Want to be a Congressman? Stupak and others targeted and threatened (Listen)

Bart Stupak Left Threatening Messages for Health Care Vote

In the wake of his vote in favor of health care reform legislation, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), a strong opponent of abortion rights, has been on the receiving end of a string of extremely hostile and threatening messages, including death threats.

Stupak's office released some of those messages to CBS News, and you can listen to them here.

"Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother f***er... I hope you bleed out your a**, got cancer and die, you mother f***er," one man says in a message to Stupak.

"There are millions of people across the country who wish you ill," a woman says in a voicemail, "and all of those thoughts that are projected on you will materialize into something that's not very good for you."

CBS News also obtained copies of faxes sent to Stupak, which include racial epithets used in reference to President Obama and show pictures of nooses with Stupak's name.

Read the rest of the article at CBS News

Prior to the vote, Stupak also received threatening messages from supporters of the Health Insurance Legislation.

The Catholic Failure

From March 22nd post on The New Ledger Blog:

The roster of names is so long that its recitation would be a total rebuke to the authority of any American Catholic bishop now living and many dead. Kennedy, Leahy, Kucinich, Drinan, Durbin, Pelosi, Casey (Jr.), Mitchell, Sebelius, Cuomo, I could go on. These are men and women who have made it the goal of their careers to advocate the abortion license, to preserve it and expand it. The leaders in the fight to keep public funding of abortion were overwhelmingly self-professed Catholics. Last night, they succeeded.


They teach by word and act that abortion is, at worst, an unfortunately necessary convenience, and is more often a good. They create scandal. They do so as Catholics.

Who among them has been publicly remonstrated by his bishop? Who among them has had to stand in public and choose between an honest recitation of the Nicene Creed and Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Who among them has been reminded of Christ’s injunction about scandal and millstones where their audiences and constituencies can hear?

Why would anyone expect Bart Stupak — otherwise a consummate Democrat — to hold up a health care reform bill against his Party and his Party’s President when even the men who are supposed to stand against evil every waking moment of their lives appear more concerned about the environment, about immigrant rights, about the death penalty? What Catholic sitting in the pews or watching on TV would think there’s anything wrong with abortion when Mario Cuomo’s dishonest justification has stood without censure or excommunication for over a quarter of a century?

The blood of millions will now be shed by the public coffers. That blood lies on the hands of the men with mitres.

Read the entire post at The New Ledger

Health Care for ALL Americans . . . except senior officials and their staff

New Ledger writer and blogger Ben Domenech writes of a little discussed portion of the recent Health Care Legislation that exempts "senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans."

A major story during the course of the health care debate was whether members of Congress would commit to placing themselves in the same health care exchanges as average citizens, or whether they would hang on to their government plans — that’s why leadership chose to add this portion to the bill, serving as a guarantee that members would participate in the same health plans as the people. Here’s the relevant text:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

But as with a lot of legislative matters, the devil is in the details — or in this case, the definitions. As anyone who’s worked on Capitol Hill knows, the personal office staff for a member is governed by different rules than those who work on committees and in the leadership offices. It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).

(ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:

(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.

(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

According to the Congressional Research Service, this definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” — meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.

This problem was acknowledged earlier in the process — last year, Senator Grassley tried to repair it, but he was rebuffed.

As Speaker Pelosi said a few weeks ago, it’s only after this legislation is passed that we’ll truly find out what’s in it.

For his part Senator Chuck Grassley is renewing his efforts to show the Democratic Leaders hypocrisy for what it is.

Grassley says health care reform should apply to President Obama, top administration officials


WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said he will offer an amendment during Senate debate on the health care reconciliation bill this week to apply the reform legislation to the President, Vice President, cabinet members and top White House staff.

“It’s pretty unbelieveable that the President and his closest advisors remain untouched by the reforms they pushed for the rest of the country. In other words, President Obama’s health care reform won’t apply to President Obama,” Grassley said. “Last December, the effort to apply any new law to administration political leaders was rejected by the Senate Majority Leader. But there’s no justification for the double standard, and I’ll continue to work to establish fairness.”

The Senate legislation passed last night by the House of Representatives includes an amendment Grassley sponsored and got adopted by the Finance Committee last fall to have members of Congress and their staffs get their health insurance through the same health insurance exchanges where health plans for the general public would be available. During the closed-door negotiations on the bill late last year, the Senate Majority Leader carved out Senate committee and leadership staff from this requirement.

Subsequently, Grassley and Senator Tom Coburn attempted to offer another amendment to restore the requirement during Senate debate on the health care bill, but the Senate Majority Leader would not let their amendment to fix this loophole even come up for a vote. In addition to Senate committee and leadership staff, the amendment Grassley and Coburn filed during the Senate debate would have made the President, the Vice President, top White House staff and cabinet members all get their health insurance through the newly created exchanges. It would not have applied to federal employees in the civil service.

Grassley said, “It’s only fair and logical that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this overhaul of America’s health care system, experience it themselves. If it’s as good as promised, they’ll know it first-hand. If there are problems, they’ll be able to really understand them, as they should.”

Grassley said the motivation for his amendments is simple: public officials who make the laws or lead efforts to have laws changed should live under those laws.

“This is the same principle that motivated me to pursue legislation over 20 years ago to apply civil rights, labor and employment laws to Congress,” Grassley said. Before President Clinton signed into law Grassley’s long-sought Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, Congress had routinely exempted itself.

The Congressional Accountability Act made Congress subject to 12 laws, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Veteran’s Employment and Reemployment Rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989.

Today, Grassley is working to make sure Congress lives up to the same standards it imposes on others with legislation such as his Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act.

IRS to Enforce Health Reform

The Internal Revenue Service will function as the government’s chief enforcer for health care reform, monitoring both businesses and individuals to certify whether they have the insurance coverage the government requires.

The tax collection agency will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance with the individual and employer insurance mandates which form the backbone of the Democrats’ hard-won reforms.

The bill states that the purpose of the mandates is to regulate “economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.”

The mandates require that all Americans carry a minimum level of health insurance or pay a separate tax for every month they are without such coverage. All employers with 50 employers or more will also be required to provide their employees with that same minimum level of coverage.

While that minimum level of coverage will be defined at a later date by the Department of Health and Human Services, it will be the responsibility of the IRS to monitor individuals and employers and to punish those who do not comply.

Under the bill, which passed despite bipartisan opposition March 21, starting in 2014 the IRS would be responsible for monitoring which employers are complying with the mandate and which ones are not. The IRS would begin such monitoring of individuals’ health insurance status in 2014 as well.

The IRS would monitor individuals and businesses’ health insurance statuses through the mandatory reporting the bill requires. Under the law, every individual and most businesses are required to report to the IRS, on their tax returns, whether they have purchased or provided the required level of coverage and disclose to the IRS which months, if any, in which they failed to do so.

Using this information, the IRS would then determine whether an employer or individual falls under the mandate, which contains exceptions for religious conscience, hardship, incarcerated persons, and members of Indian tribes.

If either an individual or a business has failed to comply with this mandate for any month out of the year, they are required to pay a separate tax to the IRS. For individuals this is a maximum of $750 per person (up to $2,250 per household) and $750 per uncovered employee for businesses.

Because these penalties would each apply on a monthly basis, individuals and employers would have to pay 1/12th of the maximum penalties for each month they failed to comply with the mandates.

In order to carry out its new monitoring and enforcement duties, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the IRS will need $10 billion in additional funds, funds which were not made available under the health reform bill.

An analysis done by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that this $10 billion could go to fund an additional 16,500 new IRS agents and other personnel to monitor and enforce the new mandates.

“[T]he IRS could add more than 16,500 additional agents, auditors, examiners, and administrative support personnel to enforce large portions of the nation’s health insurance system,” the report said.

The IRS will also be in charge of collecting the new taxes on high cost insurance plans and on so-called unearned income from couples making over $250,000 per year and single filers making over $200,000 per year.

Both of these provisions could be modified should the Senate approve a budget reconciliation measure the House also passed March 21. Whichever final form they take, they are both direct taxes and thus will be directly administered by the IRS.

Because these new mandates and taxes are under the purview of the IRS, taxpayers and businesses could incur additional penalties normally reserved for normal income tax cheats, paying fees over and above those for not complying with Congress’ new mandates.

The IRS currently charges potentially hefty penalties for, among other things, filing false or fraudulent returns, filing late returns, and failure to pay a tax on time.

Taxpayers and businesses could be hit with these extra penalties because they are required to use their tax returns to prove to the IRS that they are complying with the mandates and because they will have to pay any tax penalties to that agency as well.

CNS News

The question is in what form and under what name will they resurface?

Victor David Hanson: We’ve Crossed the Rubicon

We've Crossed the Rubicon

President Obama has crossed the Rubicon with the health care vote. The bill was not really about medicine; after all, a moderately priced, relatively small federal program could offer the poorer not now insured, presently not on Medicare or state programs like Medicaid or Medical, a basic medical plan.

We have no interest in stopping trial lawyers from milking the system for billions. And we don’t want to address in any meaningful way the individual’s responsibility in some cases (drink, drugs, violence, dangerous sex, bad diet, sloth, etc.) for costly and chronic health procedures.

No, instead, the bill was about assuming a massive portion of the private sector, hiring tens of thousands of loyal, compliant new employees, staffing new departments with new technocrats, and feeling wonderful that we “are leveling the playing field” and have achieved another Civil Rights landmark law. (NB: do the math: add higher state income taxes in most states; the new Clinton-era federal income tax rates to come; the proposed lifting of limits on income exposed to FICA taxes; and now new health care charges — and I think you can reach in some cases a bite of 65%to 70% of one’s income.)

So we are in revolutionary times in which the government will grow to assume everything from energy use to student loans, while abroad we are a revolutionary sort of power, eager to mend fences with Syria and Iran, more eager still to distance ourselves from old Western allies like Israel and Britain.

There won’t be any more soaring rhetoric from Obama about purple-state America, “reaching across the aisle,” or healing our wounds. That was so 2008. Instead, we are in the most partisan age since Vietnam, ushered into it by the self-acclaimed “non-partisan.” But how could it be anything else?

Partisanship all the time, everywhere

No, Obama has thrown down the gauntlet, and is trying to reify the sloganeering of the 1960s. He apparently reasons along the following lines: that centrist talk was campaign fluff; the voters fell for it, and now it’s his turn to remake America with 51% of the House and 44% of the people. Think Sweden, or, better, Greece as our model at home, and something like America as Brazil in matters of foreign policy. Apparently, Obama figures that people now may not like the present partisanship, but they didn’t like FDR at the time either. Yet whom do they associate their Social Security checks with? Hoover? Coolidge? Harding?

I don’t see why the ram-it-through, health care formula won’t be followed by similar strategies for blanket amnesty, cap and trade, and expansions of the state takeover of cars, banks, student loans, and energy.

Remember, all these will be packaged as “comprehensive” reform — comprehensive health care, comprehensive immigration, comprehensive energy, comprehensive monitoring of even the banal decisions we make. So what does comprehensive really mean, other than all of us are going to get even more official looking letters in the mail, advising us to fill out a form, pay a fine, and be warned that a new regulation or tax is on the way — followed by the usual state/federal representative’s newsletter bragging about some new entitlement that he “won” for us with our borrowed money?

The Logic of Statism

I expect a lot of the following in the next three years.

1) Them!: More Obama soaring speeches about some “historic” crisis that needs “comprehensive” solutions (e.g., more of “this is our moment” banalities). Those introductions will be followed by alternate praise of some heroic individual who lost her health care, struggled to unionize, breathed some sooty air, was deported while cooking the evening meal, etc. These gripping narratives will be mixed in with ‘Them!’ demagoguery (e.g., the health care industry, the big corporations, the polluters, the nativists and racists — all of “Them” are standing in the way of hope and change, and, together, yes, we can! defeat them. Oh yes, there is going to being even more sermonizing, and shriller human interest portraits about “Them” smashing poor five-year-old Billy Jones from Topeka who flew up to DC to find Harry Reid for “help”; or “Them” denying Herlinda Lopez from Fresno her college dreams, who then wrote a letter pleading to Michelle for assistance; or “Them” absolutely crushing the mother of Bobby Smith for no other reason than sheer greed, who then took the Greyhound to Nancy Pelosi’s office!

2) The Fedopus has far more than eight tentacles: More letters in the mail from more state and federal bureaucracies (both broke, and searching for billions of dollars for millions of workers who need to be paid). The official looking stationary letters will be advising us that there is a new fee, surcharge, rule, regulation, etc. — mostly in the context that we have already in some way violated something. (Expect in such writs to see your name misspelled, your address garbled, one letter canceling out the one of the prior month, and semi-threatening language demanding compliance. [Don’t dare call the government number since the U.S. can’t hire more competent answerers from India]). This last month, to name a few, I got IRS friendly reminders, State Board of Equalization new rules, federal agricultural surveys, county assessment questionnaires, and the Census. All in all, about 12 official letters came, and I expect more this month. (My favorites are all the county, state, and federal agricultural questionnaires that usually have a warning like, “Do not write ‘no change from last year!’”—meaning that, even though your vineyard hasn’t gone anywhere in the last twelve months, you must go through a zillion questions, marking “No” to things like “Do you have a billboard on your property?” or “Do you raise gaming horses?”

3) More cynicism: The more Obama talks about the greedy and selfish in society who “take” from others, the more the public will understand that they are in fact the greedy in these crosshairs. Costly health problems that originate with obesity, smoking, alcoholism, unsafe sex, violence, law-breaking, etc. are really due to lack of scheduled office visits. One missed colonoscopy — not 50 extra pounds or 1000 Big Macs over the years — causes cancer. People always ache due to a dearth of medical advisors and outreach counselors — or the diet and prescription drugs pushed on the victim by the profit-mongering corporation. In other words, the old days of a kindly, but tiny government politely advising us about what not to do have now transmogrified into a brave new world in which there is no individual. Instead, there exists only collective responsibility — a creed that assumes those in rehab or on parole or fighting weight-induced diabetes were victims of a system in which those who did not engage in that sort of behavior were culpable in some way and should pony up. Best of all, the system assumes we are greedy, cruel, and selfish for writing things like the above.

4) Pelosism: In our brave new world, expect more of the lurid stories about the secretary of the Treasury not paying his FICA taxes. The multimillionaire Madame Speaker will spend more of the state’s millions on private jet travel as she lectures on carbon footprints and a culture of corruption. We will hear more about the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee hiding his income, or a member of the House Rules Committee bragging that, given the historic importance of health care, they are just making up the rules as they go along — and proud of it. Our guardian class has become the new French aristocracy at Versailles. They will rail about Citation jets for the CEO, and then fly federally-owned Gulfstreams; they will put us in Smart cars but limo in Yukons and Tahoes on “official business.” Our lifestyles will be as monitored as much as those who do the monitoring will not be at all.

5) Greedy and Not-So-Greedy Capitalists: And there are “bad” and “not so bad” capitalists too. The CEOs for GM are trying to help America out with green designs and fair wages — so unlike those at Ford and Toyota. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are the model execs, quite unlike the yokels who run Caterpillar and whine about health care. George Soros is not really a money speculator that ruins banks, but a transferer of capital to progressive causes. In every statist society, large corporations either resist or join. For the latter, the machinery of government reinvents them as part of the solution rather than the problem — in the way that Al Gore really doesn’t really guzzle electricity, or John Edwards never really lived in a mansion. The transition to a Ministry of Industry requires a Ministry of Truth. With the Obama media we are already half there.

6) The Race/Class/Gender Cult: This federal caring creed trumps all religion. We will hear thousands of homophobic, racist, sexist anecdotes (but not those from a Ruth Ginsberg, or Harry Reid, or Joe Biden) that remind us why the government must enforce diversity set-asides and affirmative actions, and fund new sociological studies proving why group X hates group Y, and why government bureau Z is fighting X on behalf of Y for all our benefit. We are in perpetual war with perpetual ologies and –isms and we need far more Van Joneses to win them!

I understand the reasoning behind Obamism and am familiar with the feel-good, this-is-our-moment rhetoric of egalitarianism. But please at least spare us the fictions and simply be honest: Obama wants a state-run America, somewhere to the left of France or Denmark, a United States unexceptional and merely one of many nations at the UN. This vision follows an existing, decades-long encroachment of government. And it requires all sorts of highly credentialed overseers monitoring and at times justifiably attacking the upper middle class for its deplorable treatment of those below it.

This new America is ultimately predicated on the notion that we were born equal and must die absolutely equal as well. And this is entirely within our grasp, if we just understand that individual responsibility, talent, natural endowment, chance, merit, luck, tragedy, and a dozen other variables far too complex for government to imagine, much less solve, in fact, are not the real obstacles to ensuring equality.

Instead, it is simpler than that: greed, selfishness, racism, sexism, classism, and not niceness on the part of a few really are the culprits. Thank God that a few rare souls like Obama fathom that. And thank God, again, that it will take a singular humanitarian and genius like Obama to make us denser folks see it and do something about it.

That’s about where we are.

Subscript: Do Democrats realize that we really have crossed the Rubicon? In the future when the Republicans gain majorities (and they will), the liberal modus operandi will be the model—bare 51% majorities, reconciliation, the nuclear option, talk of deem and pass, not a single Democrat vote—all ends justifying the means in order to radically restructure vast swaths of American economic and social life. Is someone unhinged at the DNC? They just blew up any shred of bipartisan consensus when their President polls below 50%, the Democratically-controlled Congress below 20%, and health care reform less than 50%. Usually unpopular leaders and their unpopular ideas seek the shelter of minority rights and prerogatives. What will they do when they are in the minority—since they’ve entered the arena, boasted “let the games begin” and shouted “by any means necessary”?

Governor Barbour to add Mississippi to list of states challenging Health Care Bill.

Barbour to AG: File health care suit or I will

The Associated Press

 Mississippi's Republican governor and lieutenant governor are asking the state's Democratic attorney general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a sweeping federal health care bill.

 The legislation passed Sunday, and President Barack Obama plans to sign it into law Tuesday.

Gov. Haley Barbour said he will file a lawsuit himself if Attorney General Jim Hood does not make a decision by noon Thursday.

"A physician's creed is to 'First, do no harm,"' Barbour, who's head of the Republican Governors Association, said in a statement Monday. "The health care legislation passed Sunday infects the economy with harmful tax increases, strips benefits from senior citizens and robs each citizen of their basic freedom to choose their own health care."

Hood made no commitment Monday, saying only that once the bill is signed, "we will review the law to determine if there are any viable causes of action for the state of Mississippi."

Clarion Ledger

The Mississippi Business Journal also reported on the story saying

Lt. Governor Phil Bryant joined the Governor by sending a letter to Attorney General Jim Hood Monday, asking the Democrat to file a lawsuit on behalf of the state. See the press release and entire letter here.

Bryant says Mississippi should assert its rights under the 10th Amendment, which “protects states from an overbearing federal government.”

Mississippi is not the only state mulling a challenge to the healthcare bill. Washington, Utah and Nebraska are also thinking of suing, according to The Associated Press.

Conservative Voters to Democrats: "We're coming, and hell is coming with us"

The Monday morning quarterbacking is in full stride as politicos look to explain the answers to the "what happens now" questions with Health Care legislation.

Mark Steyn of the National Review is playing the defeatist, but he seems to be in the minority among conservative political analysts. He says, "Dems wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Their bet is that it can't be undone, and that over time, as I've been saying for years now, governmentalized health care not only changes the relationship of the citizen to the state but the very character of the people."

But, does he underestimate the "character of the people"? And does he jump the gun on the "woe is me" talk? Is he wrong that voters will be inundated and then, once again, stop caring?

Yes.

The first thing to understand is that the fight has merely shifted from DC to the states as Attorneys General line up to challenge the constitutionality of the bill's mandate that requires everyone to buy health insurance.

FoxNews.com reports:

Health Care Reform Fight Shifts From Congress to the Courts


Now that the House, in a historic vote, has passed the Senate's health care bill and sent it to the president's desk, state lawmakers and attorneys general already are lining up to challenge its constitutionality and wage an outside-the-Beltway war against it in the courts.


Now that the House, in a historic vote, has passed the Senate's bill and sent it to the president's desk, state lawmakers and attorneys general already are lining up to challenge its constitutionality and wage an outside-the-Beltway war against it in the courts.


Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was the first to announce Monday that he will file a legal challenge -- as soon as Obama signs the bill.


Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum also plans to announce Monday morning that he and top prosecutors from nine other states are filing a lawsuit to "protect the rights" of the American people from the bill.


While some Republicans have threatened to pursue repealing the legislation down the road, the most immediate challenge will take place in the courts.


At least three dozen state legislatures are considering proposals to challenge the federal legislation. Some are pursuing amendments to their constitutions by ballot question; others are looking to change state law.


Constitutional lawyers have questioned whether such a lawsuit could be successful, since federal law trumps state law. But opponents are looking to get around that by questioning the law's constitutionality.

There are a few other reasons to believe that Sunday's vote was not the Armageddon many thought it would be. The main one being that it has awaken the conservative voters, and ruined the future chances of the Democrats getting much of anything else done. If that is the case, then all this celebratory hoo ha will be much ado about nothing, and Democrats will find that they are celebrating their parties banishment into the wilderness.

Powerline:

"repealing this disaster of a bill will be a rallying cry for the American people for years to come. Moreover, even if the Republicans only take over the House in November, and not the Senate, won't it be possible to throw roadblocks in the way of the bill's implementation? Won't budget appropriations be necessary to sustain the various federal tentacles the bill seeks to establish? What will happen if the House simply refuses to fund them?"

"Barack Obama has used his political capital--pretty much all of it--on unpopular legislation that will continue to rile the voters for years to come. As a result, Obama is a remarkably unpopular second-year President. And he hasn't even experienced any bad luck yet. It is hard to see how he will be able to regain his footing."

Powerline also makes one more "silverlining" observation that I think is good news for conservatives in general and the Republican Party specifically. That is that:

Paul Ryan has emerged as one of the conservative movement's strongest spokesmen. In the years to come, I think we will hear the words "I'm a Paul Ryan Republican" with increasing frequency.

Paul Ryan is simply one of the brightest young minds in the country right now. He understands that conservative principles are more than just talking points. I've been a big fan for over a year now. It's really good to see his star rising.

So, if you like references to bible verses then be ye of good cheer, and worry not. Proverbs 18:2 says "A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions." But verse 13 adds, "He who answers before listening— that is his folly and his shame."

The folly and shame part is yet to come.

 If you're a little more hardcore then try the classic line from Tombstone:

I just can't wait to see!

Pelosi is giddy with excitement last week telling the National Association of Counties why Health Care legislation must pass.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire!

With Health Care on the brink of passage, Dems will quickly turn to Immigration to take advantage of the momentum.

Reuter's is reporting that anti-abortion Democrats have reached a deal with the White House meaning it is highly likely that they now have the votes needed to pass Health Care legislation.

The White House said on Sunday President Barack Obama would issue an order reaffirming a ban on using federal funds for abortion in a deal with holdout Democrats that could clear the way for passage of a healthcare overhaul.

"We have an agreement," said Representative Bart Stupak, who has led the group of a handful of holdout Democrats. His support could give House of Representative Democrats the 216 votes they need to pass the bill.

Thursday statements by the President indicated Democrat leaders will now shift quickly to another liberal plank and try to use the momentum to pass immigration "reform." The timing comes as 50,000 supporters plan a march on DC Sunday in support of amnesty. DC has been the scene of some ugly protesting over Health Care. Add thousands of immigration amnesty supporters to that mix and it's a recipe for disaster. Legislators may decide to rethink recent funding cuts to Capitol Police after today.

Washington Times report said:

President Obama gave a thumbs up Thursday to the outline of a plan to legalize illegal immigrants and create a flow of low-skilled foreign workers for the future, saying the immigration bill being worked on by a Republican and a Democrat is "promising."

In their broad blueprint, Sens. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, call for illegal immigrants to be put on a path to citizenship, offer green cards to keep high-skilled foreign university graduates and would create a temporary program for low-skilled workers, with some also getting the chance to become citizens.

The senators also proposed to turn all Social Security cards into tamper-proof IDs to be checked by employers when they are about to hire a worker. The cards would include biometric information designed to prevent counterfeiting -- but the senators said the information would not be stored in a government database.

"I congratulate Senators Schumer and Graham for their leadership, and pledge to do everything in my power to forge a bipartisan consensus this year on this important issue so we can continue to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform," Mr. Obama said in a statement soon after the two senators published their blueprint in a column submitted to The Washington Post.

The carefully orchestrated rollout came just three days before immigrant-rights advocates expect at least 50,000 supporters to rally and march in Washington, D.C., calling for Congress to act. The organizers of the rally had met with Mr. Obama last week and told him he needed to embrace a bill or else the thousands of marchers would be told that he had failed to live up to his promises on this issue.

"Whip it good!" and a chance to toot my own horn.

Analysts and political pundits are in a frenzy trying to read the current efforts of Democrats and Republicans to whip up votes on Health Care legislation. And, the prevailing sentiment is that it is a toss up.

I said in 2009 it would hinge on abortion. I so seldom get a chance to say "I told you so," so I'll take this opportunity while I have it. It looks like it still comes down to Michigan Representative Stupak and his band of pro-lifers.

House GOP whip Rep. Eric Cantor reports in his latest memo that Republicans need to find six other Democrats to vote no in order to defeat the bill. Cantor points to one original yes vote that has switched to no -- Arcuri -- and suggests there might be five others who could switch: Berry, Costa, Giffords, Lynch, and Space.

That leaves the much-discussed Stupak Group. The pro-life Democrat originally said he had 12 colleagues who originally voted yes but would now vote no. Stupak has lost some of those, but it is not clear how many.
Cantor suggests that in combining those two categories -- the yeses who have become no plus the Stupak group -- there might be another 12 votes against the bill. "If we add 12 to 32, we get 44 -- which leaves Speaker Pelosi seven votes short," Cantor concludes.

The Washington Examiner's Byron York writes:

Who is correct? It's clear the Democrats are working around the clock to create a sense of momentum and inevitability about the vote. But the fact is, there are still enough unknowns to say the outcome is entirely in doubt.

But, his colleague and online opinion editor for the same publication David Freddoso writes that Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. is taking alot of heat at home for announcing he would vote "Yes". Even adding that a vote for Health Reform makes his announced run for Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh's seat "futile."

If Ellsworth is being pushed into voting for this, you can bet that Speaker Pelosi has no votes to spare. But by the same token, you wouldn't be hearing him commit in public if she didn't have the votes.

Votes are scheduled for Sunday afternoon. It will go down to the wire.

Ya'll Politics---U.S. Chamber Thanks Mississippi Rep. Childers for Opposing Health Care Bill

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President of Government Affairs R. Bruce Josten issued the following statement thanking Congressman Travis Childers (MS-01) for opposing the current health care legislation which will increase taxes and risk employer-sponsored healthcare:

“We thank Congressman Childers for his opposition to the current health care legislation being rammed through the House of Representatives. Congressman Childers has stood up for the working families and small businesses in his district by saying ‘no’ to this health care bill that would raise their taxes and jeopardize employer-sponsored health coverage. We appreciate Congressman Childers standing with Mississippians, many of which are small businesses and members of the U.S. Chamber, and against a health care bill that would wipe out more jobs, raise costs and put employers and employee’s current health benefits at risk.

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents hundreds of thousands of businesses large and small, has strongly advocated for health care reform and shares the goals of Congress and the Administration to reduce health care costs, while increasing access and quality. From the start of this debate, we have supported comprehensive insurance market reforms and new consumer protections to ensure every American has guaranteed affordable coverage. However, health care reform won't work without comprehensive provisions that will bring costs under control and make health care coverage more affordable. The current legislation before Congress does little to solve the problem of escalating costs for working families and small businesses and includes many provisions that are not consistent with those shared goals.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations.

Yall Politics

You've heard of the Whirling Dervishes? Well, get ready for the Spinning Democrats!

Regardless of how the Health Care Reform vote goes on Sunday--and it will be a close one--Democrats know they have a hell of a fight on their hands come November. TEA Party activist, along with a push by the leftiest of the lefties to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity this year, means the normal shift back to center for Congressional elections during a year when there will be no presidential election will be more of a jolt. The ground has shifted in ways unseen in decades, and the difference between Dems heavy losses and not-so-heavy losses--notwithstanding upcoming liberal legislative possibilities like Immigration Reform--will hinge on voters remembering today's atmosphere come Election Day in the Fall.

Democrats have already begun preparing for the spin. Joe Voter will be inundated with good news from the stimulus, Health Insurance Reform (if it passes), and a variety of other left leaning legislative accomplishments and potential accomplishments.

Stuart Rothenberg's latest Political Report is on how campaigns are already attempting to change the narrative using polling memos.

Rothenberg writes:

Pollsters say that their surveys present only a “snapshot” of a race at a particular moment. That’s true. But often the snapshot presented in a memo is misleading, and the pollster knows it. Memos include numbers intended to build an argument that seems empirically based but isn’t. They don’t present the whole picture, because the whole picture isn’t in their client’s interest.

Even highly regarded, methodologically legit pollsters tell me to call them up privately if I want to get their real assessment about a race — don’t go by the memo they release. I get this from both Republican and Democratic pollsters, and I have received the same advice for years.

Actually, most pollsters hate to write these kinds of memos, but their clients want them to create a more favorable narrative, so they write them, usually using their words very carefully.

Rothenberg concludes his report:

Polling memos sometimes contain useful nuggets of data, but they often leave out other important data and stress the narrative the campaign wants to create. Don’t take them at face value.

How long is your memory?

Madison Co. Supervisor Asks For Audit Of Engineer's Contracts . . . Again.

Current efforts to further examine Madison County's books continue to be embroiled in politics.

Madison County residents turned activists Frank Halford and Billy Redd were on the Gallo Radio Show Thursday morning to discuss the lack of answers coming from the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor DI Smith continues to take his calls for a procedural audit to the airwaves as often as possible. Meanwhile State Auditor Stacy Pickering is trying to steer as clear as possible as he positions himself for a run for higher office.

County Engineer Rudy Warnock, in true Democrat fashion, continues his non-answer answers and to play the "poor me" victim. Back in June he was quoted as saying he is the victim of politics.

"Everything that D.I. is alleging is totally false and slanderous,” Warnock said in June. “Every contract and invoice that I have submitted to Madison County has been reviewed by the administration and then approved by the Madison County Board of Supervisors."

Boo Hoo!

WAPT is reporting that a recent investigation begun by Madison Mayor Mary Hawkins-Butler has only served to bring up more troubling questions about Warnock's practices.

Hawkins-Butler said a six-month investigation has revealed that Warnock has been paying other contractors to perform his projects, which she said is not allowed without county permission. Butler said the subcontracting issue has been raised for months now, and it was most recently talked about at a board of supervisors meeting.

“Two member of the board of supervisors voted for Rudy Warnock to produce those subcontracts,” the mayor said. “Three voted ‘no,’ that he didn't have to produce it. If there's nothing wrong with them, produce the subcontracts and all of this will go away.”

In addition to the issue of subcontracting, Hawkins-Butler said the investigation notes $2 million in tax dollars was spent without question or concern from the board of supervisors.

There was no quote in the story from Warnock. "Why?" you may ask. Because he's in the Bahamas on vacation.

Bad timing Rudy!

The investigation cited a conflict of interest where Warnock, serving as county engineer, designs and approves his own work - something the report says flies in the face of the Mississippi Board of Licensure's code of professional conduct.

Warnock, holding true to form, blamed it all on "political theater" orchestrated by Hawkins-Butler.

In a statement released by his attorney--did I mention Warnock was in the Bahamas--Dorsey R. Carson, Jr., of Jackson and reported by the Madison County Journal,

Warnock railed against Hawkins-Butler, calling McAfee no more than a "hired gun" and questioning the integrity of the report.

The report's author, Richard J. McAfee of Detroit-based PMA Consultants, said with limited documentation he found no illegal acts, but pointed to over $2 million in questionable spending by the county.

"This bears further investigation," McAfee said. "Any government in the business of serving the people need to have better checks and balances. There are so many inconsistencies it would make sense to perform a thorough audit."

When Pickering was running for Auditor he said,

“State and local governments in Mississippi spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money each year. As a fiscal conservative, I want to make sure that our tax dollars are spent with the integrity the taxpayers expect and deserve.”

We're waiting sir.

JPD Recovers $40,000 Worth Of Stolen Merchandise

Tips Lead Police To Storage Facility

The Jackson Police Department said found more than $40,000 in stolen merchandise Thursday.

JPD received a tip that led to the search of a storage facility on Northside Drive, where officers found baseball gear, china sets, a set of rims and tires and a number of other items.

Some of the merchandise was reclaimed by a business owner but, JPD did not release the name of the business.

“We need help (from the public) as far as identifying some of the other stolen merchandise that we have not been able to put with the owner,” JPD spokesman Officer Joseph Daughtry said.

Residents who believe some of the recovered items may belong to them are asked to call JPD at 601-960-2710.

Daughtry said JPD expects to make arrests soon in connection with the stolen merchandise.

WAPT

Spokane Father Puts Son for Sale on Craiglist

My kids better keep me happy if this guy gets away with this.

"Boy for sale!"

​Gavin is four-years-old. He loves basketball, hates vegetables and can be yours for the low, low price of $5,000.

Last month, a Spokane woman saw a Craigslist ad from the boy's father offering him for sale. "It is going to kill me to do this but as I stated before I cannot afford to keep him," it read. "His Motherr is out of the picture and my parents no longer talk to me since I've had Gavin. So I don't know what else to do other than find a good family with kids or a couple that wants a son."

Attached to the post was a picture of boy in a yellow fireman's hat and a t-shirt with the word "Adventure" written on the front. The woman contacted police, who have since collected records from Craigslist in an attempt to find out if some dad really is trying to hawk his son or if it's all just a hoax.

The name left on the ad, Rick Obelophy, doesn't appear to belong to anyone locally. But considering the item being offered for sale, it's likely anyone trying to pawn off their kid would at least try to establish an alias.

Real or fake, our let's-make-a-deal dad is nothing if not caring. He wrote that he wouldn't give up his kid to just anyone. Instead, he'd have to meet the buyer's first to make sure Gavin ended up with "fit parents."

Seattle Weekly

Sunday Bloody Sunday

House Democratic leaders unveiled their budget reconciliation package Thursday afternoon and announced plans for Saturday and Sunday votes.


The Rules Committee posted the 153-page bill — which includes fixes to the Senate health care package and attaches student loan legislation — on its Web site, a move that starts the 72-hour clock toward a final vote that leaders expect to hold Sunday afternoon.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) announced that the House will meet at 9 a.m. Saturday and hold votes as early as 10 a.m. The House will also meet Sunday at 1 p.m. On Monday, Hoyer said votes are possible before 6:30 p.m.

The Hill

Wal-Mart customer: 'I can't go back in'

Victoria Arter was outraged when she heard the announcement over the Wal-Mart loudspeaker.

"Attention, Wal-Mart shoppers," she said a male voice announced. "All blacks need to leave the store."

"We waited and waited. Some people just left their carts in disgust and said they couldn't believe it," Arter told Philly.com, a CNN affiliate.

It was busy shortly before 7 p.m. Sunday at the Turnersville, New Jersey, Wal-Mart Supercenter.

Arter, a 29-year-old assistant bank manager who is black, didn't know what was going on, but she was not happy. Neither were other customers, who began dialing their cell phones and demanding answers from managers. Some were just quiet, still in shock at what they'd heard.

A few moments later, a store manager got on the public address system and began apologizing and contacted the local police.

This week, authorities have said they're investigating the episode as "a suspected bias intimidation crime."

CNN

CBO: Health Bill Would Force Families to Buy Insurance Costing a Minimum of $12,000 Per Year--Whether Government or Employer Helps Them or Not

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testifies before the Senate Budget Committee on Jan. 28, 2009. (AP File Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)(CNSNews.com) – If Congress passes the Senate health-care plan, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, American families will be required by federal law to buy a federally approved health insurance plan that will cost a minimum of $12,000 per year--and, on average, will cost $15,000 per year -- whether their employer or the government helps them with the premium or not.

Beginning in 2014, the Senate plan would require all individuals to buy health insurance. Anyone who does not obtain insurance through an employer would be forced to buy it out of their own pocket. Families of four that make up to 400 percent of poverty level--currently $88,200 per year--would receive a subsidy from the government to help pay for their premiums. That subsidy would attenuate as their income increased and would disappear when their income reached the 400 percent of poverty level.

Families earning more than $88,200 a year (or whatever 400 percent of the poverty level equals in any given year) would be entirely on their own. Under the Senate bill, employers would not be required to purchase health insurance for their workers, and if they decided not to do so, the maximum penalty they would have to pay would be $750 per year for each worker they did not insure who subsequently received a federal subsidy to buy insurance. The $750 penalty on employers who decided not to insure their workers would be far less than they would pay in premiums for the $12,000 minimum required plan.

According to the CBO analysis, the insurance plans the Senate bill would require families to purchase would cost an average of $15,200 per year in 2016.

CNS News

The GOP health care count: 209 no, 204 yes, 18 undecided

There are two ways to count votes for the Democrats' national health care plan. The first is to tally the lawmakers who are definitely yes or leaning yes. The second is to count the ones who are definitely no and leaning no.

From the Republican side, it's the second group that matters. Just like Democrats need 216 votes to pass the bill, Republicans and their Democratic allies need 216 to stop it. I just got off the phone with a well-placed House GOP source, and the Republicans' latest count is that there are 209 votes against the bill at this moment, leaving opponents seven short of being able to defeat it. By the same count, there are 204 votes for the bill, leaving the Democratic leadership 12 short of being able to pass it. There are 18 votes thought to be undecided.

This is the way it breaks down. There are 431 members of the House, 253 Democrats and 178 Republicans. All the Republicans oppose the bill. At the moment, GOP sources believe that more than 30 -- they think it's 31 -- Democrats are opposed. Those Democrats are motivated by a variety of concerns. "It's abortion, it's cost control, it's taxes, it's Medicare, and for some of them, it's just their district," says the GOP source.

Of the 18 Democrats who are undecided, Republicans will have to win seven votes to prevail, provided Republicans do in fact have 209 votes now. The Democratic leadership would have to win over 12 undecideds, if in fact Democrats are at 204 now.

"If you're trying to win a vote like this, you never want to be in the situation where you have to get virtually everybody who's still left in the pool," says the source. "That's difficult. They have to get two-thirds, and that's a lot."

Read more at the Washington Examiner