“You can’t pass this bill the right way, so now we are going to pass it the Washington way.”

“We are not governing here today, we are greasing the skids for an abuse of a budget procedure intended to control the size of government, not expand it.”

Scott Brown Tells The Truth

Scott Brown in Army Uniform
Scott Brown can be pretty dang awesome sometimes.

Delivering the Republican response to President Pantsonfire’s weekly cavalcade of leftist BS:

Somehow, the greater the public opposition to the healthcare bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst – the presumption that they know best, and they’re going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.

And, when politicians start thinking like that, they don’t let anything get in their way – not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises.

They pledged transparency. Instead, we have a healthcare bill tainted by secrecy, concealed cost, and full of backroom deals – and that’s just not right. They should do better. The American people expect more.

Is Slaughtering The Bill Constitutional?

Since the reprehensible Nancy Pelosi has decided to pursue the route proposed by the disgusting-yet-aptly-named Louise Slaughter and “deem” the Senate health care bill “passed” if the House votes to approve the “fix” bill that goes along with it (I’m still confused as to how this solution would shield the Dems from responsibility for passing Obamacare, which they are trying to dodge but would be the result of the vote on the “fix”), it might be worth taking a look at how badly this legislative chicanery would rape the Constitution upon which our republic is supposed to be based.  Would it be just a minor assault, or a full on rape-and-murder?  The Volokh Conspiracy ponders:

Can the House vote to adopt a rule which “deems” that a particular bill has been passed, even if that particular bill has not been passed? If so, are there any limits to the adoption of House rules which eliminate voting on bills? For example, could the House at the start of a session adopt a rule which states that there will be no voting by individual members, and that the House during the next two years will “deem” to have been passed whatever the Speaker of the House deems to have been passed? Is the question justiciable?

Presumably, the Dems will just respond that the Constitution was hanging out on the Mall late at night wearing a pretty provocative outfit and was just “asking for it.”  Then, while walking out of the room, they’ll suggest that the battered document just “put some ice on that.”

Just Send A Letter Already

Bush State of the Union
Forgive me. I can't stomach having another picture of The One on the blog.

One of my solemn promises to the American people is that when I’m elected president, I’m going to force the morons in Congress to read the State of the Union Address on their own instead of wasting everyone’s time by delivering the address in person.  Plus, as a bonus, It’s going to be really dry and boring.  In lieu of the media circus, I’ll spend my evening over at the White House residence playing Wii with the kids.  I guess I have George Will’s endorsement:

We could take one small step toward restoring institutional equilibrium by thinking as Jefferson did about State of the Union addresses. Justice Antonin Scalia has stopped going to them because justices “sit there like bumps on a log” in the midst of the partisan posturing — the political pep rally that Roberts described. Sis boom bah humbug.

Next year, Roberts and the rest of the justices should stay away from the president’s address. So should the uniformed military, who are out of place in a setting of competitive political grandstanding. For that matter, the 535 legislators should boycott these undignified events. They would, if there were that many congressional grown-ups averse to being props in the childishness of popping up from their seats to cheer, or remaining sullenly seated in semi-pouts, as the politics of the moment dictates.

In the unlikely event that Obama or any other loquacious modern president has any thoughts about the State of the Union that he does not pour forth in the torrential course of his relentless rhetoric, he can mail those thoughts to Congress. The Postal Service needs the business.

AMEN AND HALLELUJAH!  The SOTU speech is always bad, but I’ve had enough of Obama’s prattle to last two lifetimes already.


What we are seeing now may or may not be the end game in the debate over health care. There can be no doubt, however,  that we are seeing an effort to make an end run—an end run around democracy and accountability. Obama and his mandarins think they know what’s best for you. Therefore, although they are willing to pay lip service to democracy, they are perfectly willing to subvert it if it suits their purposes.

via Roger’s Rules » The Slaughter Solution and Other Acts of Desperation.

Pile On!

I’m so excited that I got to add the “go easy on Robert Gibbs because he’s dumb you see” tag that I’m going to do another Gibbs post to celebrate!  Here’s Allahpundit on his rejoinder to Cheif Justice Roberts’ comments about Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court at the State of the Union

“I don’t know why they’d feel uncomfortable,” muses Gibbsy vis-a-vis The One lying shamelessly about a Court decision during a nationally televised speech while oafish Democrats surrounding the justices exploded in in-your-face applause.

Soak it in, America.  Soak it in.



U.S. Senate Majority Harry Reid’s wife suffered a broken neck and back in an auto accident today though her injuries are not life-threatening, his spokesman said.

Reid’s wife Landra also has a broken nose, and the couple’s daughter Lana suffered a neck injury and facial cuts, Jon Summers, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat, said in a statement.

Via BusinessWeek.  This sucks.  Best wishes to all for a speedy recovery; thank God the injuries weren’t more severe.