Merry Christmas Obama; hope you like your new record low of MINUS 21 Approval Index, so says Rasmussen

Obama Breaks Own Disapproval Record! Now it is MINUS 22 !!!

STRONGLY APPROVE = 25%

STRONGLY DISAPPROVE = 46%

TOTAL APPROVE = 44%

TOTAL DISAPPROVE = 56%

So says Rasmussen Reports: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

What a delightful Christmas Gift!

FAIL OBAMA FAIL!

__________________________________________________

Additional reading…

Brian Darling, Big Government: Earmarks Buy ObamaCare
Gateway Pundit: Lindsey Graham: Seedy Chicago Politics Passed Health Care Bill and Harry Reid Says $1.2 Billion in Sweetheart Deals Were Not Sweetheart Deals …Update: Reid Slams Senators Who Missed Payoff and Sen. Whitehouse: Obamacare Opponents Are Birthers, Right-Wing Militias & Aryan Groups (Video) and Nebraska Republicans Set Up “Give Ben the Boot” Website and Obama Warns That Unless His Nationalized Health Care Bill Is Passed the US Will Go Bankrupt and Change!… 20 States Cut Mammograms After Government Report Released and 61% of Americans Against Democrat’s Nationalized Health Care Bill and 81% Disagree With New Government Rationed Mammogram Rules
Riehl World View: Despite Vote, Last Night Left Me Very Optimistic
Cold Fury: Reid Backdoors America
Diary of a Mad Conservative: Red State & Erick Erickson: Insightful stuff
Thanks for the Laughs: Lullaby
Patterico’s Pontifications: Holding Out for Health Care
Urbin Report: A Nebraska doctor’s message for Ben Nelson
ON MY WATCH – the writings of SamHenry: Nelson’s Treason Crowns Seniors as the Throwaway Generation
Caffeinated Thoughts: What is a Right?
Ace of Spades HQ, Reidcare Taxes Tanning Salons Too
Frugal Café Blog Zone: Sen. Graham Finally Gets It Right: Thuggery of “Seedy Chicago Politics” Runs White House, Outrageous Bribes to Pass ObamaCare (video) and Wheeling and Dealing: Nebraskans Outraged at Sen. Ben Nelson’s Sell-out on Health Care Bill and Dragnet’s Sgt. Joe Friday vs. Barack Obama: ObamaCare (video) and Frankenstein’s Monster… ObamaCare’s Hideous, Clumsy Creation: Which Version of ObamaCare Will Be Up for Vote? and Congress, Are You All Deaf? Polls Climbing Against ObamaCare and Olbermann’s Left-Wing Rage about Czar Van Jones Quitting: Help Keith “Get Dirt” on Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann: ‘Reagan’s Dead and He Was a Lousy President’ and Exposing Left-Wing Lunacy: Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs Rip Apart Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann, & MSNBC for Conservative Hate Talk
NewsReal Blog: Keith Olbermann, The Art of Madness
Wake Up Black America: Keith Olbermann demonstrates why Americans are sick and tired of liberals constantly playing the “race card”
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Dems Break It, They Own It and Nebraskans Must Be Proud This Morning
US News & World Report: GE Bailout Piles Rocks Outside Keith Olbermann’s Glass House
The Obambi.com Blog: Keith Olbermann is crazy
Just Americans Making Ethical Statements weblog: MSNBC Sportscaster Olbermann puts Bounty on Glenn Beck
VotingFemale Speaks!: Socialists Claim They Can Conquer Death Itself and Senate ObamaCare funds Elective Abortions; details hidden in legalese
America’s Watchtower: Joe Lieberman says he will filibuster any healthcare bill with a public option
Politico: Joe Lieberman slams public option, brushes off critics and The White House’s climate conundrum

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion:
Sheldon Whitehouse Voted to Defund The Troops in 2007 and Sheldon Whitehouse Becomes Alan Grayson and Representative Democracy Thrown Away In Senate Bill
HOTAiR:Q3 GDP revised sharply downward — again and Video: DeMint objects to supermajority protection in Reid’s ObamaCare bill and Breaking: Blue Dog flips to GOP
Dick Morris:WINSTON CHURCHILL: “NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP”
Heritage Foundation:Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Discusses the “Lunatic Fringe” and The Obstructionism of the Left and Reid 2.0: Even Higher Premium Taxes
Gateway Pundit:Fistgate XI: Kevin Jennings’ Suggested Reading For Kids Included Sick Book that Promoted S&M to Children- Media Silent and Health Secretary Sebelius Praises Mandatory Abortion Funding In Dem’s Nationalized Health Care Bill (Video) and “Keep Your Stinkin Gift” Christmas Protest at Claire McCaskill’s Office- Wednesday at Noon
Sister Toldjah:Senator Whitehouse joins the pro-ObamaCare smearmongers
American Power:A Theory* of Racist Smears and the Case of Robert Stacy McCain and America’s Socialist Revolution and Beyond Purity: Brutal Backlash Against ‘Hammering’ Jane Hamsher, Netroots’ Most Despised Hypocrite
Nice Deb:Democrats Wish Americans A Merry Christmas In Their Very Special Way
Frugal Café:Olbermann Watch: Keith Olbermann Said Joe Lieberman Should Kill Himself Because of His Health Care Stance, and Other Scary Left-Wing Hate (audio/video) and
Talk Wisdom:Liberal Media is Greatest Threat to Our Security
Michelle Malkin:Rejected AARP solicitation of the day and Demcare and the race hustlers: It’s not just about ACORN and “Obama’s jokers” and Yup, those Democrats are all for “competition” and “transparency” and “personal responsibility”
Texas For Palin:
Sarah Palin Draws Crowds and Impresses Conservatives
Conservatives For Palin: Tuesday Open Thread
Boudica WPI:
Obama, LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!
LisainTX’s Blog:
Jihad: American Style in our backyards!
Diary of a Mad Conservative:
Noteable Quote – Charles Krauthammer and 2010 – It’s gonna be a good year! and 40 years of Democrats and Unions created THIS Detroit and destroyed its schools
Moonbat Patrol:Americas Leadership Void And It’s Dangerous Fragmentation and Pelosi: Obama On His Own With Afghanistan Troop Build Up, The Rats Are Leaving The Ship!
SamHenry’s Blog: Exquisite Demagogery – Senator Whitehouse’s Inciteful Senate Floor Speech and Kings College Choir “DO” Christmas Unlike Any Other Choir and Queen Elizabeth – Christmas on the Cheap at Aged 80
WarrantOneGirl:
Merry Christmas
VotingFemale Speaks!:CNN’s attack on Palin Wins VF’s Worst Socialist News Liar Of The Year
Dancing Czars:
Obama And His Appointee Czars Are Dismantling US and Was the Vote on Healthcare By Congressional Democrats Constitutional? I think not! and If only the Car Czars in Washington saw it that way…

About VotingFemale

I am a female voter, as my blog name implies. I vote for conservatives. I am a political opponent of Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, and Communists.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

170 Responses to Merry Christmas Obama; hope you like your new record low of MINUS 21 Approval Index, so says Rasmussen

  1. samiam60 says:

    I for one cannot think of any President who has worked harder to achieve these numbers.

  2. samiam60 says:

    The house of Cards continues to crumble and now by the Hour.

    TICK/TOCK/TICK/TOCK

  3. samiam60 says:

    America is taking a good look at the strong arm tactics this Administration is using and they don’t like what they see.

  4. Pingback: Barack Obama’s Approval Lowest Ever Today… Merry Christmas, Mr. President « Frugal Café Blog Zone

  5. Foxwood says:

    VF said:

    Good Moooooorrrrrrrrnnnnniiiiinnnnnggggg

    FOXXXXXXXXX WOOOOOODDDDD! :)

    What brought that on? :)

  6. Foxwood says:

    Burried in the Healthcare bill…

    It can NOT be repealed!

  7. rosehips says:

    Obama to Griffith: Traitor!
    Griffith to Obama: Imposter!
    Obama: prove it.
    Griffith: your grandma said so.
    Obama: grandma got run over by a reindeer.
    Griffith: what? is she ok?
    Obama: yes she’s fine but she is now in a witness protection program. she has been given a new identity and her location is undisclosed. Noone can talk to her.
    Griffith: what about the reindeer?
    Obama: cited for no insurance.

  8. VotingFemale says:

    I had to correct some numbers in the blogpost… was in a race to get it out and was not given a chance to double check everything…. it is corrected now.

  9. Foxwood says:

    Merry Cristmas, Here’s your Christmas present from Congress…

    http://animal-farm.us/change/healthcare-your-christmas-present-826

  10. rosehips says:

    Can they do that?

    fox said: It can NOT be repealed!

  11. VotingFemale says:

    How long will it take for the Index to hit -25?

    at this rate, not long…

    Ho Ho Hooo
    Ho Ho Hooo
    HoHoHoHo Hooo!!! :D

  12. VotingFemale says:

    a STRONGLY APPROVE = 25% means Obama lost 5% of his base in a STRONG way.

    GO HOWARD DEAN GO!

    Kick that Obama in the flautas!

  13. VotingFemale says:

    Congress has done a lot of things that were ruled unconstututional and was rescended.

    that language is in the ObamaCare bill and more.

    rosehips says

    Can they do that?

    fox said: It can NOT be repealed!

  14. VotingFemale says:

    Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/america_s_best_days

  15. Foxwood says:

    It’s unconstitutional, but everything Congress has done since 1937 has been unconstitutional, Rose.

  16. rosehips says:

    foxy, vf….I think this is a case of a rapid, rampant rumour that is false. A short google found these two sites. The first on the Weekly Standard website says that the Independent Medical Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses.
    Then I see a blog that emphasized/emboldened the “cannot be repealed by future Congresses” and headed the comment with the title “Healthcare Bill Cannot be Repealed” These two sites came up on the top of a search for repeal of health care bill. Now lets see how quickly the rumour spreads.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/reid_bill_declares_future_cong_1.asp

    http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/296139.php

  17. VotingFemale says:

    The bill contains unfunded mandates to states through the expansion of Medicaid but this time with new special treatment for the states of Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts. These states will receive Federal Matching Assistance Percentages (FMAP) bonuses such that:

    1. Nebraska will receive 100% FMAP for newly eligibles indefinitely, making it the only state where the federal government will pay for all new enrollees. CBO estimated the cost to the federal government (additional funds to Nebraska) would be $100 million, which may look small compared to the other deals negotiated, yet over the long-term will cost far more, since funding continues indefinitely.
    2. Vermont will receive a 2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for their entire program, thus receiving an additional $600 million over ten years.
    3. Massachusetts will receive a 0.5% FMAP increase for three years for the entire program, thus receiving an additional $500 million over ten years.

    * Despite $120 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts, the Manager’s Amendment found a way for Florida residents, as well as some individuals in Pennsylvania and New York, and potentially Oregon, to be grandfathered out of receiving the cuts.
    * Dorgan and Conrad’s “protections for frontier states” provision would, starting in 2011, establish a 1.0 hospital wage index and geographic practice expense floors for hospitals and physicians located in states where at least 50% of the counties in the state are “frontier”. Not surprisingly, states that qualify and benefit from the provision are Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

  18. ohiobelle says:

    I’ve been trying to keep up moving from post to post.

    Rosehips, I wish I would’ve fact checked that email before I copied it… UGH!! I wish it were true.

    I will am going to find the cspan vid so everyone can see Burris make an ass out of himself.

  19. VotingFemale says:

    Changes for Sen. Ben Nelson (Nebraska)

    * Nelson secured more than just 100% federal funding for Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion, the list of “sweeteners” (also called the “Cornhusker kickback” by Senate Republicans) includes:
    o An exemption from the insurance tax for Nebraska non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that only applies to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Nebraska (and Michigan). According to news reports, Nelson’s office states that BCBS “would pay between $15 million and $20 million less in fees under the Senate bill than it would have without a change.”
    o An exemption from taxes for Medicare supplemental (“Medigap”) insurance providers. Specifically, Mutual of Omaha, will not have to pay taxes on Medigap insurance, while reports also indicate that this tax break will be extended to other companies.
    o Some changes requested by Nelson would benefit people across the country, such as the inflation adjustment to the $2,500 cap on tax-exempt contributions to Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs) and exemptions for nearly 55 physician-owned hospitals that have a provider agreement to participate in Medicare by August 1, 2010 (pushed back from February 1, 2010).

    Changes for Sen. Levin (Michigan)

    * According to reports, Like Nelson, Levin sought an exemption from the $6 billion annual fee for non-profits, as non-profit insurers make up 76% of industry profits, but drew opposition from liberals. Ultimately, Levin got an exemption from the insurance tax for Michigan non-profit insurers, with language written in a way that applies to Blue Cross Blue Shield Plans (BCBS) of Michigan (and Nebraska).
    * Furthermore, the amendment changes the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Michigan (as well as Connecticut) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.

    Changes for Sen. Landrieu (Louisiana):

    * Landrieu was one of the first Senators to secure a sweetheart deal, aptly nicknamed the “Louisiana Purchase”; she traded her support for bringing the bill to the floor for a $300 million increase in Medicaid funding for Louisiana. The underlying bill was cryptically written to increase federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster” during the past 7 years that have been declared a “major disaster area” — and is meant to replenish the decrease in federal money resulting from an “abnormally inflated” per capita income in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. This was due to an influx of insurance dollars, federal grants and increased labor wages.

    Changes for Sen. Sanders (Vermont):

    * In addition the Vermont FMAP increase, the amendment includes a provision pushed by Sanders to provide an additional $10 billion in funding for community health centers and the National Health Services Corps which he argues would provide primary care to 25 million more people.

    Changes for Sen. Bill Nelson (Florida)

    Ø As noted above, Nelson was able to secure a deal to keep Medicare Advantage plans enrollees in Florida grandfathered in. Notably, when McCain tried to offer an amendment to allow all enrollees to be grandfathered in, 57 Democrats voted against it.

    Changes for Hawaii: The Manager’s Amendment singles out Hawaii as the only state to receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) extension.

    Changes for Sen. Lieberman (Connecticut): It amends the extension of section 508 hospital provisions so that hospitals in Connecticut (as well as Michigan) have the option to benefit under them if it means higher payments.

    Changes for Sen. Dodd (Connecticut): It was a mystery until just revealed that Chris Dodd’s state will benefit from a cryptically awarded $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” at a public research university that contains a state’s sole public academic medical and dental school—criteria designed to apply to the University of Connecticut.

    Changes for Sen. Baucus (Montana):

    Ø Baucus secured a pilot program in the amendment to “provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care” to certain qualified individuals. A qualified individual “is an environmental exposure affected individual…who resides in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” And who might these select few individuals be? Well, according to EPA, “On June 17, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a Public Health Emergency (PHE) finding at the Libby Asbestos Superfund site in northwest Montana.” This provision would help residents of Libby by allowing them to sign up for Medicare benefits.

  20. ohiobelle says:

    Doesn’t this just do it for you???

  21. ohiobelle says:

    Thank you Burris for all that f’ing wonderful Christmas joy!

  22. ohiobelle says:

    Nancy Pelosi seems very confident that cap & trade will pass. I am just as confident that she will be unemployed very soon!!

  23. rosehips says:

    but it may be unconstitutional that there are restrictions on repealing the board. I guess it requires a rule change which requires a 2/3 vote by Congress.

    wow, reading through just a little part of this bill I realize how much will be spent on pilot programs, studies, evaluations, training programs, demonstration projects etc.
    There will be a lot of grants to create demonstration programs like one that will be given to 15 agencies to develop a program to provide alternative dentistry to rural areas. I think they mean that rural folk, and maybe other areas will have access to cheaper care provided by para professionals like hygenists. It’s really hard to understand the language and everything is so frickin detailed, but I guess they have to cover all bases. No wonder the bill will cost us so much.

  24. Steve says:

    And a Democrat Congressman just today announce he is switching to the GOP!!

    Lets hope this is the first of many!!

    Common Cents

    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    ps. Link Exchange??

  25. Foxwood says:

    Of course, I didn’t read though them all… :(

  26. rosehips says:

    yeah belle, it sounded plausible. always good to fact check. When I worked for microsoft contractors one of my supervisors emailed a viral email that had been circulating for years. It said Bill Gates would pay us each $275. for each email we forwarded saying he’d pay us all almost 3 hunner bucks a shot. hahaha I shot back an email saying how ludicrous it was to believe that at a time when ms was cutting back on contracts they’d be handing out millions in payments. I cc’d the ceo. got in a little bit of hot water for that but I think the supervisor got into more. hehehe

    belle said: Rosehips, I wish I would’ve fact checked that email before I copied it… UGH!! I wish it were true.

  27. Foxwood says:

    From:

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/21/we-are-no-longer-a-nation-of-laws-senate-sets-up-requirement-for-super-majority-to-ever-repeal-obamacare/

    We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare

    The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

    Monday, December 21st at 10:15PM EST
    110 Comments

    If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

    It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

    It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

    On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

    Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

    To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

    Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

    Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

    Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

    How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

    Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

    DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

    The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

    Senator DeMint responded:

    DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

    DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

    That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.

    To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.

    UPDATED: A number of people on our side are saying I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill on this issue. I hope they and you, after reading this, will read this response to that criticism.

    For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.

    ————————————————————————————-

    7:30 PM
    PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. DEMINT
    not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the senator from south carolina.

    DEMINT
    mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    without objection.

    DEMINT
    parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?

    7:31 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    it does.

    DEMINT
    further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    that would require a two-thirds vote.

    DEMINT
    i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he

    referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?

    7:32 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.

    DEMINT
    i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions

    and rules changes?

    i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because

    there were rules changes included in them?

    7:34 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the chair would like to check that for a future answer.

    DEMINT
    okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of

    the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute. these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced

    under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives. the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding

    rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the

    bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15. let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to

    this subsection.” and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate

    rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this

    bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?

    7:38 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.

    DEMINT
    okay. mr. president –

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.

    DEMINT
    mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?

    7:39 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    it is quite common to do that.

    DEMINT
    i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?

    this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that

    it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.

    7:40 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.

    7:41 PM
    DEMINT
    is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    yes.

    DEMINT
    and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    that is correct.

    DEMINT
    then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

  28. ohiobelle says:

    Fact checking that one took me in alot of different directions. It’s true and not true only because Obama hasn’t and won’t release the information.

  29. ohiobelle says:

    I will never believe Obama is a US citizen. Nobody pays a million bucks if they are being honest.

  30. ohiobelle says:

    Who honestly changes their name 3 TIMES????
    hmmm…. A TERRORIST!

  31. rosehips says:

    belle, I gotta say I thought Burris’s version of
    Twas the Night Before Christmas” was rather clever. Whoever wrote it gets my kudos.

    Now the challenge is to come up with another version….

  32. Foxwood says:

    I don’t think it’s a rumor…

  33. rosehips says:

    twas the night before christmas
    and all through the house
    the republicans were grumbling
    the dems were all soused….

  34. rosehips says:

    foxy, I am copying two parts to your above post. Both contain almost identical language from the bill except the quote of Demint (the latter) uses the word “law” instead of “subsection”. I wonder if it is actually the law he refers to or the subsection.

    Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

    DEMINT
    mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?

  35. ohiobelle says:

    Rosehips, Burris is an a-hole.

    I am going to be super PISSED (I thought you’d like the all caps) if they jam cap & trade down our throats next week.

  36. rosehips says:

    I’d like to see the part of the bill that says: “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.”

  37. rosehips says:

    belle, lol. I am not a fan of Burris but I think he did a pretty good job of reciting the poem.

    and yes I like the CAPS! HOHOHO

  38. ohiobelle says:

    Lamar Alexander just made a few great points:
    1. There is a reason why Reid wrote this bill in private
    2. There is a reason why Senators had to be paid off to secure votes
    4. There is a reason why they scheduled the vote at 1:00am

  39. ohiobelle says:

    Pelosi has another thing coming if she thinks she can get the senate bill passed. Dems are already saying they will not vote for the senate bill because taxpayers should not pay for abortions.

  40. ohiobelle says:

    I think this bill is an abortion that we shouldn’t have to pay for!!

  41. rosehips says:

    a couple of interesting articles. the first from the NY (Socialist?) Times about the Rockefeller amendment regarding Medicare Advisory Board:

    this is an excerpt from the times article:
    “Some background: The Senate bill calls for the creation of an independent commission with the power to suggest changes to Medicare payment rates, based on available evidence. The goal would be to steer the medical industry away from treatments that brought big profits and no net health benefit.”

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/better-cost-control-in-the-health-bill/

    Here’s the complete text of the second article:

    Obama looks to expand power of Medicare advisory boardPublish date: Jul 10, 2009
    By: Morgan Lewis Jr.
    Source: Medical Economics

    Email|Print|ShareDel.icio.usDiggRedditFacebook|Save|LicensePresident Obama and Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) hope to expand the powers of an independent Medicare advisory board that thus far has only presented recommendations to Congress.

    Rockefeller introduced legislation in May to turn the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) into a quasi-governmental body, similar to the Federal Reserve Board. The legislation would give MedPAC greater control over physician reimbursement. MedPAC has proposed to Congress added financial incentives for primary care physicians.

    “Congress has proven itself to be inefficient and inconsistent in making decisions about provider reimbursement under Medicare,” Rockefeller says. “If we want serious improvements in our healthcare delivery system, then we need to reform MedPAC’s current authority to include fully establishing and implementing Medicare reimbursement rules.”

  42. ohiobelle says:

    Oh my god… I almost think I should show you this… it’s very very creepy…

  43. rosehips says:

    this from allamericanpatriots.com posted on Dec 17

    Washington, D.C. — Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse have introduced an amendment to strengthen the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    “We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Medicare is in trouble. If we do not put Medicare on a path to financial sustainability, then this vital program and the benefits that seniors and the disabled receive from it will be in jeopardy,” said Senator Rockefeller.

    “Creating an independent authority to help Congress make informed decisions to keep Medicare solvent and effective – not just cost decisions but also quality decisions – is a sound strategy.” “If we are serious about protecting Medicare’s future, then we must remove the provisions that threaten the integrity of the Board and undermine its effectiveness. We must eliminate the carve-out for hospitals and other providers,” continued Senator Rockefeller, who introduced the original MedPAC Reform Act in May 2009 and has been a vocal opponent of the carve-out provisions. “A strong Independent Medicare Advisory Board is a powerful cornerstone of health reform, but if we want the Board to succeed, then we must provide the necessary tools for both Medicare reform and private sector cost-containment.”

    “One of the most important goals of health care reform is reducing the cost of health care. The Independent Medicare Advisory Board is one of our most effective tools to do just that. I am confident that our amendment will strengthen the Board, resulting in even greater cost savings, and extend the long-term solvency of Medicare,” said Senator Lieberman.

  44. ohiobelle says:

    Sorry for anybody that finds that video disturbing.

  45. rosehips says:

    belle, now ya got my curiosity stirred. brb

  46. ohiobelle says:

    Rosehips, did you watch it? It might be better to just fast forward and view images. I am praying to baby Jesus for him to forgive me.

  47. ohiobelle says:

    Rose, I think it’s best if you don’t watch it.

  48. rosehips says:

    belle, haha too late.

    yeah that’s creepy. like them old beatles records that said paul was dead. but worse.

    excuse me while I go pull out my old crcifixes. Does the holy water have an expiration date? hahaha

  49. ohiobelle says:

    Rosehips wrote” excuse me while I go pull out my old crcifixes. Does the holy water have an expiration date? hahaha

    hahahahahahaha. I feel the same way.

  50. tellitlikeitis says:

    Good afternoon everyone.
    Obama on taxes.

  51. ohiobelle says:

    I have to take off for a little while. I have about 1 hour to get my honey do list done.

    BBL

  52. AFVET says:

    He has underestimated the country and the world.
    He was raised to believe he is the one.
    He has been elected to the most powerful position in the world in his mind, however, he cannot and will not retain it.

    He is trying to become a dictator, step by step.

    His aspirations are obvious.

    Let Freedom Ring, Let the Constitution Sing !

    William Ayers stood on the American Flag in a filthy alley.
    Barack Obama is standing on Our Constitution in a parasite ridden, thug ruled abomination of the American philosophy called congress.

    Liberty and Tyranny folks.

    What say you ?

  53. samhenry says:

    I say, Afvet, that since the last election there has been a paradigm shift in this country and the defection of the above blue dog is an instance of it.

    Formerly the inciteful words of Sheldon Whitehouse would have little or no effect on his audience because we were in la la liberal land. I was there myself – on vacation, looking around.

    What the Right was saying back then seemed immature and old fashioned. Come to find out, everything that’s old isnee again! Thank goodness for that.

  54. samhenry says:

    The minute my paws touch the planks here people disappear down hatches, into life boats and buzz off powered by the propellers on their beanies. Okay for you guys. I’ll litter the site with classical music and tears.

  55. Pingback: Jihad: American Style in our backyards! « LisaInTX's Blog

  56. Pingback: Code of Cloture in, Code of Ethics out « LisaInTX's Blog

  57. LisaInTX says:

    SEBELIUS: And I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.
    Okay. It is a bit confusing, but it’s really an accounting that would apply across the board and not just to women, and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage.”

  58. LisaInTX says:

    Hi Y’all—just a drive by—my son is heading home AT LAST—got things to do before he gets home….

    BBL

  59. LisaInTX says:

    Syphilis needs to go DOWN like all the others! They all have STD’s
    Severe Temerity Disorder!!

  60. Pingback: Cold Day In Hell? « Moonbat Patrol

  61. tellitlikeitis says:

    Small-business bankruptcies rise 81% in California
    With credit tight and consumers still pinching their pennies, many business owners find they can’t go on.

    The Obama administration’s new plan to give a boost to small businesses reflects continued trouble in that sector, which is facing new failures even as much of the nation’s economy is stabilizing.

    As credit lines have shrunk and consumers have cut back on spending, thousands of small businesses have closed their doors over the last year. The plight of struggling firms has been aggravated by the reluctance of banks to lend money, said Brian Headd, an economist at the Small Business Administration’s office of advocacy.

    “While bankruptcies are up, overall, small-business closures are up even more,” Headd said.

    California has been particularly hard hit. The latest data show small-business bankruptcies up 81% in the state for the 12 months ended Sept. 30, compared with the previous year. Filings nationwide were up 44%, according to the credit analysis firm Equifax Inc.

    The actual number of small businesses in trouble is probably higher, experts said, because many owners file for personal bankruptcy rather than seek protection for the business.

    Dennis McGoldrick, a bankruptcy lawyer in Torrance, said his clients are all stuck in similar situations — capital is hard to come by, customers are tough to attract and debt is piling up.

    “We can’t keep up,” McGoldrick said. “There’s more people that want to come in every day than I can see.”

    Cecily McAlpine, who filed for bankruptcy protection for her Cold Stone Creamery franchise this spring, said the experience was humiliating but she had no choice.

    Receipts at the fledgling Compton ice cream shop plunged dramatically during the recession, and by late 2008 she was paying her employees out of her pocket.

    “When the refrigerator died, that was it; I’d just had it,” McAlpine said. “That was the day I broke. I just started throwing stuff away.”

    McAlpine recently withdrew her bankruptcy filing after selling all the store equipment and paying off her creditors. She is slowly paying off some back-rent and utility debt, and will officially dissolve her business in the next couple of weeks, she said.

    “I still feel scarred and like a loser,” she said. “Even though I’m not in it anymore, it’s still there.”

    Recognizing the problems of business owners like McAlpine, the Obama administration has proposed using federal stimulus money to help funnel more loans to small businesses. The White House has also asked Congress to eliminate capital gains taxes for one year on new investments in small-business stock, and called for a new tax incentive to encourage small businesses to hire more employees.

    On Dec. 14, Obama called a meeting of executives of Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and nine other large banks, and told them that they owed it to the nation to make more loans to small businesses and help rebuild the economy.

    In California, the need is great.

    Over the last year, the Los Angeles, Riverside/San Bernardino and Sacramento metropolitan areas have led the nation in small-business bankruptcy filings, said Tim Klein, a spokesman for Equifax.

    About 19,000 small businesses filed for bankruptcy in California during the 12 months ended Sept. 2009, up from 10,500 the previous year.

    During September alone, 2,229 small businesses filed for protection, up from 1,503 filings in September 2008, the firm reported.

    Kathleen March, a bankruptcy lawyer in Los Angeles, said she often pushes her clients to file for personal bankruptcy instead of a business filing because it’s easier.

    Many people also close down their businesses thinking that will solve their problems, only to find their companies’ debt lives on, March said.

    “The norm is if you’re running a small business, you will have to either cosign or personally guarantee the significant debts,” she said. “The business itself can shut down, but the people cosigned all the debts. So, the individuals are then saddled with these huge debts.”

    A client who owned a surf shop was paying for business expenses from the client’s own funds long before filing for personal bankruptcy, she said.

    “In this economy, anything that isn’t a necessity is a tough business to be in,” March said. “And the majority of my clients have waited too long to file for bankruptcy and in the process made things worse on themselves financially as a result.”

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-smallbiz-bankruptcy22-2009dec22,0,3305684.story

  62. Foxwood says:

    I wanted to post this again.

    From:

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/21/we-are-no-longer-a-nation-of-laws-senate-sets-up-requirement-for-super-majority-to-ever-repeal-obamacare/

    We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare

    The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

    Monday, December 21st at 10:15PM EST
    110 Comments

    If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

    It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

    It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

    On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

    Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

    To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

    Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

    Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

    Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

    How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

    Here is the transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President:

    DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

    The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

    Senator DeMint responded:

    DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

    DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

    That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.

    To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes. When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government.

    UPDATED: A number of people on our side are saying I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill on this issue. I hope they and you, after reading this, will read this response to that criticism.

    For your edification, the full transcript of the exchange between Jim DeMint and the Senate President is presented, unedited, below the fold.

    ————————————————————————————-

    7:30 PM
    PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. DEMINT
    not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the senator from south carolina.

    DEMINT
    mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    without objection.

    DEMINT
    parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?

    7:31 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    it does.

    DEMINT
    further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    that would require a two-thirds vote.

    DEMINT
    i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he

    referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?

    7:32 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.

    DEMINT
    i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions

    and rules changes?

    i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because

    there were rules changes included in them?

    7:34 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the chair would like to check that for a future answer.

    DEMINT
    okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of

    the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute. these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced

    under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives. the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding

    rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the

    bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15. let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to

    this subsection.” and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate

    rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this

    bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?

    7:38 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.

    DEMINT
    okay. mr. president –

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.

    DEMINT
    mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?

    7:39 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    it is quite common to do that.

    DEMINT
    i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?

    this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that

    it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.

    7:40 PM
    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.

    7:41 PM
    DEMINT
    is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    yes.

    DEMINT
    and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    that is correct.

    DEMINT
    then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

    THE PRESIDING OFFICER
    the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

  63. tellitlikeitis says:

    Rep. Stupak: White House Pressuring Me to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill
    Tuesday, December 22, 2009
    By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

    CNSNews.com) – Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the “compromise” abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

    “They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

    The Michigan Democrat succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health-care bill. The “Stupak amendment,” as the provision is known, would prohibit the federal government from allocating taxpayer money to pay for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.

    Stupak had contact with the White House last weekend, when the Senate voted 60 to 40 in the wee hours of Monday morning to shut off debate on the Senate version of the bill.

    The current version of the Senate bill contains so-called “compromise” language crafted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). This language does not bar taxpayer funding of health plans that cover abortion, but does create a firewall to supposedly keep federal money from being used to pay for abortions. Over the weekend, Stupak issued a statement calling the proposed Senate language “unacceptable.”

    “A review of the Senate language indicates a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage,” said the statement.

    In his interview with CNSNews.com on Tuesday, Stupak said that the White House “asked me just to hold off for awhile and not to say anything about this language. But as soon as the news broke that they had this [compromise], and they got the 60 votes, folks were asking me, and I’m not going to run from the issue I’m going to stand up and say, ‘Look, here’s my objections.’ Here – it’s not just my objections – but there’s a number of my [colleagues] who feel strongly about this issue, and these are the parts that have to be fixed.”

    Stupak said he is not alone in being pressured from the White House and the House Democratic leadership – other pro-life Democratic colleagues apparently are, as well. But they plan to hold firm, he said.

    “We’re getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief,” Stupak said. “[T]hat’s just not us. We’re not going to do that. Members who voted for the Stupak language in the House – especially the Democrats, 64 Democrats that voted for it – feel very strongly about it. It’s been part of who we are, part of our make up. It’s the principle belief that we have. We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care.”

    When asked if he has the votes he needs to stop the bill if, in its final version, it does not include the language of his amendment or nearly identical language, Stupak did not answer directly.

    “Well, if all the issues are resolved and we’re down to the pro-life view or, I should say, no public funding for abortion, there’s at least 10 to 12 members who have said, repeatedly, unless this language is fixed and current law is maintained, and no public funding for abortion,” said Stupak. “There’s 10 or 12 of us, and they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short 8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they [Democrats] do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants a vote on a final bill before Christmas. After that, a House-Senate conference could convene in early January to merge the Senate and House versions of the bill and lead to a final vote by both chambers.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/58921

  64. tellitlikeitis says:

    Ala. Dem defects to GOP over health care, policy

    By JAY REEVES

    HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) – A U.S. House Democrat who opposes the health care overhaul announced Tuesday he is defecting to the GOP, another blow to Democrats ahead of the midterm elections.

    U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith spoke to reporters at his home in northern Alabama, a region that relies heavily on defense and aerospace jobs.

    “I believe our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt,” Griffith said as his wife Virginia stood by his side.

    The 67-year-old radiation oncologist was narrowly elected last year in a district that includes Huntsville and Decatur. President Barack Obama lost badly there to Republican John McCain.

    Griffith also slammed the health care overhaul making its way through Congress. He was one of 39 House Democrats to vote against a version of the bill that narrowly passed.

    “I want to make it perfectly clear that this bill is bad for our doctors,” he said. “It’s bad for our patients. It’s bad for the young men and women who are considering going into the health care field.”

    He said after the press conference that his defection had nothing to do with concerns about whether he could win re-election as a Democrat. He also said he had not talked to any fellow Democrats about switching parties along with him.

    “If they do, I hope it’s on conviction and not politics,” he said.

    Alabama Democrats defended Griffith against GOP claims that he was soft on terrorism during the 2008 election, and the head of the state party said he is disappointed by Griffith’s defection now.

    “Democrats of every stripe and philosophy sweated and bled for this man,” said Joe Turnham, chairman of the state party. “He narrowly became a congressman through the hard work, votes and financial contributions of thousands of Democrats. Today, they feel betrayed.”

    Turnham said Griffith should return money to Democratic donors – something the congressman said he would be happy to do.

    Griffith had accumulated one of the most conservative voting records of any House Democrat. He was one of seven Democrats to oppose Obama’s economic stimulus measure early this year and also voted against an anti-global warming bill pushed strongly by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

    Democrats will hold 257 House seats to the GOP’s 178 after Griffith’s switch.

    Several veteran House moderates have announced their retirements next year, giving Republicans hopes of picking up a significant number of seats in the November elections.

    Jim Spearman, executive director of the Alabama Democratic Party, said the switch “shouldn’t come as a surprise” with the way Griffith voted.

    “We will be working strongly to put a Democrat in there,” Spearman said.

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091222/D9COJHCO0.html

  65. m2 says:

    Thanks foxwood and tellit for the posts. To see that 1- they thwart the rule of law like dictators and 2- they are pressuring congresspersons with all the hubris of the mafia… Is nothing short of-

    WHAT I EXPECTED WHEN I WARNED PEOPLE BEFORE NOV. 4 2008.

    I get no satisfaction however because they are destoying the country and creating hatred amonst our countrymen.

  66. samhenry says:

    And now for something completely different:

  67. tellitlikeitis says:

  68. samhenry says:

    If I sat on top of a robot cleaner, would I hit the big time on youtube?

    DOG realizes that this is a selfish interruption of conversation flow related to blogpost and orders a launch to go to shore. DOG will plot to get hold of one of those cleaners…..

  69. tellitlikeitis says:

    Good Vid SH. Very Funny!

  70. samhenry says:

    Thanks Tellit. I know you guys like cool machines. It isn’t a tractor pull or anything; just a dog and cat cutup.

  71. tellitlikeitis says:

  72. samhenry says:

    Now THAT was cute.

  73. Pingback: Healthcare, your Christmas present… » Animal Farm

  74. Foxwood says:

    I got that robot, but my cats don’t like it. I thought about putting a bobbling toy on it so they’d chase it, but they run when it comes on.

  75. samhenry says:

    Hi there FOX. I know if it isn’t blue grass or some such you don’t like it but this is for all of us. I was listening to some good classical music on youtube.

    Here is something even men will like. It is THE PINES OF ROME by Respeghi (spellilng). It is music that represents the Roman Legions marching by. It is a lot of brass playing – very dramatic. It starts very softly and builds. It is the Berlin Philharmonic and their legendary conductor, Herbert Von Karajan. Return with me to those days of yesteryear – heigho…..

  76. samhenry says:

    I’m getting older – probably posted this yesterday but I could watch it 100 times. Tim Conway at his best:

  77. LisaInTX says:

    OMG!!! Check out what this kids parent/s did to him!!! Disgusting—poor little boy! Looks like the Mental Institute for him and PRISON hopefully for the others involved!

  78. m2 says:

    Hey- there’s ornaments of Mao on the Christmas tree in the Blue Room at the White House.

    Way to be Obama, way to be.

  79. LisaInTX says:

    Dear Patriot,

    Sen. Whitehouse opened up his Senate floor speech spewing venom
    directed squarely at you and me!

    Quoting an article, which called those of us opposing the
    massive government takeover of our health care system the
    “lunatic fringe.” He took it a step further labeling us
    as “birthers, right-wing militias and Aryan groups.”

    With passage of ObamaCare perhaps imminent, Whitehouse feels
    emboldened, deciding it’s ok to demonize the opposition —
    the American taxpayer, you and me!

    By supporting a socialized health care bill fraught
    with earmarks, payoffs to Senators, aggressive
    Medicare cuts, massive tax increases, penalties
    and increased insurance premiums Whitehouse and
    others are putting their political heads on the
    chopping block…

    Especially considering recent polling suggests a growing
    majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare.

  80. LisaInTX says:

    M2
    I saw that on the news too….amazing how far that great house has fallen into EVIL!!

  81. LisaInTX says:

    Editorial Exegesis

    “The White House thinks it can jawbone banks into lending to people they don’t want to lend to. We’ve been down this road before, and it led all the way to the 2007 financial meltdown. The president on Monday gave a tongue-lashing to the ‘fat-cat bankers on Wall Street,’ as he called them the day before. He wants them to make more loans to small businesses and consumers to give the economy a boost. But should banks be lending just because a politician tells them to? We tried this before. Indeed, it’s the very source of the financial and economic calamity of the past two years. President Obama may think dressing down the top dogs at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and others is good politics. But it’s demoralizing and will only lead to more bank write-offs, more bank failures and less lending. … In this, President Obama is treading the very same ground as President Clinton and President Bush in pushing banks to make risky loans they shouldn’t make. And it will have the same dire results. For those who don’t remember, the federal government became more involved than ever in determining how banks make their loans — and to what customers — thanks to the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac out of the wreckage of the Great Depression. They were followed by the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 and the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992. Go back to the 1970s and early 1990s you’ll see that, just as today, bankers were criticized heavily for their alleged racism and lack of concern for the poor. President after president lambasted them for not lending more to support presidential social policies. By 2000, President Clinton’s HUD required half of Fannie Mae’s loan originations to go to poor and moderate-income borrowers — whether they could pay on the loans or not. It marked the triumph of leftist politics over financial common sense. This is how the subprime meltdown, the source of our current financial troubles, came about. Not by ‘greedy’ banks or by ‘deregulation.'” –Investor’s Business Daily

  82. LisaInTX says:

    Night all—been a Loooooong day for me….headed to bed.

  83. samhenry says:

    Lisa, tell me that they have found this little boy and his parents?

  84. Foxwood says:

    It’s a good day to be a subject of the Dictatorship!

    Sieg Heil und Guten Morgan fellow unAmerican Nazis!
    It’s time to unfurl the Confederate Swastika and fire the cannon!

  85. Foxwood says:

    SamH, I like all kinds of music (with a few exeptions). I used to play classical violin as a child. I also fiddled.

  86. VotingFemale says:

    You bet, Steve! I am all for that linky love!

    Merry Christmas, dear!

    Steve says

    And a Democrat Congressman just today announce he is switching to the GOP!!

    Lets hope this is the first of many!!

    Common Cents

    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    ps. Link Exchange??

  87. VotingFemale says:

    Good Morning Everyone! Foxwood!

  88. samiam60 says:

    Good Morning VF, SamH and Foxwood :)

    Do we know what our Government is up to today?

  89. VotingFemale says:

    Good Morning Samiam! SamH!

  90. samiam60 says:

    Climate Change has now reached my neck of the woods and we are doing our best to survive our 21 degree heat wave this morning.

    We have also had to put folks here on a Polar Bear Alert as it is believed they may be migrating to our area.

    Stay tuned for more breaking Climate news as it happens.

  91. VotingFemale says:

    Obama has ornaments on the Obama White House Christmas Tree that has a picture of…

    – Chairman Mao

    – the drag queen Hedda Lettuce

    -Obama’s Face on Mt Rushmore

    ya think they are trying to bait folks with those? I do…

  92. samiam60 says:

    What the heck VF, no Hitler Ornaments on the White House Tree?

  93. VotingFemale says:

    Did anyone catch the Communist owner/operator of the blog FireDogLake which solicited folks to get Lieberman’s wife fired from her Breast Cancer job’s appearance on FOX News?

    her website: http://firedoglake.com/

    is now calling to sign a petition to: Kill the Senate Bill

    why? it does not go far enough lol

  94. Foxwood says:

    Morning VF, Sami!

    I keep calling Landrieu, but I doubt she’ll change her mind. I’m hoping someone like Lieberman will have a conscience and change their mind, or I’ll pray, as Sen. Coburn suggested, that someone can’t make the vote.

  95. VotingFemale says:

    I will likely do a blogpost on that firedoglake story

  96. samiam60 says:

    I have to say here that in recent overtures to the dark side I am finding that these debates with liberals are becoming more like exploration into the mind of people who are Bi-Polar.
    There must be a connection.

  97. VotingFemale says:

    The arrogance of Obama is resurfacing again…

    Obama response to Danny Glover’s Obama Smackdown: I have Black Hollywood in my back pocket; you traitors don’t matter hahaha

  98. VotingFemale says:

    She will be returning to LA for Christmas… time for some televised Protest Rallies at her office and home

    Foxwood says

    Morning VF, Sami!

    I keep calling Landrieu,

  99. VotingFemale says:

    are there any local Fire Landrieu websites?

  100. VotingFemale says:

    from FDL

    DEAN: You would not let us choose another program. You forced us into the insurance industry. We don’t want to be forced into the insurance industry. You took away our choice. That is wrong.

    LANDRIEU: That is not true, you never had that choice to begin with.

    DEAN: The President campaigned on it, Mary.

    LANDRIEU: In this bill we always wanted…

    DEAN: The President of the United States campaigned for it.

    LANDRIEU: No he did not campaign for public option, he did not campaign on Medicare for all, he most certainly did not.

    The only bill to pass so far, the House bill, has a public option. And there is a public option in the merged bill that Reid delivered to the Senate, which Landrieu voted for cloture on.

    To say “you never had that choice to begin with,” and that this is the bill they “always wanted,” means that it was all just smoke and mirrors.

    Courtesy of Harry Reid. Who was always just putting on a show until they gave the insurance industry what they wanted.

    Transcript after the jump:

    LANDRIEU: Senator Lieberman has helped us on dozens and dozens of votes when we needed 60 votes, and he’s been there. He just does have a little different view than many in the party, but actually, I understand his view. He says we’re going to reform health care, which means we’re going to reform the insurance market, not eliminate it. There are governors like Governor Dean who wants to eliminate the insurance companies in America. The President did not run on that.

    DEAN: That’s simply not true

    LANDRIEU: That is true. Governor, that is. The President didn’t run on it, he ran on reforming it and fixing it, so Joe has a little different view of wanting the private sector to have more at the table. I sort of agree with that, but I”m a little bit more open to compromise on it than he is. But nonetheless, we need 60 votes, we’re still working with Olympia Snowe, hoping we can get her vote as well.

    MATTHEWS: Well good luck Senator Mary Landrieu, thank you. And a last thought, Governor…

    HOWARD DEAN: First of all, it’s obviously not true that I want to eliminate the insurance market. Second if all, I’d be interested to know why Senator Landrieu…

    LANDRIEU: (interrupts) Well you just spent a half hour beating up on them, Howard, we need to reform them. And there’s plenty…

    DEAN: Mary, I’d like to know why you deny my people the choice to sign up for an alternative. You are forcing us into insurance companies.

    LANDRIEU: There is plenty, there is plenty of reform in this bill for insurance companies. I’ve never supported (it?) before either.

    DEAN: You took away our choice. You took away our choice.

    MATTHEWS: We’re in overtime here. 30 seconds for the Governor, and then 30 seconds for the Senator

    DEAN: You would not let us choose another program. You forced us into the insurance industry. We don’t want to be forced into the insurance industry. You took away our choice. That is wrong.

    LANDRIEU: That is not true, you never had that choice to begin with.

    DEAN: The President campaigned on it, Mary.

    LANDRIEU: In this bill (he/we) always wanted…

    DEAN: The President of the United States campaigned for it.

    LANDRIEU: No he did not campaign for public option, he did not campaign on Medicare for all, he most certainly did not.

    DEAN: Yes he most certainly did. He most certainly did.

    LANDRIEU: He most certainly did not.

    DEAN: He absolutely did. You are not accurate in that. He campaigned for a federal employee benefit with a public option. That’s what he campaigned for.

    LANDRIEU: He told people if you have what you — if you like the insurance that you have, you’ll be able to keep it.

    MATTHEWS: Governor.

    DEAN: And he also said there would be a public option along with a federal employee benefit package. That is what he said.
    LANDRIEU: And there is, there is one in the bill.

    DEAN: There is no public option.

    MATTHEWS: I’ve got to stop you, Governor. I’ve got to let the Senator respond.

    LANDRIEU: Thank you.

    MATTHEWS: The Senator gets to respond. Is that your last word, Senator? Because I want you to have the final word.

    LANDRIEU: Yes, my last point, thank you Chris. In the bill that the Governor is now saying he’s not for, there is a national, non-profit option that gives the same choices that members of Congress and federal employees have. If that’s not enough, I don’t know what is.

  101. rosehips says:

    Mao in the White House? on an ornament? wow.

    green tea all around….

    morning peeps!

  102. rosehips says:

    passes sami a hot cup of tea, a snuggie and my mental health file…

    lol!

  103. rosehips says:

    morning sami, VF, foxy!

  104. VotingFemale says:

    This is a Socialist Civil War…

    Leftists against Obama: The Senate Bill is a compromise with the Right and we dont want it… WE WANT IT ALL!

    Obama against Leftists: Shut Up! WE CANT WIN! THIS IS THE BEST WE CAN DO! NOW BACK THE HELL OFF!

    aaaahahahahahahaha!!!!

    I love a Leftist Civil War!

  105. VotingFemale says:

    Good Morning Rosy O’Hips!

  106. Foxwood says:

    I haven’t looked for one (fire Landrieu), but if there isn’t one, I’m making it.

  107. VotingFemale says:

    This is a Socialist Civil War:

    Leftist against Obama: Pull the hell out of Agghanistan and do it NOW!

    Obama to Leftists: STFU! If I pull out of Afghanistan I will get raped and pillaged by the Majority of Americans and the GOP!

  108. Foxwood says:

    Morning Rose! :)

  109. VotingFemale says:

    I googled for them and did not discover any…

    if you make one do linky love with the local LA Tea Party website folks

    Foxwood says

    I haven’t looked for one (fire Landrieu), but if there isn’t one, I’m making it.

  110. rosehips says:

    A Leftist Civil War? I am changing my name in honor of the renowned Civil War spy Rose O’Neal Greenhow….

    Rose O’Neal Greenhow was born in Montgomery County, Maryland in 1817. “Wild Rose”, as she was called from a young age, was a leader in Washington society, a passionate secessionist, and one of the most renowned spies in the Civil War. The collection is mostly correspondence with Rose Greenhow related to her activities on behalf of the Confederate States of America, and contains both scanned images and transcripts of her letters.

  111. VotingFemale says:

    This is a Socialist Civil War:

    CBC against Obama: You have not improved jobs for our constituents! Get with the F’ing program and do it NOW!

    Obama to CBC: Stuff it!

  112. VotingFemale says:

    Rose, then you can use
    Rose O’Neal Greenhow’s moniker…

    “Wild Rose”

  113. Foxwood says:

    Obama to CBC: Kneel before me and call me King!

  114. VotingFemale says:

    The story of “The Wild Rose”:

    Among her accomplishments was the ten-word secret message she sent to General Pierre G.T. Beauregard which ultimately caused him to win the battle of Rose O Neal Greenhow Bull Run. She spied so successfully for the Confederacy that Jefferson Davis credited her with winning the battle of Manassas.

    She was imprisoned for her efforts first in her own home and then in the Old Capital Prison. Despite her confinement, Greenhow continued getting messages to the Confederacy by means of cryptic notes which traveled in unlikely places such as the inside of a woman’s bun of hair. After her second prison term, she was exiled to the Confederate states where she was received warmly by President Jefferson Davis.

    Her next mission was to tour Britain and France as a propagandist for the Confederate cause. Two months after her arrival in London, her memoirs were published and enjoyed a wide sale throughout the British Isles. In Europe, Greenhow found a strong sympathy for the South, especially among the ruling classes.

    During the course of her travels she hobnobbed with many members of the nobility. She was received at the court of Queen Victoria and became engaged to the Second Earl Granville. In Paris, she was received into the court of Napoleon III and was granted an audience with the Emperor at the Tuileries.

    In 1864, after a year abroad, she boarded the Condor, a British blockade-runner which was to take her home. Just before reaching her destination, the vessel ran aground at the mouth of the Cape Fear River near Wilmington, North Carolina. In order to avoid the Union gunboat that pursued her ship, Rose fled in rowboat, but never made it to shore. Her little boat capsized and she was dragged down by the weight of the gold she received in royalties for her book.

    In October 1864, Rose was buried with full military honors in the Oakdale Cemetery in Wilmington. Her coffin was wrapped in the Confederate flag and carried by Confederate troops. The marker for her grave, a marble cross, bears the epitaph, “Mrs. Rose O’N. Greenhow, a bearer of dispatchs to the Confederate Government.”

  115. Foxwood says:

    VF? Rose wasn’t wild before?

  116. VotingFemale says:

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” — Alexis de Tocqueville

  117. VotingFemale says:

    She wasn’t a Leftist Civil War Spy before! lol

    Foxwood says

    VF? Rose wasn’t wild before?

  118. rosehips says:

    yes, I like that! I will try to do Ms. Greenhow justice and will carry her name with pride.

    I can only imagine what that rowboat escape must have been like. I can understand Rose not wanting to ditch the gold, but if it was me, I think ida dropped those bricks on my way overboard. lol

    VF said: Rose, then you can use
    Rose O’Neal Greenhow’s moniker…

    “Wild Rose”

  119. rosehips says:

    I wonder if I can find a copy of Wild Rose’s memoirs. That would be a treasure.

  120. rosehips says:

    wow, now I’m totally intrigued with this woman. Her other nickname apparently is “Rebel Rose” I love it! Check this out:

    Spies, Raiders & Partisans
    Rose O’Neal Greenhow “Rebel Rose” CA. 1817 – October 1, 1864

    Rose O’Neal Greenhow, a rich, attractive, and outgoing widow, was a very popular member of Washington’s highest social circles; her friends were former presidents, senators, and generals. When the Civil War started, she joined the Confederate espionage system in Washington and used her social contacts and admirers to gather useful information for the Rebel government. She is credited with supplying Confederate Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard with the timetable for the Union advance to Manassas, thus allowing the Rebels time to consolidate their forces to win the 1st Battle of Bull Run in July 1861.

    Too indiscreet about her sympathies, Greenhow and her activities aroused suspicion in detective Allen Pinkerton, who had her arrested in August 1861. A search of her house turned up detailed maps of the Washington fortifications and notes on military movements. She was placed on house arrest for a few months; then, in January 1862, Greenhow was imprisoned in the Old Capitol Prison in Washington, from which she managed to continue her clandestine activities and forward valuable information to the Confederacy. In May she was deported to Richmond, where she was greeted by cheering crowds.

    That summer Confederate President Jefferson Davis sent Greenhow on a diplomatic mission to Europe. During her two-year stay, she wrote and published her memoirs, titled My Imprisonment and the First Year of Abolition Rule at Washington. Greenhow was re-entering the Confederacy on October 1, 1864, when her blockade runner, Condor, was spotted and chased by a Union warship off the coast of North Carolina. The Condor was forced onto a sandbar at the mouth of the Cape Fear River during a storm, and Greenhow, fearing capture and return to prison, asked to be put ashore in a small lifeboat. A few days later, her body washed up on the shore. The stormy seas had swamped her boat, and the weight of the $2,000 in gold that she carried dragged her under the waves. She was given a military funeral and buried in Wilmington, Del.

    Fascinating Fact: Rose Greenhow’s daughter was imprisoned with her in the Old Capitol Prison.

  121. Foxwood says:

    “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

  122. Foxwood says:

    “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one….” — James Madison

  123. Foxwood says:

    “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison

  124. Foxwood says:

    “If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too.” — William Somerset Maughan

  125. Foxwood says:

    I off for a long drive to a new cell site. BBL.

  126. rosehips says:

    foxy, how true.

    “If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too.” — William Somerset Maughan

  127. rosehips says:

    Have fun foxy. avoid road rage if you can.

  128. VotingFemale says:

    her mistake was not dumping the gold to save her own life…

    rosehips says

    yes, I like that! I will try to do Ms. Greenhow justice and will carry her name with pride.

    I can only imagine what that rowboat escape must have been like. I can understand Rose not wanting to ditch the gold, but if it was me, I think ida dropped those bricks on my way overboard. lol

    VF said: Rose, then you can use
    Rose O’Neal Greenhow’s moniker…

    “Wild Rose”

  129. VotingFemale says:

    take your GPS!

    see you later!

    Foxwood says

    I off for a long drive to a new cell site. BBL.

  130. rosehips says:

    well, I found her memoirs. I can buy a current printing for as little as $13. I also found a bio entitled “Wild Rose: The True Story of a Civil War Spy” on Amazon. I purchased a used copy for $2.50. What a bargain. Now I’ll have to hunt for an original edition memoir. That’s what I’d really like to get.

  131. rosehips says:

    exactly, and how appropo considering foxy’s quote above by maughan, eh?

    vf said: her mistake was not dumping the gold to save her own life…

    “If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too.” — William Somerset Maughan

  132. VotingFemale says:

    Great Bargain, Rose! $2.50!

  133. VotingFemale says:

    If you are dead, you are poorer than poor…
    no one can take it with them.

  134. VotingFemale says:

    What she did take with her was her fame… we are still talking about her so many years after that fateful rowboat ride.

  135. VotingFemale says:

    I am working on a new blogpost… SP is spotlighted.

  136. rosehips says:

    of course a woman like that would have dumped the gold if she could. If she had coins, she may have had them sewn in her clothes. Maybe she couldn’t remove her garments. I knew a guy in hs who tried to save some people who were drowning in the ocean at the jersey shore. Then he started to struggle and later said he debated removing his jeans, but they were new and he didn’t want to lose them. Lucky for him he made it to shore.

  137. samiam60 says:

    During the course of her travels Wild Rose hobnobbed with many members of the nobility.

    Still pays good today too.

  138. rosehips says:

    Indeed! She must have been a remarkable and exciting woman. Can’t wait to read about her.

    vf said: What she did take with her was her fame… we are still talking about her so many years after that fateful rowboat ride.

  139. rosehips says:

    lol sami

  140. samiam60 says:

    Good Morning Rose Wild Hips and after reading back on the comments please,please be assured my referrence to Bi-Polar Libs had nothing to do with you at all or in any way shape or form.

  141. VotingFemale says:

    tee hee

    samiam60 says

    Good Morning Rose Wild Hips

  142. samiam60 says:

    **********************************************

    Here it is, the Looney Left at it’s best*

    California Official Orders Removal of Christmas Angel After Complaint

  143. samiam60 says:

    There’s no place for angels atop Christmas trees, according to one California man who successfully lobbied for the removal of religious symbols at county buildings after spotting a yuletide decoration last week.

    Stars and other religious emblems were ordered removed from Christmas trees in all government buildings in Sonoma County on Monday following a complaint by Irv Sutley, a disabled 65-year-old Marine veteran who said the symbols were “extremely offensive” and part of the “cult” of Christianity.

    “I just don’t believe government has the right to intrude on anyone and force them into sectarian behavior,” Sutley told FoxNews.com. “I’ve opposed Buddhist statues, the star of David — anything of a religious nature.”

    Sutley said he filed the complaint with acting County Administrator Chris Thomas on Dec. 18 after noticing an angel atop a six-foot tree in the lobby of the county recorder’s office. Sutley, a lifelong atheist and chairman of the county’s Peace and Freedom Party, said he visited the office last week for his re-election bid next June.

    Sutley said the angel violated previous court rulings concerning holiday displays, including a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found that government-sponsored Christmas trees decorated with religious symbols constitute an illegal endorsement of Christian doctrine.

    Sutley said he was pleased with a subsequent e-mail sent by Thomas to managers of all 26 county departments instructing them to remove religious symbols like angels and stars from holiday displays.

    Jim Toomey, a public information officer for Sonoma County, confirmed the removal.

    “To avoid any controversy and to satisfy this gentleman’s concerns, the ornaments were removed,” said Toomey, adding that he knew of no prior complaints concerning the holiday display.

    Sutley, of Santa Rosa, said he’s pleased with Thomas’ directive, but said his work might not yet be done. The veteran previously led successful efforts to stop prayers at government meetings in nearby cities and forced Rohnert Park to redesign its city emblem due to religious symbols.

    He now intends to ask county officials to remove a steel cross near Ernie Smith Park in Sonoma that serves as a memorial to an accident victim.

    “It was put up privately without a permit,” Sutley said. “It shouldn’t be there.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580959,00.html

  144. samiam60 says:

    Next there will be a ban on all Televised Funerals in which religion is mentioned.

  145. samiam60 says:

    The Looney Left splits in two!

    Unions at Odds Over Insurance Exemption for Some Workers, No Relief for Others

  146. samiam60 says:

    As Democrats plug away toward final passage of a health insurance overhaul, major labor unions are pressing the Senate to strip a tax on high-value insurance plans from the health care reform bill, putting them at odds with other labor groups getting exemptions from that very requirement.

    Unions ranging from the powerful AFL-CIO to the National Education Association to the Communications Workers of America are decrying the provision in the Senate health package that would impose a 40 percent “excise tax” on insurance companies for “Cadillac plans” with high-cost premiums.

    The unions claim the tax will end up hitting the middle class hard and say Congress should instead use the House-passed idea of simply increasing income taxes on wealthy individuals.

    “The health plan excise tax will not let families keep the good health plans they have now,” CWA President Larry Cohen said in a statement Tuesday. His group argues that insurance companies will end up reducing benefits to avoid the tax.

    But a handful of labor interests have managed to get partial exemptions from that fee. Most recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s additions to the health care bill slipped in “longshore work” on the list of “high-risk” occupations to which the tax would not apply in full.

    That list includes workers in construction, mining, electrical line repair and other fields.

    Craig Merilees, a spokesman for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, told FoxNews.com that the provision is not a full exemption. Rather, he said it merely raises the threshold for the value of plans to which the tax would apply — from $23,000 to $26,000.

    He said the language was included because longshore workers are in a “high-hazard” category, and their health care plans need to be allowed to cover the “serious dangers” they face on the job.

    “They die much more frequently on the job than other workers, and they are seriously injured at a much higher rate than other workers,” he said.

    But for other unions, the tax on Cadillac plans has become a bone of contention between them and Democrats whom they’d otherwise support. While the unions support health care reform, they want Congress to figure out a different way to raise money.

    In the Senate bill, the 40 percent tax would apply to premiums costing more than $8,500 a year for individuals and $23,000 for families.

    “The benefits of hard-working Americans cannot be taxed to pay for health care reform — that’s no way to rein in insurance companies and it’s the wrong way to pay for health care reform,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a recent statement.

    The House bill, by contrast, raises income taxes on people earning more than $500,000 a year and couples earning more than $1 million.

    The Senate exemption is just one of many provisions that have raised additional questions about reconciling the bill with a House version.

    The Senate votes Wednesday afternoon on a last procedural motion — one requiring 60 votes — before passage that needs only 51 votes. Lawmakers agreed to move up to 8 a.m. ET Thursday morning so members and their staffs could leave town in time for Christmas and ahead of predicted storms around the country.

    Republicans have tried to slow up the bill, and planned to raise a point of order on the question of whether it’s constitutional to require almost every American to buy health insurance. While they are unlikely to win the vote, several organizations are already getting ready to challenge the new law in the court system.

    But even Senate passage does not end the process. The Senate measure would still have to be matched to the differing bill passed by the House of Representatives in November. Some lawmakers have predicted the House will roll over in order to avoid a shoot-out that would put President Obama’s top domestic priority at risk just before he is to give his first State of the Union address.

    But aside from the rules on Cadillac plans, the two versions differ significantly on abortion funding ban language, which is much stronger in the House bill, as well as the so-called public option, which the Senate eliminated in favor of deeper regulation of private insurers.

    Senate moderates have said no to a final deal that includes government-run insurance while House Democrats who oppose abortion — like Rep. Bart Stupack of Michigan who led the charge for explicit restrictions on abortion funding in the House plan — say a Senate compromise is too weak.

    The bills do share some commonalities. Both put their costs at around $1 trillion over 10 years and require nearly all Americans to have health insurance — whether paid for by employers, individuals or the government. Both expect cuts in Medicare funding to provide some of the expenses.

    The bills also prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to people with existing health conditions and create insurance exchanges through a marketplace where private insurers would sell health plans that meet minimum standards.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/unions-odds-exemption-workers-relief/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528FOXNews.com+-+Politics%2529

  147. rosehips says:

    sami, don’t worry, I wasn’t offended. I’ve been known to claim to a bit of mania at times heeheeeeeeeeeeee

  148. samiam60 says:

    But for other unions, the tax on Cadillac plans has become a bone of contention between them and Democrats whom they’d otherwise support. While the unions support health care reform, they want Congress to figure out a different way to raise money.

  149. rosehips says:

    sami, good info on the cadillac tax. 40% is a bit much, I think.

    that article raises some good points about the bill.

    I guess I need to call my rep and encourage her to raise the constitutionality issue. I am opposed to the mandate, as I am sure she is too.

  150. samiam60 says:

    Agreed Rose, this administration is trying to run over the American People and in doing so has splintered their own base.

    I knew the Left would wake up once the Policies of the Administration hit them in the Wallet!

  151. rosehips says:

    so if your insurance costs $8500, you pay an extra $3400! holy cow, that’s a lot.

  152. samiam60 says:

    Rose says:
    so if your insurance costs $8500, you pay an extra $3400! holy cow, that’s a lot.

    Rose that cost will only go up once Obama grants amnesty to the Illegal Aliens. We all know that is coming next.

    All this so a small number of Americans that don’t have health care can get covered?

    I don’t think so! This bill is all about Government control of the American People, PERIOD!

  153. samiam60 says:

    Off to the store to purchase toilet paper.

    Wolf drags self across carpet and leaps to the store.

    bbl………….. :)

    Grossed ya all out now didn’t I ?

  154. rosehips says:

    so a priest in great britain says its ok for the poor to steal and a guy in spokane just got sentenced to 29 months for stealing sardines and a can of shaving cream.

    well, he does have quite the criminal past. He had a former life term and was involved in a jail break where another inmate was killed and a cop seriously wounded.

    maybe he was trying to get back into prison.

  155. samhenry says:

    Morning all –

    Wolf drags self across carpet to door – humph – a joke, eh? We will wrap you in that TP the moment your paws hit the livingroom!

  156. VotingFemale says:

    Good Morning SamHenry! Lisa!

  157. samhenry says:

    I found it!

    [Print] [Email]
    Who’s responsible for the Senate’s middle-of-the-night vote?
    By: Byron York
    Chief Political Correspondent
    12/21/09 1:19 AM EST

    Why did the Senate gather at 1 a.m. Monday for a vote to move ahead on the Reid Amendment to the Democrats’ national health care bill? Democrats blame Republicans. “Everyone knows we’re here at one in the morning because of my friends on the other side of the aisle,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said moments before the vote. On CBS Sunday, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu said, “We don’t have to vote in the middle of the night, but [Republican Sen. Tom Coburn] is the one making us do it — not Harry Reid, not the Democrats. It is a Republican obstructionist that is making us vote in the middle of the night.”

    Coburn has no doubt slowed debate on the bill. But the fact is, there is no reason the Reid Amendment vote could not have been held at a more reasonable hour. One a.m. Monday was the earliest moment that Senate rules allowed a vote, but there is no rule keeping the Senate from voting at some time after 1 a.m. If Reid had scheduled the vote for, say, 11 a.m. Monday, that would have been fine. If he scheduled it for 4 p.m. Monday, or 10 a.m. Tuesday, that would have been fine, too.

    But Reid is determined to pass the national health care bill by Christmas, and to do so he has to get the cloture vote on his amendment done at the earliest moment. The timeline is Reid’s and Reid’s alone. “The bottom line is, Sen. Reid schedules the floor,” says one well-connected GOP aide. “He is the only one who can schedule the floor.” If Reid had scheduled the vote during business hours on, say, Tuesday, a final vote would not have taken place until the day after Christmas — an outcome Reid apparently found unacceptable.

    This is how it works. Reid introduced his amendment Saturday morning. (It’s the one that has the Sen. Ben Nelson Medicaid buy-off and other curious features.) Senate rules say there has to be an intervening day between the introduction of the amendment and a vote on limiting debate on the amendment. That intervening day was Sunday. That meant the cloture vote could be held Monday, or any time thereafter. The rules also say that the vote has to be held at least one hour after that next day has begun. So the Senate’s Monday business began at 12:01 a.m., and the Reid Amendment vote could be held at 1:01 a.m. (As it happened, Reid himself spoke last, and his remarks went over the mark by six minutes.)

    After the middle-of-the-night vote, there will be a maximum of 30 hours debate on the amendment. Then there will be a 30-hour period for a Republican substitute bill, followed by a 30-hour period on the final bill. Reid’s schedule calls for a final, final vote on the health care measure to take place at about 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve. Voila! The bill will be passed by Christmas. That couldn’t be done unless the Reid Amendment cloture vote were held in the earliest hours of Monday morning, setting off the final chain of votes and waiting periods. “This is purely to satisfy a self-imposed, arbitrary deadline,” says the GOP aide.

    By the way, when the 1 a.m. vote took place, the Reid Amendment had been public for about 36 hours, and the public had not had a single business day to examine it. “Make no mistake,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a few minutes before the vote. “If the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn’t be forcing this vote in the dead of night.” Referring to the Nelson buy-off and other special arrangements in the bill, McConnell said few people would have imagined that the health care debate would have ended “with a couple of cheap deals and a rushed vote at one o’clock in the morning.”

    But that’s what happened. In the end, to no one’s surprise, the Reid Amendment moved ahead, 60-40, on a straight party-line vote. Democrats can blame Sen. Coburn and Republicans all they like, but the fact is, there is no reason, beyond the Christmas deadline, that the vote had to take place at 1 a.m.

  158. Pingback: Sarah Palin to Americans: The Obama Death Panel is Immortal « VotingFemale Speaks!

  159. Pingback: Hey GOP? Make Mass Senate Race a National Referendum on ObamaCare « VotingFemale Speaks!

  160. Pingback: Anti-Socialist Call To Renew your efforts! « VotingFemale Speaks!

  161. Pingback: Obama drowning in a Sea of Socialist Discontent; Senate ObamaCare in trouble with House of Reps « VotingFemale Speaks!

Comments are closed.