Does Mitt Romney forget about Romneycare?

Mitt Romney gave a policy speech on healthcare today, and not surprisingly, he criticized Obamacare. I don’t disagree with his views on Obamacare, but could someone remind him that he did a similar thing at the state level while he was Governor of Massachusetts. Romneycare, anyone?

I strongly agree with his speech’s focus on allowing states latitude to make decisions, portability, and free market solutions. Unfortunately, when he was in charge, he went the big government rout. Mitt has no street cred.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker should be commended for helping usher sweeping change in his state. Legislation supported by Walker would strip many collective bargaining rights from nearly all public unions. The legislation would save the state money and jobs in the long-run, but you would never know it from the reaction.

Union members are saying the Governor should be recalled, and so many teachers have called in sick, that some schools needed to be shut down. For them, it looks like the children’s well-being isn’t their top priority. As for these teachers, maybe some of them need to go back to school. Taking a logic class might be helpful.

Without this legislation, it will be necessary to lay-off 6,000 employees. The bill also doesn’t rule out salary increases, it just states that the raise cannot exceed the Consumer Price Index. Besides salary, it also requires a health insurance copay of 12.6%. For those of you in the private sector, how much do you pay toward your health insurance? Personally, I would love it if I only had to pay 12.6% percent of my current monthly health insurance bill, which costs me $445 per month for an individual plan.

This bill will almost certainly pass, and with any luck, it will embolden Governors and legislatures throughout the country to get serious about their financial situation. Most importantly, it will encourage them not to cower to the labor unions.

I would like to see Obamacare repealed, and I’m glad to see that a vote was taken on the issue. What we have here is nothing more than politicians standing on a soap box and wasting time. Anyone following the issue knows that the GOP doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to make any meaningful changes, yet they push on.

My guess is that they continue because they want something they can point to when they run for re-election next year. The problem is that it is taking time away from important matters that they might actually be able to solve. Unfortunately, this type of thinking, and these types of actions are far too prevalent in Washington.

At a meeting with constituents, Rep. Phil Hare says he doesn’t worry about the Constitution when it comes to Obamacare. Really? I wonder what other issues Rep. Hare feels are important enough to ignore the Constitution.

The next step is to keep our eyes on the immigration reform bill. Obamacare won’t provide health insurance for illegal aliens, but it will provide help for legal immigrants. If the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States receive amnesty, won’t that make them legal? Won’t they then be eligible for subsidized health care? It certainly looks that way to me.

Would you expect any less from the Obama administration? Subsidized goods and services, which will all have more recipients if amnesty is allowed yet again, will further increase our national debt. A whole new group of individuals will be added to the dependent class known as Democrats, while the increased number of dependent supporters will ensure a study march toward socialism.

Thanks to Barack Obama and progressive Democrats, our nation is turning further and further away from what made us great, until one day, it will be unrecognizable.

Once again, that eloquent Vice President of ours managed to put his foot ih his mouth. You would think that he would learn to keep his mouth shut when there are microphones around.

Representative Alcee Hastings admitted that Congress is ”making up the rules as we go along.” His comment illustrates how many of our Representatives feel they are above the rules, and lack respect for the Constitution. Floridians who voted for this man should be ashamed of themselves.

I’m strongly pro-choice, but I don’t want a dime of taxpayer money spent on abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. If one of these conditions doesn’t exist, then the abortion is an elective procedure used to remedy irresponsible behavior. What’s next, allowing people to get taxpayer funded liposuction because because they’re too lazy to exercise and eat right?

The bishops are right on this issue, but of course, they’re dead wrong on so much else. In the same letter, they criticize Congress for forcing legal immigrants to wait 5 years before they are eligible for Medicaid, and for supporting a bill that would prevent undocumented workers illegal aliens from purchasing insurance through an exchange. After all, the undocumented workers illegal aliens only trespassed into the country and spit on our laws on a daily basis. Why not give them a break?

If you’re a Catholic who agrees that illegal immigration is a major problem facing the United States, I ask that you withhold financial support for the church. Any hard-earned money you give to your local diocese will likely find its way into supporting those who are threatening our country’s economy.

Does Nancy Pelosi understand the Constitution?

If you’ve been following the health care debacle in Washington, then you’ve probably heard about how Nancy Pelosi and her henchmen are planning on using “deem and pass” to ram through health care reform. For those of you who aren’t familiar with this procedure, it will allow the House to pass the Senate version of the bill without actually having to vote on it. What if they don’t have the votes? No problem! Of course, this method could very well be ruled unconstitutional. Here’s Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Votes should be considered by yeas and nays. I’ve read Article 1, Section 7 several times, and not once did I see deem and pass mentioned. It’s very clear that Representatives are bound by the Constitution to vote for legislation, then have their votes recorded. Failure to do so will undoubtedly result in a legal challenge that will sink the bill.

Barack Obama as The Joker. I'm not laughing.

Washington Times writer Jeffrey Kuhner has an interesting column, where he argues that Barack Obama and his gang of leftists should be impeached. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Kuhner’s column:

Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party’s congressional majority and – most disturbing – our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country’s stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia.

The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime – a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy.

The blatant disdain being shown for the Constitution by Barack Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders is alarming. They show a complete lack of respect for the nation’s ideals, as well as its founding document. The Constitution is being treated like a bump that needs to be driven around, rather than the road to the true betterment of our nation.

I would like nothing better than to see Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Louise Slaughter, and Barack Obama out of a job. With that said, the way to bring about that result is through the midterm elections of 2010, and the Presidential election of 2012. Any talk of impeachment would only complicate matters further.

Barack Hussein Obama and his Congressional puppets will continue to damage this country, and it will leave the majority of Americans appalled at how their country has become a very different place in just 2 short years. The way to bring about this change is through elections, where voters will hold these scoundrels responsible for spitting on the Constitution and the foundation of this country.