One of the two main criteria for nullification to work is passion and the sheer number of states involved. If 20 or more states nullify ObamaCare there would be no way to enforce it. Read on.

The time to step up is now. We fight not just for our country, but for our families and for those not yet born. The information below is voluminous and it is merely a primer. Taking back our country requires understanding the power of the states in contrast to federal power. It requires we grasp the historical context of how the federal government absconded with powers the founders clearly never intended it to possess.

Michelle Malkin makes an excellent implicit case for why nullification is the only way back to federalism and the Tenth Amendment Center provides extensive education and commentary on the subject itself. Let us start with Michelle as she questions the ability of Republicans to lead us out of the sinkhole:

Now, I want you to read every word of what Andy McCarthy has to say about the GOP leadership’s abandonment of Jim Bunning — and what it says about the lack of Republican fortitude in the war against the permanent, ever-growing Nanny State.

Andy speaks the truth. Hard truths. And fiscal conservatives/Tea Party activists need to shout them from the rooftops. I’ve invoked Phyllis Schlafly many times over the past year in urging the GOP to provide true choices instead of echoes. Actions speak louder than words. So, alas, does feckless inaction.

Maine’s Susan Collins took to the Senate floor to assure Americans that Bunning’s radical views about Congress’s not spending yet more billions it doesn’t have “do not represent a majority of the Republican caucus.” And sure enough, they didn’t. Once Bunning backed down, the measure passed by a whopping 78-19.

Think about that. We are talking about $10 billion in a year when Leviathan is slated to spend a total of $3.6 trillion. The majority of Senate Republicans joined Democrats in concluding that the allocation of every one of these 3.6 thousand billion dollars is so vital that not one of them could be sacrificed in favor of unemployment insurance. So another $10 billion just gets heaped on the already unfathomable trillion-dollar deficits stacking year upon year.

Read the entire post. The realization that salvation exits with neither political party is an a priori and tacit argument the federal government is responsible for creating this mess and cannot, by design, be the architect of solutions to restoring fiscal responsibility and individual freedom. This is not to say principled politicians do not exist in Washington – I can think of a few – but most politicians are just that…politicians. Self-interested, disconnected, contemptuous elitists. For those in the Tea Party, it is a calculated risk that your candidate somehow is cut from a different cloth. In reality, you will fare no better than the average citizen. As I write these words, salivating, power hungry impostors wait to prey on the wishes and dreams of Tea Party members everywhere. I am your candidate, they will say. Even those with honest designs are not immune to the corrupting influence of Washington, for the system is fundamentally broken and it is impossible to remove a sitting member of Congress member. It is not, however, impossible to recall a governor or a state legislator in some states and it is here that Tea Parties, nullification, and real power collide in the perfect storm of the restoration of constitutional governance.

Those of you who follow this blog recall that a group of organizations successfully changed Senate GOP healthcare policy. The history of those efforts are here and cross-posted at Politico. Be forewarned, you will not like the narrative:

After weeks of refusing to embrace the “obstructionist” label as a virtue, Senate Republicans finally saw the light and late last week began to use the parliamentary tools at their disposal to delay a final vote on health care.

Until then, with the exception of South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Republican lawmakers had refused to use Senate rules and procedures to obstruct the passage of the health care bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and run out the clock on Obamacare. Some prominent Republican senators and members of their staffs had even let it be known they actually believed passage of the Reid health care bill and enactment of Obamacare would benefit GOP candidates in the November midterm elections.

This GOP strategy of expedient complicity enraged the conservative base, roused talk radio show hosts and bloggers and even provoked a backlash from the chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Social Security Institute and the National Tax Limitation Committee joined with Tea Party Support and Gun Owners of America to convey this outrage to the Senate Republican leadership through letters, e-mails and telephone calls from the grass roots to GOP senators’ offices.

It took a figurative gun to the collective head of the GOP to add a little starch to collapsing spines. Had the switch occurred just a smidgen later, Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts may well have occurred after the passage of ObamaCare.

To the GOPs credit, they continue to stick to obstruction and the promise of obstruction regarding ObamaCare. Their performance at the bipartisan healthcare “summit” was nothing short of amazing. However, the same tendencies against fiscal restraint still exist for many in the party, as outlined by Michelle in her post.

So what is one to do? The answer – nullification. No, nullification is not secession and no, nullification is not a violent act. The Tenth Amendment Center describes nullification as follows:

First, nullification has, in fact, been somewhat successful in the past and more recently as well. Second, as President Obama loves to say, “Let me be clear”: “Official” nullification has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

Nullification carries with it the force of state law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the US Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court. It is the people of a state asserting their constitutional rights by acting as a political society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.

With the exception of a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), a state’s decision to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still affirm that might does not make right.

There is no question as to whether or when “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:

25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law [REAL ID Act]..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void…

…There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.

Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.

More on federal tax escrow accounts and the willingness of federal agents to execute orders deemed unconstitutional below.

For more information about nullification I strongly encourage the reader to visit the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and type in nullification in the search bar. Lots of very interesting reading. Additional information can be found at the Social Security Institute.

The TAC also writes Our Goal is Federalism, not “States’ Rights”:

Foundationally, states don’t have rights as a government, states have power. Power at the federal and state level is derived from the consent of the governed, the people, who do have rights our governing agreements were designed to protect. Inspired by careful historical study, years of debate, considerations, and the declarations of colonies, towns, and associations (prior to July of 1776) the fundamental rights of the people were articulated in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence…

…Let every member of every organization supporting state sovereignty and federalism cleanse the language so our opponents cannot easily attack the wrong target. Should they target federalism and the original meaning we can defeat them with truth. Freedom is not outdated, federal government is an agreement among the people of different sovereign states, the 10th Amendment has never been repealed, and virtue is still necessary for securing our posterity’s future rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

So if I were to ask you to identify the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution, the correct answer is not the U.S. Supreme Court, but rather the states themselves. Allowing the U.S. Supreme Court – part of the judicial branch of the federal government – to rule on federal powers presents a problem. Dr. Larry Hunter informs us (emphasis mine):

The resolution explicitly disclaimed that the national government was the judge of its own powers. Allowing it to judge its own powers would be akin to permitting an agent, rather than the principal, to determine the breadth of the agent’s authority. The law of agency at its most basic level recognizes that an agent can act as such only subject to the consent and control of the principal to whom the agent owes a fiduciary duty (see Restatement [Second] of Agency, sec. 1). Just as A, B, and C, the partners in a business firm, decide what authority to give their agent Z, so the parties to the Constitution decide the powers of the national government. In light of such logic, Jefferson proclaimed in the resolution that “each party [to the federal compact] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measures of redress” (Virginia Commission 1964, 144). For Jefferson, the people acting through their states — the authentic organs of government — were the final arbiters of constitutional interpretation. Jefferson feared that giving the federal government the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution through the Supreme Court would lead to arbitrary government. As John Taylor later wrote in his Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated, “a jurisdiction, limited by its own will, is an unlimited jurisdiction” ([1820] 1970, 131). With the states stripped of the power to construe the Constitution, the enforcement of constitutional limitations on the central government would be chimerical. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the convictions under the Sedition Act were appealed to the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court. The Republicans did not want to give the Court an opportunity to set a dangerous precedent.

If we remain sheep, apathy lays the foundation for us and our descendants of a people enslaved to the whims of a capricious few. Nullification begins with the state legislative and executive bodies, when the previously lorded over sheep transform into self-reliant wolves. It requires of us and our state leaders great strength of character and leadership. If they are not up to the task – we can replace them. At times, we must be prepared to stand with them shoulder-to-shoulder – literally and figuratively. The goal of any nullification movement is critical mass. Using ObamaCare as an example – assuming it passes, if enough states nullify the law and governors coordinate the effort with the will and strength of the people at their backs, ObamaCare will collapse. Federal repercussions will be swift:

When I talk to people about these principles – most agree, like Martin Luther King Jr. said in his famous “Letter from Birmingham jail,” that there is a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. But, they’ll often ask, even if states pass laws to nullify unjust and unconstitutional federal acts, the feds will still continue to tax us and punish our states financially for not complying – so what can we REALLY do?

One idea, which will take a great deal of courage on the part of the People and their state governments, is to establish what’s being called a “Federal Tax Escrow Account” or a “State Authority and Federal Tax Funds Act.”

Already introduced in Georgia (HB877), Oklahoma (HB2810), and Washington (HB2712), such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people.

Naturally, the U.S. Supreme Court would label such an act unconstitutional, but as stated above, such an action by the Supreme Court amounts to empty words and rhetoric. The natural progression of such actions, given enough states and a determined populace, will be the nonviolent return of federalism. While it is possible events unfold in such a manner leading to a showdown between, for example, national guard troops and/or civilians and the U.S. military, it is highly unlikely the U.S. Military will follow orders that are obviously unconstitutional. After the forceful removal of guns from citizens in the aftermath of Katrina, many in law enforcement and the military began a serious a deliberate debate on the issue. Oath Keepers states the following on their site:

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” — Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

Such a time is near at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army — and this Marine Corps, This Air Force, This Navy and the National Guard and police units of these sovereign states.

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.

Included in the link is a list of orders member will not obey.

We can take great lessons from Martin Luther King, Jr. and his approach to the civil rights movement, as well as Gandhi and the issue of British colonialism in India. A passive-aggressive approach can work if executed correctly.

It is no longer the case that most of us sacrifice for our freedoms. We know of those who did so in the past and do so even today. We honor them on special holidays and then go about our business. Lately, some find themselves prone to attend rallies, send faxes, call and email their federal representatives, only to sit back and watch Washington arrogance ignore our calls for sanity.

It is now clear to many the way forward – the only way forward – is through the states. We may slow our slide into fiscal disaster and European style socialism with leveraged federal pressure, but inaction at the state level – read nullification – we only delay the inevitable. So now is the time to begin. Now is the time to transform.

The sovereignty of the British at the time of the War of Independence was in the Parliament. The founders knew this and ensured the constitution would not allow for concentration in a centralized power for a few to lord over the many. The final arbiter of the constitution is not the Supreme Court, but rather the states. This is something rarely taught in law school and constitutional courses concentrate on case law and not on the historical context of the founding document itself. When the historical context is reviewed, it is clear, as Jefferson warned, that allowing a federal judicial system to check the federal powers was patently absurd.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, written in secret by Jefferson and Madison in response to the Alien and Sedition Act, which would have jailed them for speaking out against the government, clearly made the above case and the case for nullification. Nullification is not secession – it is a state saying the federal powers have no right to execute a law within the borders of that state. Now look back to the context of the War of Independence. A tiny island off the coast of France has now been replaced by a city in DC. We are back where we started.

Perish as sheep, or thrive as a wolves.

Highly Recommended Reading:

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (The Politically Incorrect Guides)

Related:

Listen to Judge Napolitano as he talks about nullification and secession. Personally, I don’t believe secession is necessary nor really an option. The very thought of it conjures images of violent battles. Nullification is the peaceful means to taking back our liberties under the Constitution.

More reason to start now: New House Dem strategy on ObamaCare: hostaging

How do you spell “tone-deaf?”; Update: Obama joins the cheerleading squad

State Sovereignty is About You!

The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe

Health Care Nullification: Things have just gotten underway

Nullification: The states have a “nuclear option,” too

Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right?

Hoyer: We could totally draft an anti-abortion bill that will get considered … by Democrats

Note To GOP: Our Freedoms Are No Longer Negotiable

Will Stupak be bought on Demcare?

So… What Next?

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Update: Watch out Republicans: Obama Readies a Fallback Health-Care Proposal. Read more here.

GOP, do NOT agree to anything from this manipulative trickster. Hold your ground and review anything thoroughly. If you stick it to us on this, you will pay a dear price. They have LOST. Do not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

——————-Original Post

So says Kent Conrad, and as this Redstate post shows, we have Senator DeMint to thank for that:

Senator Conrad, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said yesterday that reconciliation can only be used if the House passes the Senate bill first. As Sen. Conrad declared, “I don’t know of any way, I don’t know of any way where you can have a reconciliation bill pass before the bill that it is meant to reconcile passes.” Neither do I.

Then, the kicker: “When reminded that House Democrats don’t want to do health care in that order, Conrad said bluntly: ‘Fine, then it’s dead.‘”

Now, the Speaker finds herself in the position of having to pass a bill she says she does not have the votes to pass.

Without passing the Senate bill she can’t pass, the Speaker can’t do reconciliation. (See Sen. Conrad, above.)

OK. Now, this next part is really, really important.

The Speaker and the White House find themselves in this position because of Senator DeMint (R-SC). He insisted that Senator McConnell object to the appointment of the House-Senate Conferees, thus preventing a Conference on the bill.

The inability of the Dems to have a House-Senate Conference then forced the Speaker to have a House floor vote on the Senate bill, which she can’t pass. And there the process has been stuck. Has not moved an inch since Sen. DeMint’s objection. It can’t, she does not have the votes.

The Speaker could fix the Senate bill on the House floor by amendment, then pass the Senate bill amended and fixed, but then it would have to go back to the Senate, where it would have to get 60 yes votes, or die. Since it will not get 60 votes ever again in the Senate, it will die — if the Speaker tries the amend the Senate bill on the House floor and send it back to the Senate route.

As the post author Dan Perrin notes:

When the Democrats finally admit ObamaCare is dead, historians should note, this is the single act that killed it. And it was such an artistic assassination of the bill.

One of the comments goes further (link and emphasis mine):

Senator DeMint is a hero on so many levels.

First there is his point-of-order amendment and instruction-to-the-conferees in last years budget bill that passed unanimously in one case and by 79-14 in the second that basically stated the yeah votes intent NOT to use reconciliation to pass ObamaCare. The only reason it did not make it into the final [budget] conference report for the Senate (after the House and Senate conference meeting) is that Kent Conrad ignored the will of the entire Senate. Kudos number 1 for DeMint – it’s not his fault the Senate can’t stick to its own rules and hold Conrad responsible for ignoring the will of the entire Senate.

Kudos number two is his discovery of the loophole in the reconciliation process that allows for open-ended amendments, which, should this ever get to reconciliation (I don’t think it will), McConnell better have thousands of these things ready to tie up the process until 2050, not just a handful to make a statement and then let the zombie bill pass.

DeMint for president. I’d vote for the guy. Hell, I’d dedicate my every waking moment to making sure this guy stomps Obambi in 2012. Ya hearing us DeMint? What say you? Come on, take up the mantle! Your country needs you.

It really is beginning to look like this thing is dead. The summit appears more and more to be a combination messaging and exit strategy Kabuki theater yawn fest. Yet another one of Obama’s “genius” strategies that fails to impress. What a clown.

Related: Blowhard-a-thon at Blair House: Health care summit open thread

UPDATE: News today at Hot Air via Townhall: Dem sources: Senate “fix” for ObamaCare could add another $300 billion to price tag; Update: Dems ready for reconciliation, says Kyl

Here is something most people don’t know: Senators already expressed their opinion that reconciliation should not be used to pass ObamaCare last year. Here is what most don’t know about the budget conference report for fiscal year ’09:

Dem leaders are looking into reconciliation, a parliamentary maneuver only requiring 51 votes, to shovel pieces of an unpopular healthcare bill through the Senate. The Senate rejected this approach to pass healthcare legislation last year TWICE (unanimously in one case and by a 79-14 margin in the second case). While provisions to require 60-votes should have been included in the Budget Conference Report that came out of the House and Senate conference on each chamber’s respective Budget Resolutions, they were not. The question is why, while the answer points to yet another duplicitous backroom decision that ignores not only the will of the entire Senate, but in today’s environment also ignores the will of the American people writ large by the voters of Massachusetts on a bill that 2/3 of the country does not want.

For a description of the United States budget process see here.

The United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget are responsible for drafting budget resolutions. Following the traditional calendar, by early April both committees finalize their drafts and submit it to their respective floors for consideration and adoption.

A budget resolution, which is one form of a concurrent resolution, binds Congress, but is not a law, and so does not require the President’s signature. The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. No new spending authority, however, is provided until appropriation bills are enacted.

Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

The federal government’s fiscal year currently begins on October 1st and ends on September 30th of the next calendar year.

So the United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget each create a Budget Resolution for amending and voting by the respective chambers. This is followed by a selection of conferees by each chamber who will then meet to hash out a single Budget Conference Report that each chamber will subsequently vote on.

Dr. Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and President and CEO of the Social Security Institute writes the following:

The only way to defeat Reconciliation is to be prepared at a moment’s notice to pivot from a localized strategy precisely tailored to threaten targeted Democrats’ weak spots to a national campaign aimed not at the substance of ObamaCare so much as the fairness and political prudence of jamming something as enormous and contentious as healthcare reform down the throats of the American people with fewer than a majority of sitting Senators voting in favor of it. The strategy to defeat Reconciliation must be aimed at the Democratic Party as a whole questioning its judgment, prudence, fairness and wisdom. The task at this point will be to characterize Reconciliation as political thuggery, totally unacceptable in the American democratic process; to raise such national outrage at the strong-arm tactics of Reconciliation that Democrats understand the American People will not tolerate it and will throw them out of office at the first opportunity.

Here is a suggested framework on which to build a strategy against Reconciliation:

Senator Reid threatens to tie dissenting Senators’ hands behind their backs with procedural restrictions on amendments, gag them with strict limits on debate and pummel the long tradition of minority rights in the U.S. Senate by ramming ObamaCare through the Senate with a bare majority or even with fewer than a minimum 51 votes of sitting Senators, if necessary, by having Vice President Biden break a 50-50 tie.

The parliamentary maneuver Senator Reid would use to pass ObamaCare by less than a majority vote of sitting Senators is known as “Reconciliation.” Reconciliation is an extraordinary budgetary procedure designed specifically to ensure passage of an annual budget and avoid a stalemate leading to a complete shutdown of the federal government. Reconciliation was not designed and never intended to circumvent regular order in the Senate to ram through controversial and far-reaching legislation such as healthcare “reform.”

Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd, one of the authors of the Reconciliation procedure and foremost authority on the history of Senate rules and procedure describes what happens under Reconciliation this way:

“Under reconciliation’s gag rule there are twenty hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend.”

This is political thuggery—political assault and battery upon the American People pure and simple. Senator Byrd best expresses why using Reconciliation to jam ObamaCare down America’s throat degrades the U.S. Senate and violates the spirit of our system of checks and balances:

“Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process…With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it…We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right…Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people’s healthcare.”

That is why Senator Byrd says, “I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation.”

What Majority Leader Reid is hiding from the American public is the fact that a huge bipartisan majority of Senators agreed with Senator Byrd, when they were writing this year’s budget resolution back in April, that Reconciliation should not be used to railroad ObamaCare through the Senate.

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Senate Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The DeMint motion to instruct conferees to insist on the 60-vote requirement for healthcare passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. But mysteriously the 60-vote rule was stripped from the resolution in the dead of night, behind closed doors and out of sight of the rest of the Senate and the American People. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, must have fallen asleep during the Conference Committee meeting because he allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Now, Senator Reid stands on the flimsy excuse that the DeMint amendments are irrelevant because they were not in the final Budget Resolution Conference Report. But make no mistake, the 60-vote requirement—which was TWICE voted for by huge, bipartisan majorities in the Senate and did not affect the House—wasn’t in the final Budget Resolution Conference Report ONLY because Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad thumbed his nose at three fourths of his colleagues and took it upon himself contrary to the will of the Senate to unceremoniously strip their 60-vote rule out of the Conference Report.

With one-sixth of the U.S. economy at stake, the Senate should insist upon abiding by its own rule, which it TWICE adopted by overwhelming bipartisan votes. Why would Senator Reid insist upon using a provision the Senate TWICE agreed should NOT be used on healthcare because they knew it wouldn’t be right to pass a bill that divides the nation into feuding factions by a slim 50 votes?

Harry Reid’s argument that he is justified in jamming ObamaCare down America’s throat because there is no rule against it—actually because one rogue Senator took it upon himself to reverse the will and judgment of the entire Senate and eliminate a rule Senators thought was right and appropriate—is the pure sophistry of a tyrant.

The question is, what justifies the Senate in violating its own cherished norms and traditions? Why does Senator Reid refuse to abide by the 60-vote rule on healthcare the Senate TWICE voted to impose on itself by huge bipartisan majorities? Why does Senator Reid ignore the authoritative judgment of fellow Democrat Robert Byrd that it would be wrong, wrong, wrong to steamroller ObamaCare through the Senate under Reconciliation?

If Senator Kent Conrad had performed his duties correctly, then reconciliation would not even be on the table. An point-of-order amendment allows a Senator to raise a point-of-order objection and require adherence to the 60-vote requirement. Remember, this passed unanimously. The instruction-to-conferees amendment which passed 79-14 is supposed to require the Senate conferees insist the 60-vote rule be included in the final Budget Conference Report. Yet it was not.

This is not and never will be a parliamentary argument. However, from a PR perspective, the Democrats can be forced into a defensive posture and answer to the American public why – why do they feel the rest of us must follow rules while they can just chose to ignore them at a whim? It is this elitist “rules for thee but not for me” attitude that turns most of us off to Washington to begin with. The spirit of the 60-vote rule and minority rights they voted on in 2009 will not just disappear next year. The 2010 Budget Resolution from the Senate must contain the point-of-order amendment and the motion to instruct the Senate conferees that were stripped out the final Budget Conference report in 2009, effectively neutering the will the Senate. To allow this to continue in order to pass extremely unpopular legislation would be just one other example of elitists making up the rules and using disingenuous tactics to secure their ability to trample the will of the governed. We must insist they follow their own rules now as well as later in the next fiscal year. Just because somebody conveniently forgot to insist on the will of the Senate during conference with the House is no excuse not to adhere to self-imposed rules. Now is the time to display qualities of discipline and character – especially now. No more games, not more hiding, and no more dishonesty.

The American people have spoken. They are sick and tired of backroom deals, late night votes, broken promises of transparency, and now to top it all off the Democrats in the Senate are talking about using a procedure they agreed would not be used while allowing that will to be usurped by a committee chairman asleep at the wheel.

Fairness, abiding by the rules. Wake up Senator Reid – Americans hate backroom deals – they feed into the narrative of sneaky, shadowy, elitist weasels that is costing your party dearly and will continue to do so. The fact remains that it was the will of the Senate that reconciliation be taken off the table for this fiscal year and subsequently that will was ignored in conference. However, ignoring the will of a legislative body in a conference report does not nullify that will. A declaration cannot be summarily dismissed because somebody or some group decided not to champion a resolution even when instructed by a vote of 79-14 in the to do so. The Democrats, who have been backroom dealing and skulking in the shadows since this thing began, are about to ignore their own will if they follow through with reconciliation.

One is only as good as their word. Any Democratic Senator who now attempts to use this procedural trickery may be called a great asset by their progressive allies – maybe – but the rest of America will make it clear they were off by two letters and make their will known at the ballot box.

To pass healthcare legislation via this procedural bypass of minority rights, therefore impacting over 1/6 of our economy, would be the very definition of duplicity. It would be the very definition of audacity.

Related:

Breaking: Lincoln will oppose reconciliation

ObamaCare: Night of the Living Dead Bill

Reconciliation flip-flopper of the morning

Oh my: GOP ready to boycott ObamaCare summit?

Howard Dean, DFA, Launch Campaign Encouraging 51-Vote Health Care Bill. That headline should scare you.

If we ignore the following strategy to stop the 51-vote option to pass healthcare (known as reconciliation), we do so at our country’s peril. It would be a real tragedy if all the battles we have won – the town halls, the march on DC – all the efforts that went into stopping ObamaCare, were for naught. We can still lose the war. This is one way to help guarantee this will not happen, but it will require a little work on the part of the reader to follow closely the arguments below. They are not difficult and can be summarized neatly as follows:

• Reconciliation is a way to require only 50 votes to pass legislation, with the Vice President breaking the tie. It does have downsides, but they can be overcome with future legislation. It only requires patience.
• Think of the below as pressuring Republicans to force the Democrats into a defensive public relations posture – not as a parliamentary maneuver.
• Do NOT allow Republicans to avoid this strategy by claiming it makes them look obstructionist. They have the outline of a bill.
• Keep in mind that reconciliation is possible and no matter what the downsides appear to be, they can be overcome in the future. Anyone who tells you otherwise is politically naive.
• Only the grassroots has the power to make this happen. The same people that marched on DC, went to town halls, and stood up for this country have the power to realize this strategy
• Republicans are not necessarily your friends on this. Lump them together with the Democrats. The only difference is how the strategy is used to pressure each party.

Keep the following in mind as you continue reading: FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO AND THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON. You will see this again below.

For completeness, here is a description of Senator Demint’s amendments:

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Often, I will hear the tired old argument that these amendments are a non-issue. The false assumptions are usually presented by a detractor mired in parliamentary maneuvering and unaware of the public relations side of the strategy to use the above amendments to stop reconciliation, which would only require 50 votes to pass healthcare reform. The argument goes something like this:

The instruction was not in the Budget Conference Report but it passed anyway. The other amendment appears to rely on a CBO finding that hasn’t happened yet on a bill that hasn’t had a floor vote yet.

Another argument I often hear, and one I myself am guilty of propagating, is that reconciliation would amount to a Swiss cheese approach to legislation, with only some pieces of legislation meeting the criterion for consideration under this maneuver. I won’t go into the details here as to why, there are plenty of articles and posts written on the subject. The author of such an argument often goes on to say that, because of this shortcoming, reconciliation is not to be feared. This is patently false and politically naive. Allow any scaffolding, foundation, or skeleton of ObamaCare to pass via reconciliation and I will bet you the farm that later down the line that Swiss cheese morphs into a full-block of all you eat ObamaCare cheese. Liberals are patient – very patient. Give them the scaffolding and foundation and they will legislate full-blown ObamaCare into existence. It will only be a matter of time. So enough of this “do not fear reconciliation” nonsense. Take it off the table.

Once again it is up to the grassroots to get involved and put serious pressure on the Senate concerning these amendments and make known our expectation that these amendments be adhered to because of the promise by unanimous vote in one case and a vote of 79-14 in the second. If we shame enough Democrats the possibility increases that votes will be lacking in the Senate even for Reconciliation. It is up to the us to pressure Republicans to make this an issue. Republicans, as we all know too well, are prone to rolling over and need prodding on a regular basis. To borrow a Texas phrase, it’s like herding cattle.

The amendments passed. Therefore, if the Senators wish to be seen as men and women of character, they should follow the rules they set out for themselves. No more rules for thee (you and me) but not for me (the elitist politicians). No more spineless non-responses and no more pompous attitudes. If the 9/12 DC march taught Republicans and Democrats anything, it is the grassroots is real, we are big, and we will vote.

Here is an outline of the facts. Here is an outline of how to use the reality that these amendments were voted on in the past with the purpose of stopping reconciliation and preserving minority rights in the Senate to stop Democrats from forcing tremendous changes to 1/6 of our economy.

• The Senate insiders have tried all along to dismiss the DeMint provisions on technical grounds by ignoring the facts that got us to the current situation. The grassroots must be ruthless and relentless in pushing the Republicans to do the right thing and make this an issue.
• It is all about constructing the right narrative.
• If we start listening to excuses from insiders, our movement will be hijacked by the establishment (beltway insiders, including politicians of both parties), which is exactly what they will try to do.
• The establishment’s attempt to hijack the movement is less about elbowing for who gets credit than about herding us so we don’t rock the boat and make life uncomfortable for them. What they fail to realize is they are the cattle and we are the cowboys. We herd them, not the other way around.
• First, by any stretch of the imagination any bill currently under consideration by the Senate satisfies the conditions set down in the original DeMint Amendment that passed by unanimous consent. I would love to debate anyone arguing otherwise.
• We can argue all day whether or not CBO would rule otherwise but that gives up the fight before it even begins. The CBO doesn’t have to rule on anything since the provision has been stripped. I suspect any detractors of this strategy of talking to a Republican insider or getting their information from one second or third hand.
• Of course CBO hasn’t yet ruled whether or not a bill satisfies the DeMint conditions, because it is not law yet. But the pertinent point is that the DeMint Amendment is not law precisely because it was dropped unceremoniously in conference contrary to the will of the Senate as evidenced by a huge bipartisan majority (79 votes). How did that happen? The Senate Budget Committee Chairman who voted for the measure twice on the floor of the Senate and was under instructions from his Senate colleagues to insist on the Senate provision in conference turned his head.
• The establishment would love to make this about a parliamentarian maneuver rather than what it really is – a public relations disaster – one that would force any Senator to explain to their constituents why they voted on an amendment to protect minority rights and stop reconciliation and then subsequently chose to ignore that very vote. This is a favorite technique used to keep strategy control firmly within the hands of the insiders.
• That is why we have to construct the narrative and control it from the outside rather than allowing the insiders to set the terms of the debate.
• This is a very simple story. The Senate made a rule and then broke other rules in the dead of night to throw it in the garbage. The Senate passed a rule committing itself not to consider under reconciliation any healthcare reform bill that satisfied certain conditions. It left it to CBO to determine whether the bill would satisfy those conditions but it is self evident that any bill currently under consideration does satisfy them. The Senate then instructed its conferees to insist on retaining that amendment in conference.
  

  The Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad betrayed his colleagues and acted contrary to their instructions. We know for a fact that it was he because the House conferees had no political purchase on the provision. It could only be stripped out with Conrad’s acquiescence.

• Now someone wants to turn around and argue that the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply because it is no longer in the Budget Resolution and, oh by the way even if it were still in the Budget Resolution it wouldn’t make any difference anyway because CBO would not certify any current bill under consideration as satisfying the conditions established by the amendment.
• Of course the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply, but they had to cheat to strip it so that it wouldn’t apply
• We should not allow ourselves to be conned into defending status quo rules when other rules and long tradition of the Senate had to be broken to get us to this status quo – this is so Republican.
• Instead, we should be arguing that the Senate should abide by the rule it adopted for itself anyway because it should still be in the resolution and would be in the resolution if the Democrats hadn’t played games and the Republicans hadn’t slept through them.
• As for CBO, we must simply assert that the only way CBO could possibly not certify a bill as satisfying the conditions of the amendment is if they were being manipulated by the Democrats. This is not as far fetched as you think. Recall Obama met with the CBO director – the first time a President has ever done that.

In closing:

• The Republicans have the rules and the politics on their side, and they have simply been unwilling to pick up the ball and run with it just as they were unwilling to fight ObamaCare and RINOCare until we made it impossible for them not to.
• We have to stick the ball in their hands and push them out front so either they run with it or get crushed. We have to re-focus the debate on fairness, abiding by the rules.
• We have an ally. Oddly enough, Democrat Robert C. Byrd provides us the best arguments for not passing healthcare reform under Reconciliation.

The establishment knows how to play the game and that is why they take us to the cleaners on a regular basis – in the past. Now its our turn. Spin cycle anyone?

It’s up to us, the grassroots. We can’t go all wobbly on America now.

The American people will want to know why was it stripped to begin with? More importantly, why wouldn’t the Senate abide by its own rule? The House has no say in it. FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON.

Kill ObamaCare. Hit the reset switch. Then we can do it right. Simple free-market solutions exist which can drive down costs without liberty destroying legislation that favors big government and/or big business and without the budget busting price tag attached to all these proposals.

Update: Why this is reaching a critical moment: Howard Dean, DFA, Launch Campaign Encouraging 51-Vote Health Care Bill. If we ignore the following, we do so at our country’s peril. This strategy will work.

Keep the following in mind as you read this post: FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON. You will see this again below.

In this post, I argue how the coup de grace is nigh for ObamaCare. I also point to this post that details Senator Jim DeMint’s amendments how they can be used to kill reconciliation. From the second post:

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

One comment on first post linked above comes from jfxgillis:

G.J.:

To take them in reverse order, the motion to instruct simply isn’t operative anymore. The instruction was not in the Budget Conference Report but it passed anyway.

The other amendment appears to rely on a CBO finding that hasn’t happened yet on a bill that hasn’t had a floor vote yet.

The amendments only passed in the first place because they don’t matter.

Once again it is up to the grassroots to get involved and put serious pressure on the Senate concerning these amendments and make known our expectation that these amendments be adhered to because of the promise by unanimous vote in one case and a vote of 79-14 in the second. If we shame enough Democrats the possibility increases that votes will be lacking in the Senate even for Reconciliation. It is up to the us to pressure Republicans to make this an issue. Republicans, as we all know too well, are prone to rolling over and need prodding on a regular basis. To borrow a Texas phrase, it’s like herding cattle.

The amendments passed. Therefore, if the Senators wish to be seen as men and women of character, they should follow the rules they set out for themselves. No more rules for thee (you and me) but not for me (the elitist politicians). No more spineless non-responses and no more pompous attitudes. If the 9/12 DC march taught Republicans and Democrats anything, it is the grassroots is real, we are big, and we will vote.

The Senate insiders have tried all along to dismiss the DeMint provisions on technical grounds by ignoring the facts that got us to the current situation. The grassroots must be ruthless and relentless in pushing the Republicans to do the right thing. It is all about constructing the right narrative. If we start listening to excuses from insiders, our movement will be hijacked by the establishment (beltway insiders, including politicians of both parties), which is exactly what they will try to do. But hijacking the movement is less about elbowing for who gets credit than about herding us so we don’t rock the boat and make life uncomfortable for them. What they fail to realize is they are the cattle and we are the cowboys. We herd them, not the other way around.

First, by any stretch of the imagination any bill currently under consideration by the Senate satisfies the conditions set down in the original DeMint Amendment that passed by unanimous consent. I would love to debate anyone arguing otherwise.

We can argue all day whether or not CBO would rule otherwise but that gives up the fight before it even begins. The CBO doesn’t have to rule on anything since the provision has been stripped. I suspect my detractors response above has been talking to a Republican insider or is getting his information from one second or third hand.

Of course CBO hasn’t yet ruled whether or not a bill satisfies the DeMint conditions, because it is not law yet. But the pertinent point is that the DeMint Amendment is not law precisely because it was dropped unceremoniously in conference contrary to the will of the Senate as evidenced by a huge bipartisan majority (79 votes). How did that happen? The Senate Budget Committee Chairman who voted for the measure twice on the floor of the Senate and was under instructions from his Senate colleagues to insist on the Senate provision in conference turned his head.

The reader may be asking why Senator DeMint is not pushing this issue hard – after all they are his amendments. The answer is obvious – he knows his cowardly Republican colleagues won’t stand up and fight and he doesn’t think the grass roots can be mobilized by this kind of procedural argument, which seems to be confirmed by my detractor above. If we allow ourselves to get intimidated by the technical details and try to explain and discuss them so we pass the test as Senate parliamentarians, we will lose the American public. The parliamentarian test is another favorite technique used to keep strategy control firmly within the hands of the insiders. That is why we have to construct the narrative and control it from the outside rather than allowing the insiders to set the terms of the debate.

Republicans always allow themselves to be cowed. They know that as politicians they are a dreadful lot, their political skills leaving much to be desired. They reveal this inferiority complex by this kind of timid, overly cautious behavior. Well, sometimes cattle need prodding. We need to take up the issue and insist on it. We must put ourselves in the drivers seats. The Senate Republicans are our passengers, our guests, and it is we who must take them along for a ride – not the other way around. Then let the Democrats stand on technicalities after placed on the defensive. The American public will see right through them.

This is a very simple story. The Senate made a rule and then broke other rules in the dead of night to throw it in the garbage. This is the same way these jokers have destroyed the Constitution. The Senate passed a rule committing itself not to consider under Reconciliation any healthcare reform bill that satisfied certain conditions. It left it to CBO to determine whether the bill would satisfy those conditions but it is self evident that any bill currently under consideration does satisfy them. The Senate then instructed its conferees to insist on retaining that amendment in conference. The Senate Budget Committee Chairman betrayed his colleagues and acted contrary to their instructions. We know for a fact that it was he because the House conferees had no political purchase on the provision. It could only be stripped out with Conrad’s acquiescence.

Now someone wants to turn around and argue that the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply because it is no longer in the Budget Resolution and, oh by the way even if it were still in the Budget Resolution it wouldn’t make any difference anyway because CBO would not certify any current bill under consideration as satisfying the conditions established by the amendment. Of course the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply, but they had to cheat to strip it so that it wouldn’t apply — we should not allow ourselves to be conned into defending status quo rules when other rules and long tradition of the Senate had to be broken to get us to this status quo – this is so Republican. Instead, we should be arguing that the Senate should abide by the rule it adopted for itself anyway because it should still be in the resolution and would be in the resolution if the Democrats hadn’t played games and the Republicans hadn’t slept through them.

As for CBO, we must simply assert that the only way CBO could possibly not certify a bill as satisfying the conditions of the amendment is if they were being manipulated by the Democrats.

The Republicans have the rules and the politics on their side, and they have simply been unwilling to pick up the ball and run with it just as they were unwilling to fight ObamaCare and RHINOCare until we made it impossible for them not to. We have to stick the ball in their hands and push them out front so either they run with it or get crushed. We have to re-focus the debate on fairness, abiding by the rules. Oddly enough, Robert C. Byrd provides us the best arguments for not passing healthcare reform under Reconciliation. Just ask yourself this: If the situation were reversed, would the Democrats be wringing their hands and being so fastidious? One guess, and my bet is you will get it right. Why, because if you are reading this chances are you are smarter than most politicians. I know you, not personally, but I have met hundreds like you and color me impressed. For any mindless ObamaBots who are reading this, the answer is – of course not.

The establishment knows how to play the game and that is why they take us to the cleaners on a regular basis – in the past. Now its our turn. Spin cycle anyone?

It’s up to us, the grassroots. We can’t go all wobbly on America now.

The argument that the Senate would have rejected the entire conference report if it really wanted the amendment in is weak. First, it all happened so fast I am sure only a couple of Democrats realized it was gone. The Republicans voted against the Resolution anyway. This was a set up and we are falling into the trap they set. Finally, we have to make it clear that this was not a provision in dispute between the House and Senate, which would have given the “it-passed-anyway-without-it” argument more saliency; this was a provision the House didn’t care about and the Senate was on record by huge bipartisan majorities in favor of twice.

The American people will want to know why was it stripped to begin with? More importantly, why wouldn’t the Senate abide by its own rule? The House has no say in it. FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON.

So how do you put the pressure on Republicans to make this an issue and subsequently push enough Democrats away from Reconciliation because the political stakes are too high? Copy this link (http://tinyurl.com/m6ywb7) and sent it out to everyone you know. Send it to the Tea Parties, make it viral, and continue to take back this country. Or feel free to use this material as you wish. Copy it, paste it, put it on your own blog. A good friend once told me of a quote by President Ronald Reagan.

There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.

Amen. I am not looking for recognition, instead I am looking for the day to arrive when I turn on my computer, go to my favorite blog or internet news site and read: Healthcare Reform Dies.

Can you imagine? This is a group effort, it is a grassroots effort. None of this would be possible without millions of disillusioned citizens taking their grievances to the government, or putting in their time going to rally’s, protests, marches, writing on blogs, and organizing local tea party chapters. This is truly an amazing time in the history of this country.

We did it on 9/12, we can do it again.

Kill ObamaCare. Hit the reset switch. Then we can do it right. Simple free-market solutions exist which can drive down costs without liberty destroying legislation that favors big government and/or big business and without the budget busting price tag attached to all these proposals. I live in Texas and the benefits of tort reform by itself are quantifiable and beneficial to both patients and doctors.

Update: Reader SteveL in the comments asks the question why only a few are taking up this issue? The answer lies in the post above – it is how the establishment has gamed the system. I reply that I have contacted major bloggers on the issue and have yet to hear back from them. Nobody is interested. However, should ObamaCare pass and later analysis indicates the above approach would have killed it, then at least I was on the right side of history. I have contacted some Tea Party groups, including the national chapter. It has only been a couple of days for the later, so I am still holding out hope.

In other news and opinion:

Does Anybody Actually Like the Baucus Health Care Bill?

Doctors Threaten to Go Galt if ObamaCare Passes

ACORN’s Comprehensive Ho-migration Reform

The Useful Idiots Are After Rush Limbaugh Now

President Obama: Back to Square One on Health Care

ObamaCare: Who loves the Baucus bill?

Coward-in-Chief

Gallup: Obama under 50% on Afghanistan, economy, health care, deficit

Obama’s solution on illegals and health care? Amnesty; Update: Video added

Rasmussen: ObamaCare hits highest disapproval rate yet

A few more myths from the White House

Major Update 2: There is a meme making its way through the internet the Jim Demint amendments don’t matter. NOT TRUE.

Major Update: ObamaCare coup de grace is nigh. It is time to strike the death blow.

The battle now turns to preventing the Senate from jamming ObamaCare down the throats of the American People under Reconciliation. The end game is underway and the momentum is swinging toward the opponents of ObamaCare. Or to mix metaphors, ObamaCare opponents are on the green, and all they have to do is sink the putt. Can anybody here play this game? After Saturday’s impressive demonstration on the National Mall there is no doubt the grass-roots movement for freedom, privacy and limited government can hit a very long drive and knows how to chip onto the green. The question remains: Can they putt? Let’s hope so.

Can we stop reconciliation? You bet we can. Read Senate Ignores Jim Demint Amendments That Kill Reconciliation And How We Can Use It. The Senate passed these two amendments – one unanimously and the other by a margin of 79-14 – both which kill reconciliation. The Dems choosing to ignore their own amendments is shameful. We must follow the rules, but if you are a Senator, well rules be damned. It is exactly this privileged mentality of “rules for thee, but not for me” that fuels much of the anger directed at the Congress these days.

The grassroots Tea Parties carried a great deal of energy during the Congressional August recess over the break. That energy, which appeared non-coherent and at the local level, showed its national teeth September the 12th, 2009 during the march on DC. It is long past the time when this energy needs to be concentrated like a laser beam in one place – the Senate, or we WILL see bill pass that is contrary to fiscal responsibility and an outright danger to healthcare in this country. Like any form of energy, there is always a portion which is lost to other factors. In a automobile, the engine’s energy is used to power the vehicle, but much of it is lost to friction and heat. There is never a free lunch in nature. The same is true of informational energy. Undirected informational energy is wasted energy. Now, more than ever, we need to direct that energy or it will all be for naught. We will get the healthcare we deserve.

From the Social Security Institute:

The Hill reports that Senate Democratic Leadership remains optimistic they can produce a RHINOCare “bipartisan compromise” on healthcare reform that will get 60 votes. If not, Democratic Leader Harry Reid said they are prepared to jam ObamaCare down the American People’s throats under the special parliamentary maneuver called Reconciliation, which severely restricts the number of amendments that can be offered, stringently limits the time for debate and allows the Senate to pass a measure by a mere simple majority, contrary to the normal rules and long tradition of the U.S. Senate.

Now is the time for the grass-roots movement that put a million people on the National Mall last Saturday to rise up as one and (1) insist that Republicans not cave in to a RHINOCare “compromise” that would impose a mandate on individuals forcing them to purchase health insurance (a so-called “individual mandate”); and (2) demand that the Senate consider healthcare legislation under the REGULAR ORDER — NO RECONCILIATION.

Read more about the Individual Mandate here. . .

Read why RINOCare and the Individual Mandate is contrary to all GOP principles here. . .

Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd explains why passing healthcare reform under Reconciliation would be an abuse of the budget process and contrary to the time-honored traditions of the U.S. Senate here. . .

And let’s not forget, The Story The Media And Major Blogs Are Not Reporting: Senate Ignores Jim Demint Amendments That Kill Reconciliation And How We Can Use It.

If we don’t win this, the Tea Parties will lose momentum. Once Congress realizes we speak in generalities and our energy is not focused on specifics, that’s it – everyone came to the party, had a good time, and went home. If we lose this, how successful do you think we will be with Cap-and-trade or Card Check or whatever other nightmare Obama has in store for us?

This adds a sense of urgency to our mission: Snowe falls away, leaving Senate Dems without GOP support on healthcare. Marcus comments and drives the point home:

With the Jim Demint amendments going national that increases the probability that enough Dems will not support reconciliation, which these two amendments address.

BLAST this link out to all your friends and have them blast it out. Blast it to the tea parties. Here is a shortened version of the link to this post that you can copy and paste into an email: http://tinyurl.com/ndork4. Use twitter and the social networks, the ShareThis button at the bottom of this post – whatever method works for you. It’s time to drop the hammer on ObamaCare, hit the reset switch and start over.

In other news and opinion:

Video: Mob boss or union boss?

ObamaCare getting even more partisan and more unwieldy

Whatever Happened to the 9/13 March?

Senate Democrat website: With no action, uninsured to reach 101 million by 2019

ObamaCare: Does the media matter?

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul. Via Instapundit.

Report: Rules of engagement led to soldiers’ deaths

Too Much Obama Can Be Hazardous to the President’s Health

Audio: What would Wilson say to Carter?

ACORN: Hey, maybe we do need to clean house

Snowe bails on “compromise” ObamaCare bill; Update: Baucus plan cuts Medicare

Reason: The center’s paranoia is the most threatening

Your Morning Health Care Roundup: Exeunt Snowe, Republicans