The "Slaughter solution"

This was written by one of our nation's finest and is must reading as far as I'm concerned.

This We Will Defend
"Slaughter Strategy" Is An Affront To The Constitution
By Steve Schippert | March 11, 2010
Lose sight of what you are defending and defense isn't all that important, is it?

This simple reminder compels us to shift focus for the moment from our combative enemies and onto that which we defend. We do not engage in such rigorous defense - in its many forms - simply to preserve soil or borders or lives. We engage in rigorous defense of ideas. Ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. We do not defend simply the shores and borders and people of America. We defend - rigorously - so much more than that. We defend what it means to be American. We defend what it is that inspires so many countless others to risk life, limb and treasure to get to America even still.

And, to put it plainly, there is tyranny afoot and it must be confronted and defeated with confidence, determination and passion. The confrontation is not about health care or any other piece of legislation. It is not about politicians, politics or parties.

The confrontation is about process. The confrontation is about fidelity to the Constitution.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter says she is "prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill." She continued, explaining how House passage of a separate bill containing "changes" to the Senate version would lead House leadership to "deem" the actual Senate HealthCare Bill passed - without a direct vote.

This is not simply tyrannical in nature, it is absolute political cowardice.

Whether any American likes or dislikes any bill - any bill - none of us are governed under a Constitution nor any Congress within a Constitution that affords for an individual in an elected body to "deem" anything. We elected you, for better or worse, to vote on legislation, whether we like the specific outcome or not. There is a process within both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The notion of anyone "deeming" anything "passed" without going through the actual voting process of real passage is the kind of governance seen in Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Bashar Assad's Syria or Castro's Cuba.

Few things in this lifetime have inspired such furious rage as this brazen attempt to undermine the legislative process as set forth within the Constitution of the United States.

In 1985, I swore an oath. It was not an oath to defend soil, borders or even lives. It was to defend something vastly more important than any of them, revered as they are. I swore the following:

"I, Steve Schippert, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

That oath stands honored - and, frankly, more thoroughly understood and respected - to this day, long after my 8 years of active duty service as a United States Marine.

Nowhere under that oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States is it stated or implied to include defending the right of any individual in an elected Congressional body to have the power, through assumption or parliamentary "rules changes," to "deem" anything passed without the majority consent (through votes) of the full elected body of Congress.

I understand, House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, that this may be lost on you.

Understand that it is not lost on me. Understand that it is especially not lost on veterans who view the Constitution as something more than an artifact and a museum piece.

Understand that the blood spilled and lives lost on historic battlefields here and on distant shores abroad were not sacrificed in order that an individual in government might acquire the power to deem fundamental changes to America's systems or society. Blood, treasure and lives have been sacrificed standing against precisely that, which is an affront to the concept of "consent of the governed" and individual Liberty.

"Deem" a single thing as "passed" and I and many others will go broke and into bankruptcy driving you and those who stand with you out of our House of Representatives in order to preserve and restore fidelity to the Constitution within our own government.

Discount this at your peril. For it should not be lost upon you or others that men who have sworn (and likewise performed) that the Constitution of the United States is worth more than any of our individual lives would likewise also hold that it is worth more than our mere monetary treasure, be it modest or great.

A wise man once warned a foreign enemy that "there is a price we will not pay and there is a line you must not cross." Ms. Slaughter, you and those who stand with you are standing on that line.

No man, no bill, no law, no program, no amount of treasure is worth more than the Constitution of the United States of America. We swore to defend this, not simply soil or to merely fight wars when so ordered.

I, Steve Schippert, do solemnly swear that I still support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I still bear true faith and allegiance to the same. So help me God.

And I am not alone. I am, in fact, in the majority of Americans - not in opposition to the legal passage of a Health Care bill that I do not agree with. But rather in opposition to an individual in any elected body with the assumed or altered power to "deem" any legislation passed without proper vote as proscribed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Our Constitution does not afford for the legislating of tyranny, nor for "rules changes" to affect the same.

This we will defend.

Lose sight of what you are defending and defense isn't all that important, is it?

Tierney's Choice

The insurance companies with their perennial double-digit rate hikes are easy to loathe. Which is why President Obama on his latest barnstorming effort to save his health care bill has torn into them with such gusto. When you look beyond the president's rhetoric, the picture isn't nearly as clear as he would make it seem. The combined profits last year of the 10 largest of those "evil" health insurers was $8.3 billion, giving them an average profit margin of 2.5%. This is hardly the makings of modern day robber barons. So, if the insurance companies aren't making huge profits where does all the money from those outrageously expensive premiums go? The biggest drivers of rate hikes are: demographics,government mandated coverage and defensive medicine.

The Baby Boomers, even the ones with Peter Pan issues are beginning to retire. It's pretty simple to understand that the older a person gets, the more medical services they will require. As our country's largest age cohort, this represents a large increase in costs. The other major culprit in driving costs up is the sad fact that nearly a third and growing of our fellow citizens would qualify as contestants on the Biggest Loser. With America's expanding waistline come greater medical costs for diabetes, high blood-pressure, heart disease etc.

Nationwide, state legislatures at the behest of lobbyists have mandated services that must be included in all health care coverage. In MA the list is as long as your arm and includes expensive procedures like in-vitro fertilization and drug and alchohol rehab. Most will never need these services, but we are required to pay for them, making insurance more expensive than it needs to be. Just imagine how expensive it would be to insure your car if your policy had to cover oil changes, tune-ups, tires etc.

In America, doctors spend $26 billion annually on medical liability premiums, with the rates increasing roughly 12% a year. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits they order tests and give referrals that aren't medically necessary. This defensive medicine costs in excess of $100 billion every year. The MA Medical Society released a study in which 83% of MA physicians admitted to the practice. Frankly, I'm surprised it wasn't higher.

The bill that Congressman Tierney will be asked to vote on addresses none of these issues.

It does cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars which the Conressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will cause 20% of our nation's hospitals to go bankrupt.

As Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) admitted, the bill won't rein in rising health care premiums. You can bet he didn't make this confession out of the goodness of his heart. The CBO estimates that rates will increase by 8% a year for those with employer based coverage an 10-13% for those in the individual market.

The New England Journal of Medicine just released a study with this gem:

"nearly one third of physicians responding to the survey indicated that they will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented."

The ranks of primary-care doctors would be decimated as 46% indicated they would leave. An overwhelming 63% of doctors want the government to take a more gradual approach.

At $2.5 trillion over 10 years this bill is simply too expensive and does too much harm to our medical infrastructure.

As bad as the provisions of this bill are for the medical community it is also a terrible deal for the middle class. It does provide subsidies to help pay for insurance, but they are a devil's bargain. These subsidies penalize marriage, work and investment. Many Americans will find themselves in a situation where it will cost them more to accept a promotion because their new income won't equal the lost subsidy. This is the same formula used in welfare that has been so detrimental to the poor in this country. The government promises and provides benefits that will disappear if you try to better your lot in life.

So Rep. Tierney it's time to choose. The voters of your district, in an election that was largely a referendum on the government takeover of health care gave Scott Brown 60% support. You need to decide if you represent the people of the sixth district or the special interests: trial lawyers, big labor,left-wing pressure groups like moveon.org. The people are watching.

How Low Will They Go?

The Dems in the House are preparing to change the rules so they can "deem" the Senate healthcare bill passed without ever voting for it.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. "Once the CBO gives us the score we'll spring right on it," she said. . . .

House members are concerned the Senate could fail to approve the corrections bill, making them nervous about passing the Senate bill with its much-maligned sweetheart deals for certain states.
"We're well beyond that," Pelosi said Tuesday, though she did not clarify.

It is even theoretically legal, although it stinks to high heaven.

Unlike in the Senate, where individual Senators have broad discretion to steer debate and introduce amendments, the legislative process in the House is rigidly governed by the Rules Committee. This limits the Republicans' options in fighting a self-executing rule for Obamacare. As one Republican House staffer put it to me today, “the Rules Committee can do just about anything if they can get the votes to pass the rule.”

This is an exercise in raw political power. Is it any wonder that a recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 21% of American voters consider the federal government to have the consent of the governed?

$7 a gallon gas?

Fuel Taxes Must Rise, Harvard Researchers Say
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving would simply have to increase, according to a report released Thursday by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The research also appears in the March edition of the journal Energy Policy.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.

In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.

Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.

In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.

“Tax credits don’t address how much people use their cars,” said Ross Morrow, one of the report’s authors. “In reverse, they can make people drive more.”

Dr. Morrow, formerly a fellow at the Belfer Center, is a professor of mechanical engineering and economics at Iowa State University

Researchers said that vehicle miles traveled will increase by more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2030 unless policymakers increase fuel taxes.

[From Andy R.: March 4, 7:58 a.m. | Update ] Rush Limbaugh weighed in on this post yesterday, as some may have surmised given the spike in comments, and the tenor of many. Some important points were raised by his audience, including a listener calling from his car in Nebraska to say how a gas tax would unfairly burden workers in sprawling states with no public transportation options. I’ll be posting more from the research team on some of this.

Since the research was done by a team from Harvard and published in the NY Times it is doubtful that the study was funded by those "evil oil companies" that are intent on pillaging the planet and wrecking the environment of "mother earth".

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson is intent on exercising her court appointed authority to regulate the economy:

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Wednesday that an effort in Congress to stop the agency from regulating pollution linked to climate change would be an “enormous step backward for science” if successful.

Testifying before a Senate Appropriations panel, Lisa Jackson defended EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare by contributing to global warming.

That “endangerment” finding requires EPA to regulate emissions under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, Jackson said.

“The science behind climate change is settled,” Jackson said during testimony Wednesday morning before the Senate Appropriations Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee hearing on EPA’s 2011 budget request.

“Multiple lines of scientific inquiry” and the consensus of climate scientists hold that climate change is happening and humans are the cause, Jackson said.

Fom her statements it would appear that Lisa Jackson has been without internet access since last November. That "consensus" she speaks of is in tatters. Even the UN has ordered a independent review of the science after all the errors in the IPCC report were exposed. Errors, which incidently, all favored the theory that climate change was being driven by human activity. The fact is that satellite data shows that there has been no appreciable warming in the Earth's atmosphere since 1979. Humans have burned a lot of fossil fuels since that time, it's curious that all that CO2 hasn't had a measurably significant impact.

You can bet that Ms. Jackson's regulations will have an immediate impact on the living standards of every American. I think even the very wealthy will feel the pinch of $7 gas. After all, if gas is going up to $7 what will jetfuel cost? Those Gulfstreams have pretty big gas tanks.

Taxpayer Abuse

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for "in-flight services" – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

Nancy Pelosi sure knows how to party on the taxpayers' dime. Didn't she promise to make ethics and good government cornerstones of her Speakership? Besides, the woman is loaded, she can certainly afford to pay for her own booze. She's the only member of Congress abusing the office right? Wrong:

When lawmakers travel overseas on official business they are given up to $250 a day in taxpayer funds to cover meals and expenses. Congressional rules say they must return any leftover cash to the government.

They usually don't.

According to interviews with 20 current and former members of Congress, lawmakers use the excess cash for shopping or to defray spouses' travel expenses. Sometimes they give it away; sometimes they pocket it. Many lawmakers said they didn't know the rules demand repayment.

"If that was the policy, you could never get many members traveling," said Rep. Solomon Ortiz, a Texas Democrat. Mr. Ortiz said he had never returned any money.

"There's a tacit understanding that if lawmakers don't spend the money, they get to keep it," said Rep. Sue Kelly, a New York Republican who was defeated in 2006.

I'm happy to hear she's no longer a member of the House. It's attitudes like hers that caused Republicans' to lose the confidence of the people and hence their majorities in the House and Senate. The 2006 exit polls showed voters more concerned with corruption(Abramoff) and scandal(Foley) than the war in Iraq.

Lawmakers who said they sometimes keep excess funds said the amounts were small. "I won't deny that sometimes I have a little left, but it's not much—maybe 80, 90, or 100 dollars," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D., N.C.).

That's more money than I have in my wallet right now. The amount of money the good Congressman is dismissing is just about a weeks' worth of groceries for me.

The winner for obliviousness comes from a guy who was impeached as a judge, so he became a Congressman:

Mr. Hastings (D-FL) said he sometimes used the extra taxpayer money to buy gifts, meals or drinks for military pilots, security officials and interpreters who travel with him. On a trip earlier this year to the Middle East, Mr. Hastings gave $100 to an Iraqi refugee, he said.

"I'm a generous spirit and a courteous spirit," Mr. Hastings said. "I stand accused."

True generosity would be to use your own money, not whatever you have left over of your taxpayer provided per diem.

As for House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel. He just got slapped on the wrist by the House ethics committee, but with the steadfast support of Speaker Pelosi he is in no danger of losing his gavel.

Enter Charlie Rangel, chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Allegedly unbeknownst to him, he had the misfortune to have his Caribbean vacations paid for by corporations. After an admonishment by the House’s ethics committee, Rangel lamented that this was just his rotten luck, undone by unscrupulous staffers conniving to get him free beach time on Antigua and St. Maarten.

He also in his long Congressional career managed to amass $500,000.00 in two checking accounts which he never bothered to disclose in his mandated financial reports.

To members of Congress this is small potatoes and a perk of doing the people's business. Well, in the early 90's it turned out that many members of Congress were bouncing checks left and right and thought nothing of it. Balancing a checkbook, in their minds was something only the little people needed to worry about. Well, the little people showed up at the polls and bounced many of those self-important bozos right out of office. It's high time to clean the whole rotten lot out. We need people in office who are interested serving the public, not fleecing it.

The Oracle Of Omaha Speaks

But will President Obama listen? He did refer to Mr. Buffett as one of the wise men whose counsel he would seek on important matters of state. Considering how many campaign promises have been cast aside, one shouldn't be surprised when this one is ignored as well. After all, the president has a country to remake in the image of Greece.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett advised President Barack Obama on Monday to scrap the health care bill and start over.

and

In an interview with CNBC, Buffett said the current bill does not focus on controlling costs, which he sees as the central problem that must be addressed to reform the system.

finally

"If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we've got, or plan B, what is in front of - the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill," Buffett said. "But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the bill, because it's going to have to do some tough things."

Of course the White House will probably trumpet this as "Buffett endorses Senate Bill". It sounds like the exact message Republicans were trying to get across to the president at last Thursday's health care summit. Which party is supposed to represent the "reality based community" again?

Classic

Considering how much grief Joe Wilson (R-SC) received for his simple and true "you lie"; it's a wonder this fellow made it out of the room alive. The Europeans don't have our free speech protections after all. Just ask Geert Wilders of the Netherlands whose life is threatened by Islamists on one hand and his freedom by the government on the other. Yet, this is the system that Obama/Pelosi/Reid want to bring to America in the name of fairness.