Posts Tagged ‘up or down vote’

As Democrats Come Psychologically Unglued Over Judge Gorsuch, Remember What Dishonest Hypocrite Pieces Of Rat Filth They Are

April 4, 2017

As we see Democrats now going completely batpoop over an eminently qualified judge who received a unanimous confirmation vote when he was confirmed to the federal judgeship that was his stepping stone to the Supreme Court because he was so obviously qualified and so obviously a great choice, let’s take a trip down memory lane to examine whether Democrats have any legitimate moral grounds whatsoever to oppose – let alone try to block or filibuster – his nomination.

Let’s call those days “B.O.” for “Before Obama.”  Because Barack Obama brought a spirit of division over this nation that will literally likely be the death of this country.

Barack Obama is THE most bitterly polarizing, divisive force this nation has ever seen.  And now what he’s doing is being called a “government in exile.”

The Nazis called it a “Fifth Column.”  I call it “treason” against the United States and against the will of the people as expressed according to our democratic values and principles.

The Democrats are now “justifying” their attempt to sink this nation to a new, bitter, divisive, polarizing low because Republicans refused to call Obama’s pick (Judge Merrick Garland) for a full vote after the death of sitting Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Democrats would have you believe that they would NEVER EVER have EVER done anything like this.  Let’s see if that’s true, or if Democrats truly stands for “DEMOnic bureauCRATS” as I maintain it does.

I wrote this a couple of months ago.  It’s a good time to quote the actual, factual record again:

But let’s get back to Obama and the vile, vicious tactics that he inspired as our nations very first “community organizer” president.

Back in 2009 I was pointing out what a total, abject LIE the heart of the Obama promise to America had turned out to be.  This guy was so damn partisan that it was beyond unreal from the moment he took office.  And yet  The New York Times had written of Obama as candidate:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Was Obama EVER a man capable of rising above partisan politics?  No.  Not even CLOSE.  Absolutely not.  As an easy example of that, as a Senator he was one of THE most radical liberal-progressives and unsuccessfully tried to filibuster Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court.  Even Obama’s own party at that point acknowledged that what Obama tried to do was way, WAY too radical.

And so:

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

But the Democratic Party went über-fascist radical, and thus the toxic, divisive, polarizing Obama became the nominee of the Democratic Party and ultimately the president.  And the similarly über-fascist radical Joe Biden became vice president; and then the likewise über-fascist radical Hillary Clinton would sure-enough be the following rabid candidate for the Democrat Party machine.

Through his press mouthpiece, Obama as president would ultimately – and cowardly – come to say he “regretted” his decision to be one of the most leftist partisan members of the U.S. Senate when his own damn tactics were brought up in his face to reveal the utter and abject moral hypocrisy that is “Democratic Party.”

So it’s morally evil now to do what Obama did, you see.  Obama ought to be able to do it and get away with it, and later on when it becomes politically inconvenient, well, Obama ought to be able to retreat behind a press secretary mouthpiece and say that he now regrets it.  Such that Republicans have no right to do exactly what Obama himself did.

Let’s go back to Joe Biden: Because We also have the example of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden who in 1992 said when there was just a POSSIBILITY that George H.W. Bush MIGHT be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice:

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

President George H.W. Bush was in office until January 20, 1993.  So Biden didn’t even say this in a presidential election year – the way it was when our Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama demanded the divine right to replace conservative Scalia with a leftist of his choice – rather Biden said the Democrat garbage tactic applied even in the year BEFORE the election year.

Only Democrats are hypocrite enough to not be able to see what abject hypocrite roaches they are.

As we talk about the Republican response to Obama’s selection of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in an election year and the consequences of the Republican response today, allow me to take you on a trip down hypocrite Democrat lane from what I wrote at that time:

Democrats have a LONG history of doing the very thing they now claim is so evil:

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

Democrats have frequently played this same game.   New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, now the Senate Minority Leader and leader of all the Senate Democrats, said when a Republican was president that the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And so this incredibly dishonest claim from Obama and the Democrats is so much nonsense it is beyond unreal: if anything, it IS unprecedented, other than all the damn times THEY did the very thing they now so loudly and dishonestly and hypocritically insist that Republicans would be violating sacred precedent to do.

Let me keep going from my same article on just what hypocrite pieces of dishonest roach filth Democrats are:

Here’s another thing: the Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show.  No, no, no, the rules of all propriety and decency and civility go right out the damn window every damn time it pleases them.  Just like the Nazi Party and Jews, the Democrat Party calls the Republicans “evil” and then justifies the most wildly partisan and cynical “final solutions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court became a “super legislature” thanks to the wicked Democrat Party, where they ruled by imposing massive societal change by finding “penumbras and emanations” that justified whatever the HELL they wanted to do, the SCOTUS has become a political branch.  And Obama just started another vicious war while blathering dishonest words that he was somehow above doing the very thing he is clearly doing.

Who “fundamentally transformed” “nearly all of the Senate’s history”???  Don’t EVER forget it was the DEMOCRATS.  Just as it was the DEMOCRATS who invented Borking and it was the DEMOCRATS who are the ones who actually FILIBUSTER judicial appointments.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama BOTH did NOT have a Republican filibuster.  The ONLY two judges sitting on the court who didn’t receive sixty votes are Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.  Because the Democrat Party has been the official party of Butthurt for decades.

If you want to see what “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” truly looks like, look at what Democrats have done since Trump got elected.  These butthurt fascists are psychologically unhinged with rabid acts of “obstruction” taking place at every corner that no, you demon-possessed liars, the Republicans NEVER did.

It’s really not the “nuclear option”; it’s the “Harry Reid option”; it’s the “Democrat Party option.”  And it is a GOOD thing Republicans are now willing to use the same tactics Democrats used against them.  And it’s an evil, wicked thing that the mainstream media is FINALLY seeing this as an “extreme tactic” given that they somehow failed to think that way when their beloved Democrat Party was using the tactic to impose their will when THEY ran Washington.

And so, in that same vein, Charles Schumer – now the leader of the Democrat minority – controls a party that literally announced they were going to object to ANYONE Trump nominated simply because on their view, anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do is “unqualified” to serve.

Democrats actually swore they would filibuster Trump’s nominee even before Trump nominated anyone.

Democrats promise they will use the slander-tactic that they invented now known as “Borking”: This infamous Ted Kennedy slander was the worst of the slanders:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court.  But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

In the same manner, Justice Clarence Thomas literally faced down the Ku Klux Klan as a child who grew up as the child of a poor sharecropper in a house with a dirt floor – only to find the Democrats’ more evil and more psychotic and more dishonest.  As an example, the modern Klan monsters are BLACK Democrats who were willing to lynch Thomas for the sin of having a white wife.  And Democrats said in their vote, “You don’t get to do that and survive, uppity negro.”  They manufactured the very first “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves” by finding a backstabbing woman who had followed Judge Thomas from job to job for YEARS only to claim that he sexually harassed her the entire time that she had willingly kept following him.

And so, all the Obama crap about it being beyond the pale for a Senate to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court this way, all I can say in response is that now you get to eat Republican fecal matter right out of the toilet bowl, you wicked hypocrite butthurt LIARS.

When Barack Obama – after trying to community organize a filibuster against Bush SCOTUS appointees – appointed two far-left liberal progressive radicals to the Court, Republicans responded by allowing their nomination to go forward and even allowing their members to vote for her in a spirit of bipartisan compromise.  Because they believed a president ought to have a right to nominate judges out of his philosophy, especially on the Supreme Court, even when they personally disagree with those judges’ philosophy of jurisprudence.

So Democrats never had to exploit their own Harry Reid-invented “Democrat option” – a.k.a. the nuclear option – to get a vote for Obama’s SCOTUS picks because Republicans respected the process in a way that Democrats have now proven over and over again they are not capable of respecting.  It was Democrats who invented and then repeatedly used the politics of personal slander-destruction against Republican nominees.

Democrats are not human beings worthy of the name; they have abandoned as a matter of wicked philosophy any concept of the imago dei.  Democrats are evolved bugs, and they only capable of bug morality.  You could rescue a cockroach, nurture it back to health, feed it, but the moment it was time to reciprocate, that roach would happily EAT YOU ALIVE.

So what goes around comes around, Democrats.  What went around a few months ago – when Republicans refused to consider replacing the most conservative justice with an Obama-picked liberal that would overthrow the balance of the SCOTUS in an election year when the will of the people as expressed in the presidential vote was the best way to determine what the balance of the court should be – went around BECAUSE YOU DEMOCRATS STARTED IT.  Just like every other outrage, YOU did it FIRST.  Republicans didn’t do anything relating to Judge Garland that Democrats didn’t announce that they were going to do.  So let what you said you would do be done according to your word, Democrats.  Only it’s NEVER fascism when a fascist does anything, is it?  And what is now going around is the nuclear option that your side invented to use against the Republicans who are using your damned “Democrat option” now.

There is NOTHING worse than hypocrisy.  And Democrats prove every nanosecond of every day that they are the living, breathing embodiment of abject moral hypocrisy.

We are now watching Democrats across the country openly defying the laws of our land, which makes them by definition “lawless.”  If Democrats like a law, then they demand everyone else be compelled to follow that law.  Consider the Christian baker and the Christian wedding photographer who were bankrupted by Democrats because they didn’t believe in homosexual marriage and didn’t want to be forced to participate in it or endorse it.  Democrats rabidly threw EVERYTHING that hate could throw at those people whose crime was trying to live according to their faith that was the foundation for America from day one.   Consider the county clerk who refused to certify gay marriages: this woman was literally put in JAIL by Democrats for following her conscience.  Consider the Arizona law and Obama suing the state and saying immigration was the jurisdiction of the federal government and states and lower districts simply don’t have a right to interfere with the president’s federal policies.  Remember the Democrats’ argument back then that federal law PREEMPTS state law and that the federal government had the right to impose its will onto the states when it came to immigration enforcement.  Remember all that?  And now look at Democrats turn on all of that with a feral, rabid snarl when it comes to illegal immigration and our LAWS and say that they should have a right to have sanctuary cities and sanctuary states and that Donald Trump should be compelled to give them federal money in spite of their defiance of the law.

We are either a nation of laws or we are not.  The same liberals who say that Christians have no right whatsoever to a religious conscience in spite of the 1st Amendment very clearly saying something different now say that the ONLY right one can have is based on a LIBERAL conscience.  Or what I call a cockroach conscience.

Democrats are more than just genocidal baby-murdering sexual perverts today: they are true fascists who are as rabidly and even violently intolerant of anyone or anything they disagree with as the Nazis were.  They now claim that they have the right to “safe-spaces” which amounts to anyone who disagrees with them having the right to cease to exist.  Meanwhile they show up at rally after rally with VIOLENCE even as they cry that they are the victims of “intolerance.”  Because they are the very worst hypocrites in the history of the world.

Use the nuclear option.  Seat Justice Neil Gorsuch.  And next time, understanding that we are in a war to the death with liberals in this country, that we are literally fighting over whether this nation WILL survive and whether this nation even DESERVES to survive, next time get a far-rightwing pick who will truly be to the right what ACLU hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been to the left.  The next judge should believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document subject to change, believing that a judge ought to be the determiner of whether our society changes or not, and impose his hard right conservative Republican will on the law.  Because, after all, he’s a judge, and the law is after all whatever the hell a judge says it is.  And we should keep forcing judges like that now until the left finally understands that the only hope for this nation is a return to what our founding fathers demanded from judges: that they interpret the law according to the unchanging standards of the Constitution of the United States unless and until the Congress amends it according to the system the founders provided, rather than cite “penumbras” and “emanations” as their basis for imposing their preferences onto the law of the land.

Advertisements

REAL Reason For ObamaCare: ‘To maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass the bill’

March 6, 2010

Obama says, “To maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass the bill.”

I thought ObamaCare was supposed to be all about reforming the health care system to make it somehow better.  Nope.  The REAL point of it is to “maintain a strong Obama presidency.”

Thanks but no thanks, Zero.

I mean, don’t get me wrong.  It’s a real tempting offer to support a hard-core partisan liberal big government takeover of our health care system to help you create the illusion that you aren’t such a total loser, after all.  But I think I’ll pass, just the same.

Bam feeling queasy
Pleads for health Rx – for sake of presidency
By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
March 5, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama yesterday pushed wavering House members to OK health-care legislation for his own political standing and for theirs, as the battle came down to a bare-knuckle brawl for votes.

Obama met with groups of liberal and more conservative Democrats in the White House to try to assemble a winning coalition.

“To maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass the bill,” Obama told the liberals, according to Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who attended the meeting.

“He made a very pointed, very realistic case about how this is an opportunity that won’t come around for a long time.”

The heightened presidential pressure came on a day when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said a dozen centrist Democrats weren’t willing to swallow Senate language that they say provides federal funding for abortion.

“We’re not going to vote for the bill with that language in there,” Stupak, who leads a faction of anti-abortion Democrats who have voted for health reform, told ABC yesterday.

Congressional leaders say they want to bring Obama’s top legislative priority up for a vote by the end of the month.

On Wednesday, Obama called on Congress to stop debating and hold an “up-or-down vote” using a hard-line tactic called “reconciliation” and having the House take up the Senate-passed bill.

Now that push comes to shove, we see who this health care takeover is and always was about: Obama and the Democrats who don’t want to govern, but rule over us.

Not, “Do it for the people” who clearly don’t want this 2,700-page monstrosity, but rather, please do this for your messiah’s political standing.

And then we find that Obama “made a very pointed, very realistic case” for his chief of staff’s argument that “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  Thus we have the continuation of the age-old philosophy of the demagogue: jump on a crisis and ride it to a self-serving power-mad agenda.

And in order to advance his self-serving, power-mad agenda, Obama calls upon a maneuver that he personally harshly attacked only a few years ago:

“You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives–and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion–is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we identify our core base, we throw them red meat, we get a 50-plus-1 victory. But see, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus, because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority.”–Center for American Progress, July 12, 2006

Obama told us how bad that Rove guy was just a few years ago.  Funny, but I don’t remember Karl Rove trying to ram through a partisan agenda that would take over nearly 20% of our economy.

So Obama demonized Karl Rove, but now he’s going to be worse, more partisan, and more destructive to government than Karl Rove ever was.

I understand why “Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus” given your demonization of him, Barry Hussein.  The bigger question now is, “Why don’t YOU need a broad consensus?”

Why is he going to do that?  Well, to “to maintain a strong presidency,” of course.

Could there even BE a more noble reason for Obama to ruin our health care system and our very system of government than to save his political ass?

Obama told us that reconciliation was “simply majoritarian absolute power” which was “just not what the founders intended.”

And just what did our founding fathers intend?

Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great “anchor” of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to “cool” House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.

Ah, but that flies in the face of the demagogue’s “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” philosophy.  And heck, it even flies in the face of “maintaining a strong presidency” now that Obama has foolishly bet his political farm on ramming through his ObamaCare boondoggle.

So now, by all means, let us ignore what the founders intended, let us have that “simply majoritarian absolute power.”  Let us take that scalding hot tea and pour it down the throat of the Senate.  Let us – again, in Obama’s very own words – “change the character of the Senate forever.”

Does the man whose core promise to the nation

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

– now want to be the most poisonous political figure in our nation’s history?  Because this hard-core partisan takeover of our nation’s health care system and nearly a fifth of the nation’s economy is going to create the most bitter, partisan, and ugly war we’ve seen since the Civil War.  And that is a fact.

Again, in Obama’s very own words:

You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics which is you have nasty primaries where everybody’s disheartened and beaten up. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, and 45 percent on the other, and 10 percent in the middle and (unintelligible) and Florida behind. And battle it out and then maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks for being president. But you can’t, you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a 50 plus one strategy. We’re not going to have a serious, bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority.

Is it okay for a president to completely violate his word and credibility for the sake of his “strong presidency”?  He said “we’re NOT” going to do the thing he is now doing.  “Break OUT of the 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics“?  Obama is storming the gates to rush IN.  No president has even TRIED to pass something to big and so fundamental and so radically transformative with this vile strategy.  Is it okay to totally divide the country and poison our system and our society this way for the sake of a “strong presidency”?

Let me put it this way: if Republicans take back the country, and use reconciliation to impose the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs and Burn Them Alive” Act, do you want Republicans to be able to justify their actions by quoting Barack Obama?

You Democrats, don’t you think for a SECOND that what you are doing now won’t one day come back at you with a vengeance that will leave you even more stunned and terrified than conservatives are today.

Obama’s “strong presidency” will see this country burning in flames.

Obama’s Lies And Hypocrisy In Calling For Reconciliation

March 4, 2010

Barack Obama is a liar and a hypocrite who is fundamentally not to be trusted.  And I can prove that charge with his very own words.

From March 3 via UPI:

Obama outlined his proposal that included several Republican-generated ideas and called on Congress to pass healthcare reform within the next several weeks. By calling for an up-or-down vote, Obama noted that several major bills passed by a simple majority — otherwise known as reconciliation, a parliamentary procedure — during several previous administrations, including that of George W. Bush.

Do you want to know how extreme reconciliation is?  Just ask Barry Hussein:

Obama’s Discarded Wisdom
Breitbart.tv has a terrific two-minute video featuring clips of Barack Obama commenting on the need to build consensus before attempting to enact major social legislation. (If the above link doesn’t work, try this one.) As a public service, we’ve transcribed the Obama comments:

• “My understanding of the Senate is, is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?“–CBS-TV election night interview, Nov. 2, 2004

• “The bottom line is that our health-care plans are similar. The question, once again, is: Who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we’re going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We’re going to have to have a majority, to get the bill to my desk, that is not just a 50-plus-1 majority.”–Change to Win convention, Sept. 25, 2007

• “You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus 1, but you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One–I mean, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on health care. We’re not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy.”–interview with the Concord (N.H.) Monitor, Oct. 9, 2007

• “You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives–and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion–is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we identify our core base, we throw them red meat, we get a 50-plus-1 victory. But see, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus, because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority.”–Center for American Progress, July 12, 2006

Although the site that originated the video seems to be anti-Obama in orientation (it’s called Naked Emperor News, presumably meant to compare the president to the character in the fable), we must say that most of what Obama said back then is eminently sensible. He explained almost as well as we can why what he is doing now–pushing Congress to “transform the country” precisely via a “50-plus-1” strategy, is so foolish and dangerous.

Observers will disagree over what combination of ideological radicalism, egomania and sheer cynicism is motivating him, but what is clear is that President Obama is quite different from what Candidate Obama advertised.

Which is a polite way of saying he’s a galling hypocrite who deceitfully said one thing, and then actually did the very opposite thing.

Is Obama worse than Karl Rove, on his very own criterion???  If so, than Democrats should despise him more than they do Karl Rove, unless they too are the same sort of hypocrites.  Further, can we now take this to mean that Barack Obama does not believe in government in the same way he demonized Rove???

Is Obama now proving that he is a “government atheist”?

Barack Obama deserves to be reviled based on his very own standard of judgment.

This is a more substantial citation of one of the Obama quotes above:

You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics which is you have nasty primaries where everybody’s disheartened and beaten up. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, and 45 percent on the other, and 10 percent in the middle and (unintelligible) and Florida behind. And battle it out and then maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks for being president. But you can’t, you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a 50 plus one strategy. We’re not going to have a serious, bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority.

Obama specifically said he would disavow the very strategy that he is now embracing.

Barack Obama is at the very top of a list of vehemently reconciliation-damning quotes from Democrats compiled by Human Events:

Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

Would you like to know why Obama said the founding fathers never intended the thing that he is despicably now trying to do?  Here’s how the founding fathers described the US Senate:

Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great “anchor” of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to “cool” House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.

Obama is now calling for that which he has already publicly recognized as being something that would “change the character of the Senate forever” in a way he acknowledged was “not what the founders intended.”

Can we all just agree that Obama is unAmerican now???

The Republicans were different back in 2005 from the Democrats today when this argument last took place.  And as usual, they were better.  They didn’t follow through using a procedure that was designed to pass a budget (which is what reconciliation was intended to resolve) for a frankly unconstitutional use.   They certainly didn’t use it to place nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy under the thrall of their party, as Democrats are trying to do now.

Have the Republicans ever been hypocrites on the issue of reconciliation?  I’m sure they have.  But that’s besides the point in the sense that the Democrats – if they use the procedure now – stand utterly condemned as liars and hypocrites by their very own words:

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation.

Joe Biden 5/23/2005: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.”

Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: “I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority.

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: “If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient — well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so.”

Joe Biden 5/23/05: “I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you won’t own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”

Max Baucus 5/19/2005: “This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

This is a procedure that should simply not be used to pass major legislation which essentially transform nearly a fifth of the economy, and which literally puts our lives and our freedoms on the line.

Major polls such as Rasmussen (44% favoring versus 52% oppose) and Gallup (42% favoring versus 49% opposed) across the board demonstrate that the American people do not want this 2,700 page monstrosity.  The American people not only oppose ObamaCare, but they oppose it by greater margins than that which propelled Obama into the White House.

Just how is it, given that the people clearly do not want this, that the Democrats have any right whatsoever to use a procedure which they themselves demonized to ram it through.