Mary Landrieu refuses to state where the constitution authorizes healthcare mandates
When Senator Mary Landrieu was asked where the constitution gives congress the authority to mandate healthcare coverage this was what she had to say:
Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.
In other words, she has no idea where the authority comes from, and there is good reason why she doesn’t know the answer to the question. Because the constitution does not give congress this authority. Of course, she should know this and perhaps she does, but is willing to go ahead anyway. Instead of admitting this, she hides behind constitutional lawyers. It seems to me that these lawyers should have been asked beforehand if the mission that the congress is embarked on is constitutional. But the fact is that the members of congress know that most likely the constitutionality of healthcare mandates will never be challenged after it is passed. In fact, that is what they are banking on.
A recent commenter here, Steve, asked me if I thought that a constitutionality challenge would be forthcoming, and after thinking it through a little more I am doubtful. It seems to me that someone would have stepped up by now, but perhaps they are just waiting to see the final version of the bill before taking action. I just don’t know, but listening to these representatives and senators trying to come up with a justification makes me wonder how this can not be challenged in court.
Mary Landrieu could not leave her answer at that though as she continued:
But what I will say is that most certainly it is within Congress’ jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility, is the way I like to, you know — government has a responsibility, individuals have a responsibility and business has a responsibility
The government has “jurisdiction to come up with a way to have a health insurance funded with shared responsibility?” I would ask her to point out where the constitution provides for a “shared responsibility” to provide healthcare. Did she just reverse her previous position that it would be up to constitutional lawyers to decide the legallity of a healthcare mandate? It seems so to me.
Mary Landrieu is also trying to soften the word “mandate” to a kinder, gentler term.
So, while some people, and I occasionally will use the word mandate for or against, but it’s really a shared responsibility, so that the burden of this doesn’t fall too heavily on any one group
It is not a mandate in her world, it is shared responsibility. This tells me that she knows the mandate is unconstitutional and that she is trying to disassociate herself and congress from this term. There is an old joke in the manufacturing field that workers like to invoke against engineers, when you can’t meet the specs, change the specs. That is what she is trying to do, change the specs.
These politicians are all grasping at straws to try to justify the unconstitutional mandates they are trying to force upon the American people. We can not stop this legislation, we just have to hope that the courts will do it for us.
Max Baucus gave his girlfriend a $14,000 taxpayer funded raise
Last week it was reported that Max Baucus had nominated his girlfriend for United States attorney in Montana along with two other people. He claimed that she was nominated on her merit and not on his relationship with her. Melodee Hanes, Max Baucus’s girlfriend, withdrew her name from consideration once Baucus admitted that he was in a relationship with her.
It now appears as though there may have been another reason why she withdrew her name from consideration for the position. When Baucus and Hanes became romantically involved, shortly after both dumped their spouses, Baucus gave Hanes a $14,000 raise and took her on a taxpayer funded trip to Southeast Asia and the Middle East. This trip on the taxpayers dollar could have been justified as a foreign policy jaunt if it wasn’t for the fact that Hanes is not a foreign policy expert, and had very little, if any, foreign policy experience.
On the surface it appears as if Max Baucus hooked up with this recent divorcee whom he had been working with, gave her a raise, and took her on a little vacation that you and I were forced to pay for. This reminds me of that episode of Seinfeld where George ends up having sex with a woman that works for him and in the middle of the sex he screams, “I am giving you a raise!” There really isn’t much difference here.
And this isn’t the first employee that he tried to hook up with. Christine Niedermeier tried to sue Baucus after he fired her for refusing his sexual advances but the case was thrown out on a technicality.
His defense is that this raise was in line with other raises that his office doled out. That does not make it any more palatable in my opinion. The notion that while most Americans are struggling in this economy to make ends meet, the government is taking their tax money and giving out raises to the politically and sexually connected few does not fly in my book. As a matter of fact, I find it despicable.
Hillary Clinton pollster received $6 million in federal stimulus money
How is that stimulus working out for you?
If you are like most unemployed Americans who are waiting for the stimulus bill to create a job for you while the administration continues to flaunt fraudulent “jobs saved” numbers the answer is, not so well.
However, if your name is Mark Penn and you are a former pollster for Hillary Clinton, the stimulus is working out just fine for you. Two firms owned by Mark Penn have received almost six million dollars in federal stimulus money.
Supporters of Barack Obama and of the stimulus bill would probably use the defense that it doesn’t matter if Mark Penn was politically connected because the money still went to save or create jobs, therefor the end result was good and this justified the millions of dollars that were sent to a Hillary Clinton pollster. The problem is, this money is credited with saving three jobs. THREE JOBS!
That is not a bad deal if you are Mark Penn. You receive six million dollars from the taxpayers in the form of a government contract and in return you are credited with creating three jobs. That was money well spent, wasn’t it?
I am sure that it is just a coincidence that Mark Penn received this money, and that is wasn’t due to the fact that he was a politically connected Hillary Clinton pollster.
In all seriousness, this is more proof that the stimulus bill was nothing but a sham, it was in part a big political payoff .
I haven’t bothered to write much about the healthcare reform debate that is now taking place in the senate. Not much is known yet, but there have been stories about one senator or another opposing the bill if it contains either a public option or federal funding for abortions. These stories all claim that the bill could be in trouble and that either of these two issues could derail it.
These are the types of stories that I wrote quite a bit about when the bill was being debated in the House, but they ring hollow now. There is no stopping this bill and it will have in it everything that these senators claim they oppose. Senator Bob Casey is a perfect example of why I believe this is a lost cause.
Senator Casey introduced an amendment to the bill that would have prohibited the federal funding of abortion, saying that the American people do not support the use of federal funds for abortion and that the bill should not allow it. His amendment was defeated and now Casey is softening his stance saying that he will not “draw a line in the sand” over this issue or any other issue.
He still claims that this vote will make it harder for him to support the bill but he is toning down his rhetoric, in the end I predict that Bob Casey is going to cave in and sell out what he stated his principles are.
We have seen this act before, haven’t we Senator Lieberman?
This is why these senators who claim they oppose the bill should have stopped it from coming to the floor in the first place, that was the time to make the changes, it is too late now.
Obama’s safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings, has a reading list
Warning: this post contains extremely graphic XXX rated material. If you are offended by such reading, you should stop reading right now.
I have not written about Kevin Jones’s now infamous reading list up until this point because I couldn’t decide how to go about it, but after reading posts at Political Realities and AUP2, I decided that the time had come for me to address this issue. Obama’s “safe schools” czar, Kevin Jennings has a reading list that he thinks all of our children should read. As you can tell by the warning above I have decided to include passages from this reading list, I think it is the best way to illustrate the radicals that are now running our country so let me warn you once again to proceed with caution. This is XXX rated material.
President Obama tells John Conyers that he is demeaning him
Democrat representative John Conyers received a call from the president in which he was informed that he was “demeaning” the president by opposing Obama’s healthcare reform bill and the surge in Afghanistan.
“[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues.
The president has faced increasing pressure and criticism from the left and while it has been extremely fun to watch, and I have enjoyed it immensely, this latest example is a perfect example of a fault in the Barack Obama presidency.
When a person disagrees with a policy of the president’s he immediately assumes, or claims, that it is a personal attack and not a legitimate difference of policy opinion.
This is either a personality flaw of Obama’s– where he needs the reassurance that he is still loved and that he needs people to constantly prop up his ego– or it is political strategy– he tries to marginalize those that disagree with him by claiming policy differences are based on a dislike of the president ant are therefor not legitimate.
If it is the former, he could probably benefit from a little therapy. He is a little to thin-skinned to be president. If it is the latter, I find it pretty arrogant of the president to think that his policies are so wonderful that the only reason a person could oppose them is because they have a personal dislike for him.
I think that it is most likely a combination of the two but no matter the reason, it is unbecoming and beneath the office of the president.
Jim Webb warns Obama about taking action at Copenhagen
Democrat senator Jim Webb has sent a letter to the president reminding him that he cannot unilaterally act at Copenhagen. He went on to remind the president that any treaty he agrees to will require a two thirds majority vote by the senate before it becomes law.
Here is the full text of Senator Webb’s letter to the president:
Dear Mr. President:
I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase “politically binding” has been used.
Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.
I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.
Sincerely,
Jim Webb
United States Senator
It appears to me the senate is cooling (pardon the pun) on the notion of acting on the global warming legislation that has passed the House and on any cap and trade legislation that may come down the road in the future.
I am sure that Climategate probably has played a large roll in this as have the American people. The people are opposed to cap and trade legislation and it seems as if they have let their opinion be heard in the senate. Senators are afraid to act on this legislation, and rightlfully so, counter to what their constituents are demanding.
The article that I linked to above has a recent update from Senator Webb and his position on the Supreme Court’s ruling that allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses that states:
I think we need to go back and look at the Supreme Court decision in which the EPA asserts that it has that authority, because it is a derived power based on legislation, and it is a limited power. I don’t think the administration can agree to anything, for instance, in Copenhagen on an endagerment finding that was based on one piece legislation in a Supreme Court decision
This is great news and can be taken as a sign that the global warming alarmist agenda may be finally petering out. Climategate has dealt the global warming alarmists a major blow in spite of the lack of coverage and the administration’s position of ignoring the scandal. The senate may be waking up and may finally be listening to the people. Now it is time for the president to listen as well.
Harry Reid compares people who oppose healthcare reform to people who supported slavery
Earlier today Harry Reid compared those of us who oppose Barack Obama’s healthcare reform bill to those people who supported slavery in the 1800’s.
Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough
First of all I would like to remind the senator that it was the Democrats who opposed the Republicans’ efforts to end slavery, but that is neither here nor there.
Secondly, I would like to say how offensive I find this asshole’s comments but the words escape me. They are too offensive to put into words. To actually try to put these two issues in the same category should be offensive to everybody. Some people do not have healthcare, but to compare this issue to slavery does a disservice to all of those who have fought for equal rights over the years, literally and figuratively.
By comparing healthcare reform to slavery he was trying to paint Republicans as uncaring and as being on the wrong side of history, all he managed to do was to diminish those that fought to end what his own party callously refered to as that “peculiar institution.” Democrats were on the “wrong side of history” from the 1860’s to the 1960’s and now Harry Reid is trying to turn the table to make up for his own party’s historical blunders.
The environmentally unfriendly Copenhagen meeting
The Copenhagen meeting on climate change is kicking off this week. In case you are living in a bubble and don’t know what this is about; this meeting is about saving the planet from man-made global warming. It is about the evils of fossil fuels and the participants are looking to sign a treaty that promises to cap greenhouse gasses in order to save the world.
These very same participants who are lambasting the evils of fossil fuels and the role that these “dirty” energy sources unleash on the world just don’t seem to live up to the expectations that they want us to live up to. These people who are supposed to be so damned environmentally friendly and who have condemned fossil fuels have taken 1,200 separate limousines and 140 private jets to the summit.
It would seem to me that if these hypocrites really believed the bullshit that they are trying to sell us, and if they really believed that fossil fuels are going to destroy the planet, than the least they could do would be to find an alternative way to get to the global warming summit. How about leading by example? These people want to tell us how to live but they have no problem living their lives however they see fit, even if it is directly contrasting to the way that they believe we should live.
This just exposes them for the frauds that they are.
Remember when the automobile executives were looking for a government handout and they all flew to Washington DC in their private jets? Remember the uproar, and the scolding that the president gave them for this? Remember how Barack Obama told them that they should set a better example if they wanted a government handout?
What is the Copenhagen meeting all about if it isn’t about getting a government handout? What is the difference, really? At least the automobile makers were only looking to save their own asses from their own stupidity. These hypocrites are looking to save the world from a problem that doesn’t exist, while they are living the lifestyle that Obama condemned the automakers for living. And this is the lifestyle that is supposedly destroying the planet.
If they really believed the nonsense that they are spouting they would put their money where their mouths are. Instead they chose to live one way while they are in the process of forcing us to live another way.
