December 24, 2009
December 23, 2009
Wither Sovereignty
Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next
By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton | December 23, 2009
Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.
After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.
Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).
And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.
Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)
Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.
Context: International Criminal Court
The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.
We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).
29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)
President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.
President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.
President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.
However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.
Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.
"Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.
The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.
President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.
CONCLUSIONS
In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.
The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.
When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.
For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.
This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.
Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.
I seem to recall the Left getting hysterical over the Patriot Act extensions that Obama finally backed. This gives Interpol a much wider operational latitude than anything contemplated in the Patriot Act, and with no accountability at all.
I mentioned over a year ago, be careful, be very careful, this man was dangerous and here is the proof. This needs to be made public and rescinded, otherwise the consequences will be devastating.
By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton | December 23, 2009
Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.
After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.
Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).
And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.
Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)
Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.
Context: International Criminal Court
The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.
We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).
29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)
President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.
President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.
President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.
However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.
Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.
"Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.
The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.
President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.
CONCLUSIONS
In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.
The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.
When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.
For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.
This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.
Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.
I seem to recall the Left getting hysterical over the Patriot Act extensions that Obama finally backed. This gives Interpol a much wider operational latitude than anything contemplated in the Patriot Act, and with no accountability at all.
I mentioned over a year ago, be careful, be very careful, this man was dangerous and here is the proof. This needs to be made public and rescinded, otherwise the consequences will be devastating.
Home Sales Plunge 'Unexpectedly'
It was "unexpected" since by now all Americans were supposed to be safely ensconced in the home of their dreams with Barack Obama paying their mortgages and utility bills, health care was going to be "free" for all, the world was going to love us again, Club Gitmo was to be shuttered, thereby improving our "image" around the world, Obama would have reduced the sea levels while eliminating mythical global warming and shiny magic unicorns would be delivering toys for all the kids. Or was that Santa Obama?
Whatever, you have to laugh at these clowns from AP. Whenever it's depressing economic news somehow it's unexpected. Seriously, what alternate reality are they living in?
Sales of new homes plunged unexpectedly last month to the lowest level since April, a sign the housing market recovery will be rocky.
The 11 percent slump from October's pace shows that consumers are taking their time following an extension of a deadline for first-time buyers to qualify for a tax credit. The incentive was set to expire at the end of November, but Congress pushed back the date to April 30 and expanded the program to include current homeowners who relocate.
"They don't have to act today," said David Crowe, chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders, who called the results "pretty awful."
Of course for those living here on Planet Earth, none of this was unexpected.
Builders clearly saw the drop coming: the National Association of Home Builders said last week its index of industry confidence fell to the lowest level since June. The trade group blamed high unemployment and a slow economic recovery that are stifling demand.
Those who produce know the reality. Those who take, take, take and produce nothing (read: Washington and the media), for them reality is what they want to believe on any given day.
H/T Jed.
Labels: U.S. economy
Courtesy of JammieWearingFool
Whatever, you have to laugh at these clowns from AP. Whenever it's depressing economic news somehow it's unexpected. Seriously, what alternate reality are they living in?
Sales of new homes plunged unexpectedly last month to the lowest level since April, a sign the housing market recovery will be rocky.
The 11 percent slump from October's pace shows that consumers are taking their time following an extension of a deadline for first-time buyers to qualify for a tax credit. The incentive was set to expire at the end of November, but Congress pushed back the date to April 30 and expanded the program to include current homeowners who relocate.
"They don't have to act today," said David Crowe, chief economist at the National Association of Home Builders, who called the results "pretty awful."
Of course for those living here on Planet Earth, none of this was unexpected.
Builders clearly saw the drop coming: the National Association of Home Builders said last week its index of industry confidence fell to the lowest level since June. The trade group blamed high unemployment and a slow economic recovery that are stifling demand.
Those who produce know the reality. Those who take, take, take and produce nothing (read: Washington and the media), for them reality is what they want to believe on any given day.
H/T Jed.
Labels: U.S. economy
Courtesy of JammieWearingFool
December 22, 2009
Harry Reid Turns Dictator
By William Teach December 22, 2009 – 3:00 pm
Via The Jawa Report through Confederate Yankee, from The Weekly Standard, we learn (blockquote is from CY, subsection comes from TWS)
The language of Section 3403 seems rather explicit:
SUBSECTION.—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.
Ed Morrissey’s take is that Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to bind the decisions future Congresses can make, which would including passing new laws, amending existing laws, or repealing laws. Reid is demanding not just power over the currentCongress, but any future Congress as well.
Section 3403 is referring to “the Independent Medicare Advisory Board—the death panel Democrats claim doesn’t exist.”
Constitution smonshtitution. After 8 years listening to Democrats/liberals/progressives/surrender monkeys whine about Bush destroying the Constitution, in one sentence we have actual proof regarding how much the Dems actually care about said Constitution.
Via The Jawa Report through Confederate Yankee, from The Weekly Standard, we learn (blockquote is from CY, subsection comes from TWS)
The language of Section 3403 seems rather explicit:
SUBSECTION.—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.
Ed Morrissey’s take is that Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to bind the decisions future Congresses can make, which would including passing new laws, amending existing laws, or repealing laws. Reid is demanding not just power over the currentCongress, but any future Congress as well.
Section 3403 is referring to “the Independent Medicare Advisory Board—the death panel Democrats claim doesn’t exist.”
Constitution smonshtitution. After 8 years listening to Democrats/liberals/progressives/surrender monkeys whine about Bush destroying the Constitution, in one sentence we have actual proof regarding how much the Dems actually care about said Constitution.
Representative Democracy Thrown Away In Senate Bill
I have been warning since early June about the danger of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board.
IMAB is a board appointed by the President with congressional approval, to submit recommendations on Medicare payments and costs. IMAB is modeled, somewhat, on the Base Closing Commission which made recommendations on shrinking the military base structure in the late 1980s and 1990s.
IMAB's recommendations will have the force of law under the Senate bill unless rejected by Congress in toto. Congress cannot accept one recommendation and reject another.
The purpose of IMAB is to take hard decisions on Medicare out of the hands of politicians, but the analogy to the Base Closing Commission does not hold:
The analogy of closing military bases to making health care costs decisions is fallacious. The base closing commission was a reaction to large excess capacity in military bases, largely as a result of pork barrel earmarks. Taking politicians out of the closing process was the only way to close military bases, so that politicians would not take the blame. There is no excess capacity, however, in health care services. To the contrary, if anything, there is a lack of capacity, or at least a capacity which costs too much because of new technologies and treatments.
As Erick Erickson points out in a post last night, the Senate legislation on IMAB goes even further than one could imagine. The Senate not only delegates the hard decisions to IMAB, it imposes a very tight timeline for consideration by the Congress, and precludes the Congress from ever changing the legislation.
Here is the applicable text from the Senate bill (at page 1020):
‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.—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.
‘‘(D) WAIVER.—This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
Erickson points out that this legislation violates current Senate Rules, because it changes Senate Rules without the necessary 2/3 majority vote. Erickson quotes from, and summarizes, Senator Jim Demint's challenge this process, to no avail:
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.
In this rush to pass legislation by Christmas, the most fundamental aspect of representative democracy is being lost. The Democrats are about to pass legislation which divests the Congress of its ability to change legislation.
This is what we have come to. A Democratic majority ready to hand over a fundamental aspect of our health care system to an unelected panel without any future Congress being able to change this procedure.
Some readers have e-mailed me asking if this is constitutional. The answer is that I don't know, and in the rush to pass this by the day after tomorrow, no one will have time to fully sort through this issue. But that is the point of the rush. Load up the legislation with so many controversial points that no one can figure it all out prior to the vote.
We are like lambs led to the slaughter.
Borrowed from: Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/
IMAB is a board appointed by the President with congressional approval, to submit recommendations on Medicare payments and costs. IMAB is modeled, somewhat, on the Base Closing Commission which made recommendations on shrinking the military base structure in the late 1980s and 1990s.
IMAB's recommendations will have the force of law under the Senate bill unless rejected by Congress in toto. Congress cannot accept one recommendation and reject another.
The purpose of IMAB is to take hard decisions on Medicare out of the hands of politicians, but the analogy to the Base Closing Commission does not hold:
The analogy of closing military bases to making health care costs decisions is fallacious. The base closing commission was a reaction to large excess capacity in military bases, largely as a result of pork barrel earmarks. Taking politicians out of the closing process was the only way to close military bases, so that politicians would not take the blame. There is no excess capacity, however, in health care services. To the contrary, if anything, there is a lack of capacity, or at least a capacity which costs too much because of new technologies and treatments.
As Erick Erickson points out in a post last night, the Senate legislation on IMAB goes even further than one could imagine. The Senate not only delegates the hard decisions to IMAB, it imposes a very tight timeline for consideration by the Congress, and precludes the Congress from ever changing the legislation.
Here is the applicable text from the Senate bill (at page 1020):
‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.—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.
‘‘(D) WAIVER.—This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
Erickson points out that this legislation violates current Senate Rules, because it changes Senate Rules without the necessary 2/3 majority vote. Erickson quotes from, and summarizes, Senator Jim Demint's challenge this process, to no avail:
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.
In this rush to pass legislation by Christmas, the most fundamental aspect of representative democracy is being lost. The Democrats are about to pass legislation which divests the Congress of its ability to change legislation.
This is what we have come to. A Democratic majority ready to hand over a fundamental aspect of our health care system to an unelected panel without any future Congress being able to change this procedure.
Some readers have e-mailed me asking if this is constitutional. The answer is that I don't know, and in the rush to pass this by the day after tomorrow, no one will have time to fully sort through this issue. But that is the point of the rush. Load up the legislation with so many controversial points that no one can figure it all out prior to the vote.
We are like lambs led to the slaughter.
Borrowed from: Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/
2010 – It’s gonna be a good year!
An approval rating I love to see – one in the shitter!
Let’s don’t forget it was this White House that, in a very Rahm-esque move, “allegedly” threatened to close Offut AFB unless Ben Nelson got on board the health care express.
— A White House that was willing to put national security at risk in order to get this monstrous health care debacle passed through the Senate.
Yep. This is going to be a good year!
First They Came For The Tanning Industry...
What did the tanning industry ever do to deserve being singled out for a new 10% surtax on all indoor tanning services in Harry Reid's Manager's Amendment?
The tanning tax was a substitute for the cosmetic surgery tax (a/k/a Botax) in the prior bill.
This may seem inconsequential, and to some extent it is. The revenues raised will be insignificant in terms of the overall cost of health care. It also is unlikely that the tanning industry will be able to defend itself. And there doesn't seem to be a pro-tanning political movement.
The purported justification is the claim that use of tanning services contributes to skin cancer, although it seems that overuse of tanning services might be the culprit. But so is over-sunning at the beach or poolside, so why not tax beach clubs and shut down public pools? The justification for a tanning tax results from the same pseudo-scientific logic being used at the state level to try to tax sodas and sugary drinks.
The random nature of this tax is what is worrisome. An out-of-favor industry, with no substantial political muscle, is singled out by an avaricious Congress at the last minute in a secret backroom deal.
The significance of the tanning tax is that the government, in its thirst for funds to fund government expansion, will attack the weakest link. Today, the tanning industry is the weakest link, tomorrow who will it be?
Yeah, it's one of those "first they came for the tanning industry..." moments. Sounds funny, but it's no joke
Borrowed from: Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
The tanning tax was a substitute for the cosmetic surgery tax (a/k/a Botax) in the prior bill.
This may seem inconsequential, and to some extent it is. The revenues raised will be insignificant in terms of the overall cost of health care. It also is unlikely that the tanning industry will be able to defend itself. And there doesn't seem to be a pro-tanning political movement.
The purported justification is the claim that use of tanning services contributes to skin cancer, although it seems that overuse of tanning services might be the culprit. But so is over-sunning at the beach or poolside, so why not tax beach clubs and shut down public pools? The justification for a tanning tax results from the same pseudo-scientific logic being used at the state level to try to tax sodas and sugary drinks.
The random nature of this tax is what is worrisome. An out-of-favor industry, with no substantial political muscle, is singled out by an avaricious Congress at the last minute in a secret backroom deal.
The significance of the tanning tax is that the government, in its thirst for funds to fund government expansion, will attack the weakest link. Today, the tanning industry is the weakest link, tomorrow who will it be?
Yeah, it's one of those "first they came for the tanning industry..." moments. Sounds funny, but it's no joke
Borrowed from: Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
December 21, 2009
Glad I'm not Ben Nelson....
A Nebraska doctor’s message for Ben Nelson, along with an update, re-posted from Michelle Malkin.
Dr. Becky Hollibaugh of Friend, Nebraska e-mailed me her message for sellout Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) this morning:
Hello Michelle:
I’m a family practice doctor in Nebraska. I sent the following (angry,I admit) letter to Senator Nelson. I urge your readers (from Nebraska and elsewhere) to do likewise, in their own words!
Dear Senator Nelson:
I send this message under “Tort Reform” because the current monstrosity you have pledged your support to says nothing whatsoever about Tort Reform. You have sold the physicians of Nebraska for zilch (zilch for us, but beaucoup federal bucks for you and the liberal partisans in this state). As a family practice physician in Small Town, Nebraska, I was counting on you to be the lone voice of Democratic sanity on this issue, but you sold me out. I will dedicate
every spare minute of my time and every spare dollar I have to defeating you, should you run for re-election. The long hours I spent on my medical education and the long hours I spend treating my patients are nothing but chump change to you and your Democrat colleagues in Washington. I especially can’t wait for your equivocation and milquetoast evasion when your “compromises” on the abortion language in the bill are silently erased or quietly (on-little-legislative-cat’s-feet) eviscerated in the House/Senate give-and-take. Go on: Bet me that you won’t wuss-out on this issue!
I know you won’t give two-seconds to this letter, but I had to write it. I’m a primary care doctor in YOUR state, and you sold me out. I didn’t slog through 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency just to have you hand my career and my patient/doctor relationships over to government lifers. Your gutless acquiescence to Obama and Harry Reid and ‘Nanny’ Pelosi will NOT be forgotten.
Thank you, Ben, for forcing doctors like me to earn less than the repairmen who fix our appliances. Case in point: We recently had our dishwasher fixed. The repairman who came to our house charged $65 just to come and ‘diagnose’ the problem, then charged another $180 to ‘fix’ the problem. You and your fellow lawmakers have fixed MY going rate (Medicare) at $35 per-visit. Thank you for securing such a ‘lucrative’ rate for me! Thank you so much for making me–someone with 8 years of education!–make less than a mechanic or appliance repair technichian. And thanks especially for falling in line with Obama and the rest of the Democrats to make such a socialist system permanent.
You have my disgust and disdain forever, you socialist-coddling coward.
Sincerely,
Becky F. Hollibaugh, D.O.
Warren Memorial Hospital
Ziimmerman Clinic
Friend, NE 68359
***
Dr. Hollibaugh adds in an e-mail update in response to left-wing critics:
Thank you so much for making it more widely available.
…To those who would accuse me of greed: I don’t make as much as you think I do. I give every one of my patients the very best care I can offer, regardless of their ability to pay. And I do NOT begrudge my mechanic or my appliance repairmen their salaries. Not one bit. I gladly pay them what I owe them. What you leftist idiots don’t understand is this: I am forced to accept $35 for an office visit by a medicaid or medicare patient. I. Can’t. Afford. It. On that enforced wage, I can’t pay my nurses. I can’t pay my billing secretaries. I can’t pay my receptionist. I. Can’t. Survive. On. Obamacare. Get it?! I. Can’t. Pay. My. Nurses. On. Ben. Nelson. Wages. Get it? I hope so. You think I’m greedy? I went to medical school as a former nurse at age 36. I have over $180,000 dollars in student loans. I. Can’t. Survive. On. Obamacare. I hope this helps. I don’t make as much as you might think. And most
of what I earn goes to repaying my student loans. I love my little family medicine clinic in Friend. I love being a doctor in rural Nebraska. I love my patients and I love rural family medicine. But Ben Nelson sold me out. Thanks again for letting me vent. I’m not greedy. I don’t envy the wages of my blue-collar friends. But I can’t survive or pay my employees on Uncle Sam’s reimbursement rate for my services.
We need to have all Doctors stand up and voice their opinion and maybe we can get this crap sandwitch overturned.
Dr. Becky Hollibaugh of Friend, Nebraska e-mailed me her message for sellout Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) this morning:
Hello Michelle:
I’m a family practice doctor in Nebraska. I sent the following (angry,I admit) letter to Senator Nelson. I urge your readers (from Nebraska and elsewhere) to do likewise, in their own words!
Dear Senator Nelson:
I send this message under “Tort Reform” because the current monstrosity you have pledged your support to says nothing whatsoever about Tort Reform. You have sold the physicians of Nebraska for zilch (zilch for us, but beaucoup federal bucks for you and the liberal partisans in this state). As a family practice physician in Small Town, Nebraska, I was counting on you to be the lone voice of Democratic sanity on this issue, but you sold me out. I will dedicate
every spare minute of my time and every spare dollar I have to defeating you, should you run for re-election. The long hours I spent on my medical education and the long hours I spend treating my patients are nothing but chump change to you and your Democrat colleagues in Washington. I especially can’t wait for your equivocation and milquetoast evasion when your “compromises” on the abortion language in the bill are silently erased or quietly (on-little-legislative-cat’s-feet) eviscerated in the House/Senate give-and-take. Go on: Bet me that you won’t wuss-out on this issue!
I know you won’t give two-seconds to this letter, but I had to write it. I’m a primary care doctor in YOUR state, and you sold me out. I didn’t slog through 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency just to have you hand my career and my patient/doctor relationships over to government lifers. Your gutless acquiescence to Obama and Harry Reid and ‘Nanny’ Pelosi will NOT be forgotten.
Thank you, Ben, for forcing doctors like me to earn less than the repairmen who fix our appliances. Case in point: We recently had our dishwasher fixed. The repairman who came to our house charged $65 just to come and ‘diagnose’ the problem, then charged another $180 to ‘fix’ the problem. You and your fellow lawmakers have fixed MY going rate (Medicare) at $35 per-visit. Thank you for securing such a ‘lucrative’ rate for me! Thank you so much for making me–someone with 8 years of education!–make less than a mechanic or appliance repair technichian. And thanks especially for falling in line with Obama and the rest of the Democrats to make such a socialist system permanent.
You have my disgust and disdain forever, you socialist-coddling coward.
Sincerely,
Becky F. Hollibaugh, D.O.
Warren Memorial Hospital
Ziimmerman Clinic
Friend, NE 68359
***
Dr. Hollibaugh adds in an e-mail update in response to left-wing critics:
Thank you so much for making it more widely available.
…To those who would accuse me of greed: I don’t make as much as you think I do. I give every one of my patients the very best care I can offer, regardless of their ability to pay. And I do NOT begrudge my mechanic or my appliance repairmen their salaries. Not one bit. I gladly pay them what I owe them. What you leftist idiots don’t understand is this: I am forced to accept $35 for an office visit by a medicaid or medicare patient. I. Can’t. Afford. It. On that enforced wage, I can’t pay my nurses. I can’t pay my billing secretaries. I can’t pay my receptionist. I. Can’t. Survive. On. Obamacare. Get it?! I. Can’t. Pay. My. Nurses. On. Ben. Nelson. Wages. Get it? I hope so. You think I’m greedy? I went to medical school as a former nurse at age 36. I have over $180,000 dollars in student loans. I. Can’t. Survive. On. Obamacare. I hope this helps. I don’t make as much as you might think. And most
of what I earn goes to repaying my student loans. I love my little family medicine clinic in Friend. I love being a doctor in rural Nebraska. I love my patients and I love rural family medicine. But Ben Nelson sold me out. Thanks again for letting me vent. I’m not greedy. I don’t envy the wages of my blue-collar friends. But I can’t survive or pay my employees on Uncle Sam’s reimbursement rate for my services.
We need to have all Doctors stand up and voice their opinion and maybe we can get this crap sandwitch overturned.
Obama’s December Gitmo surprise
Don’t you love our open, transparent, most ethical ever White House?
Team Obama chose the weekend before Christmas, with Americans wrapped up in the holidays and the Senate occupied with its dead-of-night Demcare deal, to release 12 Gitmo detainees back to their home countries:
Add a middle of the night vote on health care and now we see the true color of their eyes. They all have to be voted out of office or we as a nation are screwed.
Team Obama chose the weekend before Christmas, with Americans wrapped up in the holidays and the Senate occupied with its dead-of-night Demcare deal, to release 12 Gitmo detainees back to their home countries:
Add a middle of the night vote on health care and now we see the true color of their eyes. They all have to be voted out of office or we as a nation are screwed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)