AUL Action Ad: President Obama playing Hyde and Seek on Taxpayer Funded Abortion

Obama made the promise of no tax payer funded abortions repeatedly, last year.  Americans United for life calls him out on his words:


Check out the The Blogging Professor, who  took the time to tabulate Obama’s despicable record on abortion, calling him: the most viciously pro-abort zealot to ever sit in the Oval Office.

No doubt. And I thought Bill Clinton was ignoble for vetoing the partial birth abortion ban, twice.

Those who were paying attention, knew this about Obama by January of  ’08; when his extreme pro- abort position started to come out.  It would have been so damn nice if the rest of the electorate  had taken the time to learn some things about the man.


The Professor put several good videos up that highlight Obama’s extreme position on abortion. I was reminded of this very effective video from the 2008 election:

Everything I ever needed to know about the man, I discovered in January of ’08.


Pete Stark To Replace Charles Rangel on Ways and Means Committee

You probably figured we couldn’t do worse than Charles Rangel. You would be wrong:

Stark is next in line for the post in seniority, but his maverick personality had led some to question whether he would get the gavel even on a temporary basis.

The 19-term Democrat has a penchant for making controversial remarks. In 2003, Stark challenged then Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) to a fight during a Ways and Means Committee hearing, calling him “a fruitcake.” He also said in 2007 that President George W. Bush was amused by the heads of U.S. soldiers getting blown off. Pelosi condemned the remarks and Stark subsequently apologized on the House floor.

Last summer, Stark called Blue Dog Democrats “brain dead.”

According to Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics:

[Stark’s] major achievement was the Catastrophic Health Care Act of 1988, which created a new benefit for Medicare recipients, but then was repealed by an overwhelming vote in 1989 after an outpouring of public protest: the problem was that its tax on the high-income elderly was very unpopular while benefits seemed puny.

It’s nice to know that these entitlements can be rolled back if they’re unpopular enough.

You may remember Pete (the larger the national debt, the wealthier we are) Stark from this video:


After some …um… “lively discussions” amongst House Democrats, the Stark appointment  has been retracted. Pelosi is replacing him with Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.).


Video: GOP Leadership Press Conference

The GOP leadership in the House discussed Obama’s plan to ram Obamacare down the nation’s throat, using reconciliation:


The Orange County Register is conducting a poll…here are the results so far:

Should GOP vote for Obama and the Democrats’ latest health plan?

Total Votes: 97 Started: March 3, 2010

Get over there and vote, voting voters!

Congressmen Mike Pence and Jeb Hensarling Propose Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution

This is something that is needed now, more than ever…they make their case at The WSJ, today:

Fiscal storm clouds are upon us. In five years, federal spending has skyrocketed to 24.7% from 19.9% of our economy. That’s the highest level since World War II. Borrowing has ballooned the national debt to $11.9 trillion from $7.3 trillion, a five-year increase equal to the accumulation of debt between President George Washington and President Bill Clinton.

Unfortunately, the long-term fiscal picture is worse. As the Baby Boom generation retires and the cost of health care continues to escalate, entitlement programs will cause federal spending to rise to 40% of our economy, double its post-World War II average. This is assuming that spending does not increase even further, an assumption that the trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill and the 84% increase in nondefense discretionary spending President Obama signed into law argues against.

The situation is dire, but don’t take our word for it. “U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering,” Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf said recently. Former Comptroller General David Walker called the rising costs of government entitlements a “fiscal cancer” that threaten “catastrophic consequences for our country.”

We can’t  tax or borrow our way out of this problem – only spending discipline can stop the bleeding:

Without spending discipline only one option remains: monetizing the debt, also known as inflation. Although Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has repeatedly said that this will not happen on his watch, many think it’s inevitable. If we do monetize the debt, inflation could be so high we may look back upon the Carter era with nostalgia.

Winston Churchill once said that “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” We’ve exhausted the possibilities. Now it’s time to do the right thing.

That is why we are proposing a Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment would limit spending to one-fifth of the economy (our historical spending average since World War II). The limit could only be waived by a declaration of war or by a two-thirds congressional vote.

As with other constitutional amendments, Congress would be given the authority to enforce and implement it. But for the first time, the federal government would have a limit on its size and scope. The Spending Limit Amendment does not promise a particular spending plan about what programs to restrain and by how much. Rather, it puts a legal constraint on lawmakers present and future.

The amendment can be viewed, here.

Check out the Government spending chart for a good scare, while you’re there.

Shock: White House To Seize More Than 10 Million Acres

Senator Jim DeMint is alerting the public to a recently discovered secret administration memo which reveals plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico! The move would halt “job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development” and lead to  a drying up tax revenue essential for the funding of schools, firehouses and community centers.

A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

DeMint claims Obama could enact the plan in the memo with just a stroke of the pen.

The document lists 14 properties that, according to the document, “might be good candidates” for Mr. Obama to nab through presidential proclamation. Apparently, Washington bureaucrats believe it’s more important to preserve grass and rocks for birdwatchers and backpackers than to keep these local economies thriving.

Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left. It discusses, in detail, what kinds of animal populations would benefit from limiting human activity in those areas.

The 21-page document, marked “Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE,” names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as “monuments” under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

It says all kinds of animals would be better off by doing so, like the coyotes, badgers, grouse, chickens and lizards. But giving the chickens more room to roost is no reason for the government to override states’ rights.

Both Clinton and Carter engaged in unilateral land grabs, as well…

Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.

One of the monuments President Clinton created was the Grande Staircase-Escalante in Utah, where 135,000 acres of land were leased for oil and gas and about 65,000 barrels of oil were produced each year from five active wells. But, President Clinton put an end to developing those resources.

President Obama could do the same in other energy-rich places unless Congress takes action. At least 13.5 million acres are already on his Department of Interior’s real estate shopping list.

This includes a 58,000-acre area in New Mexico. The memo said this should be done so the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard will be better protected. Are these animals going extinct? No. The bureaucrats wrote that the land should be locked up to “avoid the necessity of listing either of these species as threatened or endangered.”

In Nevada, the Obama administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it, supposedly, is a “center of climate change scientific research.”

In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is “currently under the threat of oil and gas development.”

Americans should be wary of any plans a president has to seize land from the states without their consent. Any new plans to take away states’ freedom to use land as they see fit must be stopped.

That’s why I sponsored an amendment to block Mr. Obama from declaring any of the 14 lands listed in the memo as “monuments.” Unfortunately, the Senate, led by Democrats, rejected it on Thursday evening by a vote of 58-38.

Reason number 8,947,732 why these cretins have to be voted out of office in November.

The Obama Dems and Their Flagrant Abuse Of Power

I always knew that when Obama took over the White House, with a Democrat Congress led by leftist radicals, they would be arrogant, uncompromising, and drunk with power, but even I’m surprised at the extent of their disdain for the will of the people.

The President, today will announce his plan to pass his Precious by reconciliation:

The president will call for an up or down vote on health care reform, as has happened in the past, and though he won’t use the word “reconciliation,” he’ll make it clear that if they’re not given an up or down vote, Democrats will use the reconciliation rules as Republicans have done in the past.

White House officials will make the argument these rules are perfectly appropriate because the procedure is not being used for the whole bill, just for some fixes; because reconciliation rules are traditionally used for deficit reduction and health care reform will reduce the deficit; and because the reconciliation process has been used many times by Republicans for larger legislation such as the tax cuts pushed by President George W. Bush.

Yes, the President and other Dems will keep repeating their cute talking point that this same exact thing has been done many times before, by Republicans.

But it hasn’t.

The Foundry explains:

Reconciliation has been used in the past, but only for procedural reasons, not because the underlying policy change was unable to muster 60-vote support. So, for example, the 1996 welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton was passed through reconciliation, but it also ended up getting 78 votes in the Senate (28 of them from Democrats). President Ronald Reagan also passed seven bills through reconciliation, but every single one of those bills passed through a Democratically-controlled House and won Senate votes from both parties. Never has reconciliation been used to pass any bill on purely partisan lines.

And the Wall Street Journal, this morning, calls the President’s plan to ram the bill through using Reconciliation, an abuse of power:

The vehicle is “reconciliation,” a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal.

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they’ve failed to make their case through persuasion.

“They know that this will take courage,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she’ll try to strong-arm. “It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare,” the Speaker continued. “But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.”

Leave aside the irony of invoking “the American people” on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Reconciliation is the last mathematical gasp for ObamaCare because Democrats can’t sell their policy to Senator Snowe, any other Republican, or even dozens of Democrats. This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far.

Which brings us to Byron York’s edifying post, For Obama and Pelosi, health care is ego trip, which I linked to yesterday. It deserves to be revisited because it explains so much. Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama was elected as a Democrat in 2008 and was part of the House Democratic caucus until  he switched sides to become a Republican, last December:

Given Griffith’s unique perspective — he is also a doctor, with 30 years’ experience as an oncologist — perhaps he has some insight into why the White House and his former Democratic allies in Congress continue to press forward on a national health care bill despite widespread public opposition.

It’s gotten personal, Griffith says. “You have personalities who have bet the farm, bet their reputations, on shoving a health care bill through the Congress. It’s no longer about health care reform. It’s all about ego now. The president’s ego. Nancy Pelosi’s ego. This is about personalities, saving face, and it has very little to do with what’s good for the American people.”

What else could explain, this:
After huddling with Rangel for 45 minutes, Pelosi initially said, “No comment” when asked if Rangel remains panel chairman.

She later added, “I guess he is still chair of Ways and Means…”

Pelosi spoke to The Hill after Rangel denied reports he would leave his perch at the top of one of the House’s most powerful committees.

As he emerged from the meeting, Rangel was asked whether he is still chairman. His response: “You bet your sweet life!”

He then said Pelosi told him not to say “a damn thing” about the meeting.

The Republicans would have cut him loose a long time ago.

Peter Wehner, at Commentary, reminds us of Obama’s campaign promises to be a different kind of politician:

This victory was made possible only because he portrayed himself as “a figure uncorrupted and unco-opted by evil Washington,” as Harry Reid told Obama. David Axelrod believed the road to success was in Obama’s promise to be “a unifier and not a polarizer; someone nondogmatic and uncontaminated by the special-interest cesspool that Washington had become,” in the words of the book Game Change. Obama’s public appeal derived from his “rhetoric of change and unity, his freshness and sense of promise.”

“We have something special here,” Axelrod reportedly said. “I feel like I’ve been handed a porcelain baby.”

Pushing reconciliation to pass ObamaCare — and in the process, overturning the tradition and misusing the rules of the Senate to get his way — shows yet again that Obama’s campaign was built on cynical, misleading, and downright untrue claims. He simply could not have meant what he said, based on his conduct in office. Now, it’s true that his rhetoric was so soaring, and the bar was set so high, that no person could have met the expectations Obama created. But to have fallen this far so quickly is still hard to believe.

The public doesn’t like to be played for fools. Obama has done that. And he’s only compounding his problems by pushing for reconciliation. Mr. Obama has decided to take a massively unpopular piece of legislation and abuse his power to get his way. This is not what a figure uncorrupted and un-co-opted by evil Washington would do.

The unmasking of Barack Obama continues. It is not a pleasant thing to watch. And he and his party will pay a huge political price for what they are doing, perhaps unlike any we have seen.

This was never about what the American people wanted….as their behavior now makes clear. For the Dems, the spoils of this bruising fight, is 1/6 of the US economy, well worth the sacrifice.


ObamaCare: Burning down the House

Karl in The Greenroom explains why it is going to be tough for Pelosi to flip votes in the House.

First, the AP itself reported that Minnick will not change his vote, according to his spokesman — which is no surprise, given his record and the heavy GOP tilt of his district. Jay notes that Boucher now has a top-tier opponent in his re-election race. Kratovil told the New York Times that he prefers a smaller bill. (Both Kratovil and Boucher represent districts that went 58-59% for McCain in 2008.) The NYT also reports that Tanner has told colleagues he has no intention of switching his vote. And the AP did not bother to check with Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania:

I do want to say one thing to those who claim that Nancy Pelosi has special powers, and that she doesn’t lose a vote in the House ever, which has been floated by commentators and members of Congress alike. Let’s be clear about this – Pelosi DID lose the vote in November. She won final passage of the health care bill, but if she had her way, the Stupak amendment would never have gotten a vote. She ignored and ignored Stupak for several months, hopeful that she could round up enough votes for the bill without him. And ultimately, she was unsuccessful, forced to roll back women’s rights as a consequence of passing health care reform.

Now, she doesn’t have that out. The Nelson amendment governs the abortion language in the Senate bill, and as changing that through reconciliation is unlikely to pass the Byrd rule, basically that cannot be changed.

This is by no means, a done deal.

Don’t believe all the bravo sierra you’re hearing out of Washington, right now.


Ed Morrissey:Abortion still the stumbling block for ObamaCare

Gateway Pundit: Obama Flashback: Dems Should Not Pass Healthcare With 50-Plus-1 Strategy (Video)


If you haven’t already, you can join the Scrap The Bill Facebook page.