Mr. post racial not hold a member of his own party to the same standard he held the Republican Senate Majority Leader to? Better yet, why has Reid not stepped down? When Lott had his troubles Reid said he had no choice but to step down:

“He had no alternative,” said Reid at the time claiming, “If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.” NewsBusters

Of course racism is only a matter of convenience for Democrats. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson routinely engage in anti Semetic remarks and use racial epithets (he called Obama the N word…). They get away with it because they are liberals and liberals can’t be racists, only do-gooders. This is why Hillary was excused when she made a racist remark, why Biden was rewarded with the VP slot and why Reid’s apology was accepted. Democrats can’t be racists, they can only accuse others. Reid will not hold himself to the same standard he held Lott and neither will Obama.

Bill Clinton was hammered on the campaign trail as being racist. I wrote about it at the time and my feeling is if a Republican would be called racist then a Democrat must. Only this time it was other Democrats calling Clinton, their previous hero, a racist. Clinton went nuts because he does not believe himself to be a racist. However, he told Ted Kennedy that Kennedy should support Hillary for president and that “A few years ago, this guy [Obama] would have been getting us coffee.”

I am sure that could be spun a number of ways but it sounds racist and that is the standard that applies to Republicans. The report says Kennedy was angered by this but only because he supported Obama. If he had supported Hillary he would not care. Anger at racism, as has been shown by the above quotes, is situational for Democrats.

So the next time some liberal screams racism just point out these statements and the hypocrisy demonstrated by their side point to this post and tell them to clean their own house first.

The Reid and Clinton stories are from this book. It might be a real good read.

UPDATE: The Washington Times reports that Democrats are defending Harry Reid. That is expected but the funny thing is this part of the story:

Mrs. Feinstein also said that “I saw no Democrats jumping out there and condemning Senator Lott.”

But several Democrats — including Mrs. Feinstein — did in fact target Mr. Lott after his remarks. “This statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott’s ability to be a credible party leader,” she said in 2002, according to an Inland Valley Daily Bulletin news story.

“I can tell you if a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position,” Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, said of Mr. Lott in 2002.

Sen. John Kerry also called on Mr. Lott to resign, saying “I simply do not believe the country can today afford to have someone who has made these statements again and again be the leader of the United States Senate,” according to a Boston Globe article.

Feinstein says that Democrats did not go after Lott when she was one of those who did. The 300 million dollar whore Landrieu says that if a Democrat said such a thing he could not keep his position and Kerry says that the country can not afford to have someone who makes these kinds of statements. Funny how that all changes when it is one of their own…

Henry Waxman and many of the top Democrats have returned to DC to start working on reconciling the House and Senate versions of the health care overhaul. The House does not reconvene until January 12^th and the Senate after that. The reason that these slugs are gathering is so they can work on an end around with the White House.

The House and Senate leaders are working on ways to keep from using the reconciliation process properly to merge the bills. The game will involve bouncing amendments back and forth and working out more back room deals in a fashion that does not allow Republicans to participate and because the normal process would require 60 votes each time the Senate had to vote. They had to bribe a lot of people to get 60 the last time and they do not want to go through that mess again.

This will also allow Pelosi to provide cover for some Democrats in the House but Republicans are not the only ones who are being screwed in this game. Democrats who have certain items they will not waiver on will not be able to ensure what they want is included. Pelosi will likely have the votes she needs and Reid will not have to do anything ethical like follow the Senate rules.

It was Pelosi who promised the most ethical Congress. It was Obama who promised transparency and all Democrats have thrown that word around quite a bit. They were not transparent during the initial work on this disaster and they are even less so now. These slugs are hiding behind closed doors and working on stuff out of the eye of the public.

They are hiding like the cowardly vermin that they are. This is no way to run a government and one can be sure that if the parties were reversed the liberal bloggers and the Democrats would be having a cow and talking about how the process was being hijacked.

Regardless of how one feels about the health care bill there are rules and procedures that must be followed if we are to maintain a legitimate government. This closed door stuff is more in line with Russia, China and a host of other nations that rule in a manner that was never in our design.

The Democrats and their leader Obama have completely shredded the Constitution and the rules that govern the House and Senate. They are hiding like cowards and pushing what they want regardless of the will of the people and regardless of the desires of some of their own members.

Now is the time for a Joe Lieberman to step up and say he will vote against final passage if this is not done properly.

Now, more than ever, we need the Republican to win Ted Kennedy’s seat in this month’s special election. We need these things now because our Republic has been hijacked by a bunch of cutthroat thugs who are moving closer and closer to iron fist rule of the Communists and less in accordance with the Republican form of government we were promised by our Founders and that is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

I know that the Democrats think losing what they have in numbers is acceptable as long as they get what they want now. That is their choice to make and as foolish as it is, they are moving full steam ahead.

They will have a bloodbath in the next election but are they looking for more than that? Are they begging people to walk into the Capitol and throw them out onto the street and put in place a new government? Are they begging us to overthrow them by force? We have a solemn duty to cast off the bonds of oppressive government. We have a duty to get rid of any government that does not follow the rule of law.

We have elections to do that but it seems as if these morons are begging people to enter the Capitol and kick their asses out.

Nothing would make me happier than seeing them in shackles on a plane to Gitmo but I am content to wait for the next election.

What will come first, the next election or the tipping point?

Source:
US News

On several occasions Barack Obama has stated that his health care plan would not cover abortions. What he specifically said was that federal dollars (read taxpayer money) would not be used to pay for abortions. Obama said that the people who were saying this were making “bogus” claims:

In a one-line response to charges that taxpayers will foot the bill for abortions, Obama Wednesday night called it a “bogus” claim.

“One more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place,” the president said in an address to a joint session of Congress to sell health care reforms. Fox

The bill that the House passed allowed taxpayer money to pay for abortions until a Democrat worked to change the bill. The Senate bill absolutely allows for abortions to be paid for with taxpayer dollars. Representative Bart Stupak, the Democrat who introduced the amendment changing the language in the House bill has read the language in the Senate bill and he says that it is not good enough and that it allows for taxpayer money to fund abortion. He claims that he cannot vote for the bill if the language is changed to the Senate version.

Stupak also claims that he has been contacted by the White House and by House leadership telling him not to make any statements on the issue until they get a chance to sell him the language. In other words, they want to try and buy him off like they did all those Senators but Stupak said he does not need to discuss this with the White House or House leaders because he can read. He indicated that he does not need the language sold to him and that what he has read is not good enough.

Now let’s revisit the statement Obama made about taxpayer money paying for abortions. He said it was a bogus claim. It looks like Obama’s statement that it was a bogus claim was a bogus claim. Obama said that abortions would not be paid for with taxpayer money but the bill will allow that so he made the bogus claim as he has done with a lot of legislation. Remember Mr. “no earmarks” who has signed bills with earmarks totaling around 10,000? There is also no mechanism to keep illegals from getting coverage so when Joe Wilson said “you lie” he was right.

But back to abortion. If the White House wants Stupak not to talk about this it means that they know it exists, that the bill covers abortions and that it would be a problem for some in the House. The request for silence also means they are playing the kind of politics that Obama said he would put an end to. He is trying to get this through without drawing attention to his LIE. The Democrats passed this stuff in the dead of night and now the Obama thugs are trying to keep things hush-hush.

There is still a big chance that this whole thing will go down in flames because it is unlikely that the House and Senate will agree. Of course, there appears to be no such thing as truly moderate Democrats and the only real question is how much do they need to be bought off. I would like to believe that Stupak will stand his ground but recent events involving Democrats indicate that they will stand their ground until their price is reached and then they fold like a bad poker hand.

One thing is for sure. They do not have our best interests in mind. They want to pass something, anything, to make the messiah look good and they don’t care what it has in it.

Their philosophy is to pass something now and then fix it later which is no way to do anything. Would you have faith in a car company if its philosophy was to slap cars together quickly and with little regard to what is right and then worry about fixing them later? Come to think of it, you might have that now that government owns a few car companies…

This will be interesting to watch but it is important for people to remember that the Democrats do not care about getting it right, just getting it passed and Obama will sign whatever hits his desk even if it contains things he said would not be in his plan. Obama and House leaders are anxious to keep certain things quiet so they can pass them without public scrutiny.

This is the most transparent administration in history, just ask them.

It looks like Harry Reid is cracking up under all the pressure being put on him to get a health care bill passed. Combine that pressure with his diminishing chance for reelection and it all adds up to a crack-up. Today, Reid compared Republicans’ resistance to the health care legislation to those who opposed the ending of slavery in this country.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement — even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery. Fox News

It was indeed the Republican party that ended slavery in this country and the Democrats were the ones opposed to it. Republicans were the movers and shakers in the ending of the suffrage of women and in getting civil rights legislation passed. The Democrats were the ones who opposed all those things so at least Reid has his party’s history to look at when making the comparison.

The Democrats still espouse slavery in this country and they work hard to keep minorities, particularly blacks, on their plantation. Democrats do not work for equality and support plans that view minorities and women as second class citizens who need a helping hand because they are unable to make it on their own. The Democrats keep select groups enslaved in order to ensure votes. They are aware that as long as they keep promising to make things better they will keep people in chains, beholden to the Democrats who look down upon them.

The health care plan being pushed along will make every American, except the very wealthy and the political elite, slaves to the government. We will depend on government for one of the most important and personal items in our lives, our medical care. The Democrats know that if they can take over health care they will hold people hostage and will use this advantage to ensure wins in future elections.

Look at how the elderly are held hostage over Medicare and Social Security. The Democrats, at election time, always talk about Social Security and how it will be lost under Republicans. The Democrats use the threat of decreased SS or Medicare benefits as a weapon to keep the elderly in line. Fear of losing these benefits is what the Democrats want.

This will happen if we are all forced to be at the mercy of government. The government can justify anything it wants if it holds the keys to the health care mansion. They will regulate what you eat, how much exercise you get, what your kids do, and will increase taxes all under the threat of health care expense and in the name of the common good. It is a dangerous game and it is up to Republicans to stop it.

Republicans ended slavery in this country at the cost of a lot of lives all because Democrats wanted to keep blacks on a leash as servants.

After bondage ended the Democrats worked to enslave blacks and other minorities with social programs that keep the downtrodden at the bottom of the social ladder and always looking up for a hand.

“Please sir, I want some more.”

Republicans have traditionally believed that people who need a helping hand get one but that it is temporary and that the help one gets should be in helping him to improve his lot in life. We believe that you cannot make the poor wealth by making the wealthy poor and that making people dependent will not miraculously lead them to independence. Democrats don’t actually believe it either, they know that making the wealthy poor makes everyone poor and that the best way to control people is to make them dependent. This is their goal.

Once people are hooked they will always do what their masters say because they are afraid of losing what meager things they get.

One only needs to look at how people in New Orleans were unable to care for themselves after Hurricane Katrina to see the harm of dependence on government.

Republicans must rise up and defeat this health care legislation so that we maintain our independence.

I never want to have to tell my grandchildren that they are servants of the government because I stood silently and allowed it to take away our freedom.

In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Romeo laments over identity with regard to the love of his life, whose family name is the sworn enemy of his own. In Act II, Scene II Romeo asks:

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet

With regard to the health care takeover that the Democrats are working feverishly to accomplish, the question might be; “What’s in a name? That which we call a turd would still smell as foul.”

Nancy Pelosi is trying to repackage the turd known as the public option by giving it another name. She was in Florida with Yenta Debbie Wasserman to discuss what we know as the public option. Only now, the smelly turd is called the “competitive option” or the “consumer option.” Yes, the Democrats want to package the public option under a different name in order to sell it to America.

During the campaign a phrase was over used but it applies so well in this case that I must use it again. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.

Pelosi and Obama are hell bent on getting a public option. Obama is playing it cool and acting like it is no big deal but he wants it and he will get it, if not now then after they pass any kind of health care bill. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent it will not be long before the entire camel is in there messing things up.

The Democrats are approaching November and they believe that the uproar of August is sufficiently behind them so they can ram things that people do not want down our collective throats. They are sadly mistaken if they think that this will not hurt them in the 2010 election. But they have to do something because Obama believes failure to get health care legislation will make his tenure a failure. This, according to Dick Morris, is why Olympia Snowe voted to get the bill out of committee. If she voted to help save his legacy then she definitely needs to go.

It looks like the Senate has joined in the public option carnival as Harry Reid announced that the bill coming out of the Senate will have a public option in it. The bill will supposedly allow states to opt out. If they do, will they still pay the same taxes as everyone else? Will states that opt out still pay for the states that do not? At what point will the federal government decide that states may no longer opt out? Why does someone have to opt out as opposed to opting in?

Harry Reid just hammered a few more nails into his political coffin. That brain damaged moron will lose the next election and we can finally be rid of him. He is helping the Republican party gain seats in the next election.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi and many other Democrats want a public option despite the objections of the public at large. They will force this on us no matter what we want because they believe that they know better what you need than you do. The Democrats have opposition in their own ranks (despite Reid’s claim to have nearly the 60 votes he needs) because some of them come from states that McCain won by huge margins and their jobs are in jeopardy. They do not want to lose. He might get Republicans to vote for it but any Republicans who vote for this will do so at their own peril.

This option, by any other name, is nothing more than a turd and while I know that the liberals believe that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end, that cannot happen. No matter what they call it, it is still a turd and it still smells the same.

We need to oppose this and we need to be on the phone with all the elected people from our states. They need to know that we will fire them if they vote for this.

As far as I am concerned, I want them all replaced no matter what but they still think they will hold on to their jobs. We need to let them know they will be unemployed if they push this through.

Every seat in the House is up for reelection next November. America, it is time to do some House cleaning.

Or to quote Shakespeare one more time:

“Now is the winter of our discontent” [King Richard III, Act I, Scene I]

Sources:
Politico
Breitbart