Dems "Not concerned" about the Constitution?

From their actions, I would say that's easy to believe. From Neal Boortz:

THE CONSTITUTION AND HEALTHCARE

When it comes to achieving the Democrats dreams and schemes, there is nothing that will stand in their way. Not even that pesky little thing called the Constitution. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch put it all in perspective recently. He does not believe that the Democrat plans for healthcare are justifiable. He says that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance "then there is literally nothing the federal government can't force us to do."

Ain't that the truth?

First it is healthcare. Then what? What comes next for the Democrats to achieve their goal of making you more and more dependent on government? Orrin Hatch's point is that right now, the Constitution still remains a "barrier" for the Democrats. But if they get their way with healthcare, the levies will be broken. There will be nothing stopping them from trampling over what is left of our Constitution.

And the White House doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Robert Gibbs was asked just yesterday whether White House lawyers had reviewed the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Robert Gibbs' response was that the White House is not seriously concerned about this.

Not seriously concerned? What is there to be MORE concerned about than upholding the foundation of this country? Then upholding the Constitution. Didn't The Community Organizer take an oath to protect and defend our Constitution? And now he's "Not concerned"? And if you will remember, Nancy Pelosi had a similar response last week. When asked about the Constitutionality of her healthcare plan, she actually thought the reporter was joking. She chuckled, "Are you serious? Is that a serious question?" Yes, Nancy. Yes, Robert. Yes, Obama. We are serious. And it is about time you get serious too before you completely destroy what is left of this great country.

I'm sick of the blatant disregard for the constitution that these creeps have supposedly sworn to uphold. But then liars can swear to anything, because they don't mean it. And speaking of lies, I'm getting really tired of the often repeated lie that the Republicans have no health care plans to offer:

HARRY REID --- LIAR

Harry Reid has some gonads. He is accusing the Republicans of not having any healthcare plans, when he himself technically does not have a completed healthcare bill to show the world. Last week, he sent off pieces of healthcare legislation for a CBO cost analysis. So the Republicans said they wanted to see the bill that he sent to the CBO. Well the truth of the matter is that this bill hasn't even been written yet. He is waiting for the CBO analysis to come back in order to decide which direction he wants to take. Then he took a shot at the Republicans for daring to request to see this elusive bill he submitted to the CBO. Reid said that the GOP health care plan "remains a secret, unless perhaps it does not exist." He goes on to say, "I fully understand if your plan is still under development, and would not presume to suggest that you publicly share draft legislative text for even an individual element of your plan, let alone an entire bill, before it is finalized."

Unfortunately for Harry Reid, the Republicans do have healthcare bills. Three of them. And they have been on the table since May and June of this year. CNSNews has the list:

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the 130-page "Patients Choice Act of 2009."

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the "Health Care Freedom Plan," a 41-page proposal.

And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the "Empowering Patients First Act," a 130-page plan.

Harry Reid is desperate. So are his Democrat friends. They know that they are losing this battle to get their healthcare plans passed. So now they are complaining that the other side doesn't even have a plan. Shouldn't we be thanking these Democrats! Oh we should be so thankful ... at least THEY have come up with plans to take over 18% of our economy!

And they are readable sizes too, so they can actually be read completely before being voted on. Yet I have not heard about even one of these plans mentioned in the MSM. But I have heard the media often repeat the Democrats lies that these Republican proposals don't even exist.
     

Harry Reid's Clay Pigeon Ploy

Here's and excerpt of the details of his plan to push the immigration bill through, from an article by Julie Hirschfeld Davis:

Rare Tactic May Allow Immigration Votes

WASHINGTON (AP) - Only in the arcane world of the U.S. Senate could a quirky gambit known as a "clay pigeon" make the difference between passage of an important immigration measure and its death at the hands of opponents.

Democratic leaders hope the complex maneuver - which makes use of the Senate's labyrinthine rules to insist on votes on amendments - will frustrate conservatives' attempts to derail the embattled immigration bill, instead putting it on a fast track to passage next week.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would revive the bill to legalize as many as 12 million unlawful immigrants late this week. To do so, though, he needs backing from 60 senators, and a way to guarantee votes on a tentative list of 22 Republican and Democratic amendments whose consideration is seen as vital to satisfying key waverers.

The so-called clay pigeon is how he's expected to do it, under a strategy that was still taking shape Monday.

The tactic gets its name from the target used in skeet shooting, which explodes into bits as it is hit. In the Senate, an amendment is the target, and any one senator can demand that it be divided into separate fragments to be voted on piecemeal.

Under the tentative plan, Reid as early as Friday would launch his target - an amendment encompassing all 22 proposals - and shoot it into its component pieces. The Senate would then vote on ending debate on the immigration measure, which would take 60 votes and limit discussion of the bill to 30 more hours. After that interval, all 22 amendments would have to be voted on, with little opportunity for foes to interfere.

Ironically, the move is usually used by mavericks - not leaders - to slow down legislation, not free it from a procedural thicket. [...]

What an insult to the American people. I hope this backfires on Reid and the Democrats in the worst possible way. And also on the Republicans who vote for this terrible bill that the majority of Americans clearly oppose.

Before dealing with ANY immigration reforms, our politicians need to do their damn jobs, by SECURING OUR BORDERS. Anything else they propose will be useless unless our borders are secured FIRST.

I'm just wondering what is the best way to kick their asses until they "get it"?
     

The Democrats alternative foreign policy

If they succeed, it will follow them for years to come. From the Opinion Journal:

Harry's War:
Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq.

[...] In his speech Monday, Mr. Reid claimed that "nothing has changed" since the surge began taking effect in February. It's true that the car bombings and U.S. casualties continue, and may increase. But such an enemy counterattack was to be expected, aimed as it is directly at the Democrats in Washington. The real test of the surge is whether it can secure enough of the population to win their cooperation and gradually create fewer safe havens for the terrorists.

So far, the surge is meeting that test, even before the additional troops Mr. Bush ordered have been fully deployed. Between February and March sectarian violence declined by 26%, according to Gen. William Caldwell. Security in Baghdad has improved sufficiently to allow the government to shorten its nightly curfew. Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been politically marginalized, which explains his apparent departure from Iraq and the resignation of his minions from Mr. Maliki's parliamentary coalition--a sign that moderate Shiites are gaining strength at his expense.

More significantly, most Sunni tribal sheikhs are now turning against al Qaeda and cooperating with coalition and Iraqi forces. What has turned these sheikhs isn't some grand "political solution," which Mr. Reid claims is essential for Iraq's salvation. They've turned because they have tired of being fodder for al Qaeda's strategy of fomenting a civil war with a goal of creating a Taliban regime in Baghdad, or at least in Anbar province. The sheikhs realize that they will probably lose such a civil war now that the Shiites are as well-armed as the insurgents and prepared to be just as ruthless. Their best chance for survival now lies with a democratic government in Baghdad. The political solution becomes easier the stronger Mr. Maliki and Iraqi government forces are, and strengthening both is a major goal of the surge.

By contrast, Mr. Reid's strategy of withdrawal will only serve to enlarge the security vacuum in which Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents have thrived. That's also true of what an American withdrawal will mean for the broader Middle East. Mr. Reid says that by withdrawing from Iraq we will be better able to take on al Qaeda and a nuclear Iran. But the reality (to use Mr. Reid's new favorite word) is that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and if we lose there we will only make it harder to prevail in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Countries do not usually win wars by losing their biggest battles. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The article goes on to examine Harry Reid's "reasoning" for his position, and shows why it's nonsense. If the Democrats do succeed in forcing us to lose now, not only will they own it; we will all suffer the consequences together.


Related Links:

Progress in Iraq

One Choice in Iraq

Rattling sabers, & Dems