Democrats to Obama: “Drop cap and trade”
This could be the best news to come out of Washington DC since Barack Obama became the president; at least six Senate Democrats are urging the president to drop cap and trade from his legislative agenda… at least until after the 2010 election.
All of these Democrats who are urging the president to delay action on global warming are doing so not because they don’t believe in the cause– they do– but because they don’t think that it is a good idea to pass this legislation in such a bad economy. I find this to be very interesting because these Democrats appear to be agreeing with what the Republicans have been saying all along– that cap and trade will further hurt the economy. The president and the Democrats have been claiming just the opposite would be the case. They have been claiming that cap and trade legislation would open up all sorts of new job opportunities in a new “green” marketplace. Remember how we were told that all of these new “green” jobs would be created?
If the Democrats were telling us the truth about the job creation possibilities that would open up under cap and trade, why would they attempt to jettison the cap and trade legislation because of the economy that so desperately needs the additional jobs that cap and trade was supposed to provide? The answer is painfully obvious– they were lying! The truth is that the economy would get even weaker after cap and trade, with all of its new taxes, is passed and Democrats know this.
But the economy isn’t the real reason that the Democrats want to delay this legislation.
Democrats have also been telling us for quite some time that we can afford to delay no longer on the issue of global warming, we have been told that we have reached a tipping point and that we must act immediately or we will never be able to stop the world from being destroyed by man’s actions. Suddenly Democrats feel that it is okay to push the cap and trade legislation back one year, what about the impending crisis? I thought that immediate action was needed, wouldn’t pushing the legislation back delay the issue until the environmental damage is unrepairable? That is what they have been telling us.
Don’t be fooled, the Democrats are not afraid that the environment will suffer catastrophic consequences if their actions are delayed– the have only been fear mongering on this issue to push forward a political issue, that much is clear– and Democrats are not urging this delay because of the economy– the same economy they promised this legislation would help– they are doing it because of next year’s midterm election.
Suddenly when faced with tough reelection prospects these same Democrats are willing to punt this issue into next year, not in hopes that the economy will be better next year, but because it will be after the elections, conveniently. It seems their reelection prospects are more important to them than the prospects of saving the world and the economy– the two goals of this legislation, or at least the stated goals of the legislation.
This news does not mean that we can rest easily on this issue, while there are many Democrats who may be in trouble during the midterm elections and while they are asking the president to delay this important piece of his domestic agenda, that doesn’t mean he will listen to them. The notion that there could be many Democrats in trouble in the midterm elections could actually have the opposite effect on the president’s thinking. He may decide to push the cap and trade legislation even harder.
We have seen the president push hard and fast on every piece of legislation he has proposed– he hasn’t accomplished anything yet, but he has pushed hard. He wants everything done and done now! And cap and trade will probably be no different. Realizing that he could lose his majority in one or possibly both houses, the president may decide to push for cap and trade while he still has the majority. To wait until after the 2010 elections would kill any chance of this legislation ever passing if Republicans can manage to gain a majority in either house.
The president does not care about the Democrats in congress personally, he cares only about their vote, and his agenda. He would gladly sacrifice their seats in congress in order to get their votes on as many issues as he can before the 2010 election.
Regardless of whether or not the president takes the advice of these six Democrats, the request by these six Democrats has shown us the truth; cap and trade is not only not good for the economy it is harmful to the economy, cap and trade is not a measure that has to be passed immediately to save the world or Democrats would be willing to lose their seats in order to save the world, cap and trade amounts to nothing more than a national energy tax that will be forced upon all Americans, Democrats have been lying about the impact of man on the environment, and Republicans have been right about these issues all along.
No wonder they want to wait until after the election.
White House admits the attack on Flight 253 was a terrotist act, but still won’t admit the Fort Hood attack was terrorism
Contrary to what this administration and Homeland Security would have us believe, terrorism still exists and even changing the term “terrorism” to “man-caused disasters” has not changed that. The latest example of this can be seen here; Northwest Flight 253, flying on Christmas, was the target of an attempted terrorist attack.
A man claiming to be an al-Qaeda operative, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, attempted to blow up the airplane using some type of incendiary device. Once the passengers heard the noise, saw and smelled the smoke, several of them leapt into action and subdued this terrorist.
At the time of this writing we do not know whether this man was actually working for al-Qaeda and we do not know if he actually had the means on board to blow up the plane. We don’t know if the airplane was in any real danger, but we do know three things; firstly, the passengers aboard this plane that took action are heroes and congratulations and thank yous are in order. Because of their actions, the lives of almost 300 people were possibly saved.
Secondly, the intent was there, even if we find out that this man was nothing more than another Richard Reid, which leads us directly into the third known fact– this man is a terrorist.
Even the White House released a statement that acknowledged the fact that this attempted attack was probably terror related; something I find a little odd considering that after the Fort Hood terror attack the president– when he finally bothered to address the media, and after he did his shout outs– warned the American people about rushing to judgement.
He was not, and still is not, willing to call the Fort Hood terrorist what he is– a terrorist. The Fort Hood terrorist faces no terrorism charges, and it doesn’t look like he ever will. I have written several posts in which it can clearly be seen by the evidence that Nadal Hasan was acting as a terrorist, but the White House is unwilling to call him a terrorist. Yet the White House has no problem calling Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab a terrorist so soon after the attack? Why is he willing to rush to judgement in this case? Shouldn’t he wait until after all of the facts are in before passing judgement, just as he asked us to do after Fort Hood?
Why do you think it is that the White House is willing to use the “T” word in this case when it is so opposed to using the “T” word in regards to Fort Hood?
I have a theory. At first, in regards to the Fort Hood attack, I thought that the president was ashamed to admit that a terrorist attack happened on his watch, but I think the story goes well beyond that. I think that it is quite possible that Barack Obama is willing to call yesterday’s failed attack what it was because– in addition to the fact that the plot was stopped, unlike the Fort Hood attack– he has no fear that his policies led to the situation that made this attack possible.
But he can’t be so sure about the Fort Hood terrorist attack. There is no other reason that I can come up with for the president’s unwillingness to call Nidal Hasan a terrorist for the attack on Fort Hood, he is trying to hide something. Someone in this administration has something to hide when it comes to the Fort Hood terrorist attack.
Ben Nelson on healthcare mandates: Congress gets the constitutional authority in the “same place” that gives states the right to mandate car insurance
Senator Ben Nelson– Democrat from Nebraska, and the man whose vote for healthcare reform was secured after his state received a nice little kickback— was asked: “where in the Constitution do you think that Congress gets the authority to create an individual mandate?” Just like everyone else who was asked this question, he struggled to come with an acceptable answer.
He responded, “probably the same place that states have the authority to require, mandate if you will, compulsory auto insu–liability insurance.” This could be one of the most constitutionally ignorant answers yet, although it is hard to top Senator Burris, who made up the “general health” clause to defend the constitutionality of the issue at hand.
Senator Nelson apparently does not know the difference between state and federal laws, he should probably look it up because that “place” he vaguely mentions does not exist in the constitution.
Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution– where the infamous “general welfare” clause resides– lays out the specific enumerated powers of congress, they are as follows:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
I didn’t see anything in that list that said congress or the president could force the American people to buy any goods or services. That means the constitutional authority does not exist and the 10th amendment states the following: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So you see Senator Nelson, if a power is not granted to the federal government than the power belongs to the states. That is the case with the flawed argument that you and others have made about automobile insurance. While states can mandate automobile insurance, the federal government cannot. And while the individual states can mandate healthcare coverage– as does the people’s Republic of Massachusetts– the federal government cannot.
This should be a simple concept for our elected officials to understand, but sadly they either do not understand, or they do not care, what their authority is and who gives it to them– WE THE PEOPLE!
We have reached a point in this country where not only do our elected officials not care about what the constitution says they can and cannot do, many of them don’t even understand the document that they are supposed to uphold.
Senator Nelson is not alone in his ignorance, for he is not the first to confuse state laws with federal laws; Mark Warner of Virginia claimed that mandating healthcare insurance was the same as states requiring people to have driver’s licenses. Others have also used the car insurance argument to make their case, including the president.
The people who are supposed to protect and defend the constitution are destroying and perverting it. It is time to take our country back.
Senator Casey: “There is no provision in the constitution, but healthcare mandates are still constitutional”
Senator Bob Casey, Democrat from Pennsylvania, was asked a simple question: “Where does the Constitution give Congress that authority, for an individual health care mandate?” While this should be a simple question it appears to be vexing to most members of congress who have struggled to answer the question correctly.
We can now add Senator Casey’s name to the list of senators that can not answer this question. His response to the question was, “well, I don’t know if there’s a specific constitutional provision,” but then he made his point that mandating healthcare coverage was constitutional and cited Medicare and Medicaid as examples of the constitutionality of the mandates.
He is using these two government programs as precedent for forcing the American people to buy a service, but there is no precedent for such a move. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office said in 1994– the last time we had to endure this debacle:
The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government
There have been several senators asked about the question of the constitutionality of healthcare mandates and nobody has been able to give the proper answer. Some have cited the “general welfare” clause, while others have cited the “commerce clause”, and still others have made clauses up out of thin air that are not in the constitution. But none of them have answered the question correctly. Senator Casey may have come the closest to answering the question correctly when he admitted that there is no specific provision in the constitution, but then he failed the test once he claimed the measure was still constitutional.
The answer to the question is, there is no provision or clause that gives congress or the president the authority to mandate Americans to buy healthcare coverage.
See how simple that question was?
A Different Christmas Poem
Enough Said:
Nidal Hasan– the Fort Hood terrorist who killed 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, and the man whom the administration still refuses to call a terrorist– contacted a Yemeni imam last year to ask him about killing United States soldiers.
The imam, in an online interview, stated that Hasan contacted him just over one year ago to ask him if killing United States soldiers was “legitimate” for a Muslim serving in the United States military to kill his fellow soldiers.
He asked about killing American soldiers and officers and whether that was legitimate or not
The first message was on the rules about a Muslim soldier who serves in the American army and kills his fellow (soldiers.)
Anwar al-Aulaqi– the Muslim cleric that Hasan was in contact with– apparently condones such attacks on our soldiers:
The target that Nidal targeted was a military target inside the United States and not anything else,” Aulaqi said.”I didn’t recruit Nidal Hasan and in fact America recruited him with its crimes and injustices and that is something that America does not want to recognize
I do have to agree with al-Aulaqi on one point– he claims that America recruited Hasan because of America’s crimes and that we do not want to recognize that fact. While I disagree vehemently that America recruited Hasan with her actions, I do agree that this administration is unwilling to recognize exactly who and what Nidal Hasan is– a terrorist.
Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder, and as awful as this “crime” was it was more than just premeditated murder. This was a terrorist attack and it is about time that the Obama administration admitted this and charged Hasan with committing a terrorist attack on United States soil.
But charging Hasan with terrorism still isn’t enough, somebody has to be held accountable for not preventing this attack in the first place. The warning signs were there for quite a while, Hasan never should have been left in a position where he was able to carry out this attack. But he was, and somebody is to blame for this oversight. Somebody was negligent, perhaps the president’s policies even led to the neutering of the military commanders to the point where they couldn’t do anything about Hasan. We may never know, but we deserve to.
Merry Christmas
I would like to say Merry Christmas to all of those who visit here, and thank you for stopping by. Merry Christmas to my family and friends. I hope that everyone has a joyful holiday in the company of their loved ones.
I would also like to take this time to say Merry Christmas to our troops who are serving overseas who will not be able to see their mothers, fathers, spouses, or children this Christmas day. Please rest assured knowing that while you are so far away, you are never alone. Besides your loved ones, there are millions of Americans who keep you in their hearts, thoughts, and prayers every day. You are never alone. Thank you for your service, and Merry Christmas.
Reid and Pelosi to negotiate final healthcare bill in secrecy while a senior Democrat urges them to “kill the bill”
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi appear ready to forgo the public debate during the reconciliation process and will merge the House and Senate bill behind closed doors. In secrecy and in private, instead of in the manner that this process is usually conducted. And this is coming from the party that promised to run the most transparent congress in history. The question is, what are they trying to hide? A follow up question would be, from whom are they trying to hide it. It seems to me that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are trying to hide the final bill from both the public and the people who will be voting on the bill.
The people are already skeptical of this bill and in light of the secrecy that this congress is working under, they are right to be skeptical. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do not want the American people to know what is in this bill– now and before the 2012 election. There is a reason that while the tax increases will be effective immediately, the “benefits” will not go into effect until after Barack Obama runs for re-election. They do not want the American people to know how inefficient and unfriendly this bill will be until it is too late and Barack Obama’s re-election is guaranteed.
We have reached a new low in government secrecy and gamesmanship and we have reached it under the administration that promised to do just the opposite. But it is not just the American people who are growing more skeptical about this bill, many of our elected officials are also growing skeptical of this bill and the secrecy under which it is being negotiated.
Representative Louise Slaughter– Democrat from New York, a senior Democrat in the House and also chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus– has grown so skeptical of this bill that she is calling for the Senate’s version of the healthcare reform bill. She is now calling for the Senate’s version of the bill to be killed and is asking to start anew on the healthcare reform bill debate, which the Senate has warned needs to be changed very little if the Senate is to pass the reconciled bill.
She has called the Senate’s version of the bill “not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago.” She has called the bill fatally flawed and while her reasons for wanting the bill killed are different from the reasons that I want the bill killed, this highlights a potential rift in congress that might not easily be overcome.
She opposes the senate bill because of its lack of a public option and its restrictions on abortion funding and states that “it’s time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board, the American people deserve at least that.”
I disagree with her reasons but agree with her sentiment, it is time to kill this bill and start over, the American people deserve it.
The rift is growing and it may not be as easy as I had feared that this bill will gain easy approval in congress. There is much to be leery of in this bill and there is much to be leery about in the way in which this bill has been negotiated– in secrecy behind closed doors with only a few privileged participants. If this bill was as good for the American people as it is being betrayed, why did it take payoffs to key senators to get it passed in the senate and why are they afraid to negotiate in public?
There are too many unanswered questions, it is time to kill the bill and start over, using just a little bit of common sense and transparency. We want to know, and we deserve to know, what is in the bill before it is passed and congress deserves to know what is in the bill before voting on it. I have just one last question, is that too much to ask for?
When asked where the constitutional authority was for healthcare mandates, Diane Feinstein said she “assumed” it was in the commerce clause
When Diane Feinstein was asked, where in the constitution is the authority to mandate healthcare coverage, she responded that she “assumed it was in the commerce clause.”
Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.
She “assumes” but she does not “know.” She is making this up, she is either ignorant of the intent of the commerce clause or she just doesn’t give a damn about the constitution. Or both.
She would be wrong in assuming that the commerce clause gives congress this authority, but right in stating that the commerce clause is how congress legislates various programs.
The commerce clause does not grant congress the authority to mandate healthcare insurance, and while congress has certainly used this clause to institute various programs, they have done so using a liberal interpretation of this clause that was never the intended meaning of the clause.
The commerce clause is one of the most abused clauses in all of the constitution, it has been interpretted in various extra-constitutional ways over the years to the point where it is all but meaningless in its original and narrow intent.
When the constitution was being debated, it came at a time when the states were more powerful than the federal government. Each state had their own currency, were able to negotiate their own separate treaties with foreign nations, and were able to impose duties and tariffs on other states. In an effort to end all of these practices, the commerce clause was inserted into the constitution to standardize the currency, and the mode of trade between the different states with each other and with foreign nations. The commerce clause appears in the very same section of the constitution which laid out the very specific powers that the congress had.
But over the years the commerce clause has been interpretted to promote liberal social and economic policies which were never granted in the constitution, so it is no wonder that liberals can so easily “assume” that the commerce clause gives them the power to do basically whatever the hell they want to do.
Conservative group readies a challenge on the constitutionality of healthcare mandates
With passage of the healthcare reform bill all but assured, the last remaining option to stop this disaster is the possibility of a challenge to the constitutionality of the bill.
Some may feel that the deals that Ben Nelson and others struck in order to win their votes may be grounds for a constitutional challenge– Lindsey Graham being one who believes that these deals could be challenged in court, I don’t see this going anywhere– but the best chance to undo this legislation will be on the grounds of the healthcare mandates.
It appears as if there is a group that is readying itself for a constitutional challenge of the healthcare mandates that are in the bill. The Conservative Action Project had the following to say about the healthcare reform bill:
Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any penalty—civil or criminal—on any private citizen for not purchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provision of the U.S. Constitution. As such, [the bill] is unconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge on that issue
The Conservative Action Project then goes on to state the different clauses that have been cited by various senators as giving the federal government the authority to mandate healthcare insurance, and quickly debunks those arguments.
This bill is going to pass, there is nothing that we can do to stop it. Our only remaining option is to see the constitutionality of the bill challenged, but up until now we hadn’t heard of anybody that was prepared to challenge the constitutionality of the bill. Hopefully that is about to change.
In all likelihood the only aspect of this bill that the Supreme Court would rule unconstitutional would be the healthcare mandates, the rest of the bill would probably remain intact. But the more that is stripped from this bill, the better. This may not be a perfect conclusion to the debate, but at least it would be a little something.
America's Watchtower 