Can there be anyone more dim-witted then Nasty Pelosi?

[Marty]

I’m no authority on the process in Congress but this smells to high heaven.

Stephen Frank
Can a bill become law without Congress passing it? Yes, according to San Fran Nan and President Obama.
This is how laws are made in totalitarian States. No need for pesky elections or votes of those elected to represent the voters.

The omnipotent Obama knows how long you must exercise, what you can eat, what your children must learn--he even has decided how much money you earn you are allowed to keep. Now, without a vote on the health care bill, he wants to declare it law.

In Venezuela Hugo Chavez declares himself president for life. In the United States, Obama declares he will make your health care decisions for you--and force the nation into bankruptcy at the same time. As Gavin Newsom would say, “Whether you like it or not."

"The loudest came Monday when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a group of bloggers that turning the Democratic Party leaders' health care overhaul into law would embolden them to drive America away from its roots of liberty and independence.

"Kick open that door, and there will be other legislation to follow," she said. "We'll take the country in a new direction."

Sounds like every two bit totalitarian in history. What are you going to do about it?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... ?id=527485

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... s-critics/

[Vince E]

Sounds like every two bit totalitarian in history. What are you going to do about it?

Vote in the other party so they can pick up where they left off 4 years ago because we don't have Orwellian tel-screens watching and listening to our every movement and utterance just yet.
They are currently only serving half of Orwell's conceptual function- pushing propaganda 24/7 and you just can't turn it off.

We do have the thought police though. Watching your face at the airports, looking for any expression or body movement that may betray the fact that you have some sort of inner struggle going on that can only mean you are a terrorist.
Soon they will be on every American street as more and more combat vets, who learned to stay alive by suspecting EVERYONE around them not wearing the same uniform they wear, are inducted into local police forces while hype surrounding people like Jihad Jane and other home growns comes to a furious boil.

If you haven't read 1984 lately I suggest a read or re-read. It seems he missed the date by about 30 years.

If the dems manage to pull this off how much do you want to bet the reps don't dismantle it the next time they get in?

[WormFisher]

Yeah that is about the same as when George Bush was telling us about how he had gained some political capitol when re-elected and he was going to use it.
Things always go towards the center over time.

[Vince E]

The "center" only means they are each capitalizing on the ground taken (that would by liberty destroyed) by the last team.

Like I said, if this bill should be unconstitutionally passed, how much would you bet the R's don't dismantle this in any real way when they next get in?
Quite the contrary, they will see the unconstitutional process by which the D's are pushing this through as a precedent set and use the same process themselves all the while waving the flag and paying deceitful lip service to the Constitution.

Fools think they are getting something for nothing when all they are doing is losing their rights and other fools think they are fighting something when all they are doing is losing their rights.

[WormFisher]

Like recess appointments which both sides have used to place judges and other appointees in positions.
Well the Supreme Court can decide that.
What liberty is being destroyed? Can you explain that please.

[Vince E]

Here's a quick and dirty list of Constitutional violations just in the last decade.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 64x2433743

The site blames Bush (rightfully so) but I haven't noticed the new guys repealing much of it. They run with the last guys violations and begin a new wave of their own, just like the last guys.
On and on.....

Another list:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=90360

I'm going to work on a list of Constitutional violations since the ink dried on the very document itself because I don't want to unfairly single out the Republicans when it comes to violating the Constitution, the original Republic and the free market system of capitalism this country was founded on. When I'm done I'll put it up here.

[Marty]

Here's a quick and dirty list of Constitutional violations just in the last decade.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 64x2433743

The site blames Bush (rightfully so) but I haven't noticed the new guys repealing much of it. They run with the last guys violations and begin a new wave of their own, just like the last guys.
On and on.....

What is wrong with this?

"The purpose of the CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the 'organic law' of our Country by United States Code Annotated. The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts. The CRA also protects and preserves the Constitution of the United States by restricting federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our land.[1]

[Vince E]

By itself, nothing really. It seems to have the restriction of powers as its core element which I will always agree with unless ulterior motives can be seen. Do Christian Republicans have an agenda of intertwining the Christian view of God more deeply into government? I'll give that a firm maybe.

The Declaration never made mention of just which view of God it might refer to. Leaving it as an ambiguous Creator would help with this part of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I happen to like this part of the Declaration best myself:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Marty]

Obamacare is going to be painful for the middle class. And it's no picnic for those that are struggling right now. The alternative?? Medicaid?? 50% of doctors don't treat patients with Medicaid. And now pharmacies are refusing service as well. Just as everyone predicted, ObamaCare will bring everyone down to the same crappy level of “minimum resultâ€

[Vince E]

The IRS can even confiscate your tax refund!! Does this sound like the America we want to become?!

Funny you should ask. I was just reading this before I came over here:

A popular slogan of the Italian Fascists under Mussolini was, “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Statoâ€

[Marty]

In addition to arm-twisting by Nasty Pelosi?, President Obamanation's outright bribery to get votes as in “Cornhusker kickbackâ€

[Vince E]

[quote] “Cornhusker kickbackâ€

[Marty]

1984?

There is a difference between “Newspeakâ€

[Vince E]

It's a sure bet that every time a scandal is given a nickname a large portion of people opposed to the party having been entangled in the scandal will hear the nickname, wave fists in the air, and belch knowing comments of condemnation towards said party, as this is just the sort of thing they expected from them, without having intellectually absorbed a single fact or detail about the incident in question. Like the bleating of sheep.

I'm not saying you do that. You pay a much greater attention to the details of such things than the average American to be sure.
I'm just saying that when we lend ourselves to the packaging of truly complex situations into conveniently sized, media friendly bits of language we mistakenly convey an undue simplicity of said events to those people not making the same efforts towards detailed understanding that you do, but express strong passions none the less. It fosters a "Just trust me, they are evil" sort of mentality.
This is a mistake, unless you are actually trying to fire up a dumbed down mob as opposed to spreading information in an educational manner.

I'm just sayin'. Sorry for the aside.