I was born in Canada. At the age of six my father moved his family to this country to escape socialism. I am 43 years old, have 25 stents (that’s right, I said 25) in three major heart arteries. I have had four heart attacks since the age of 38. If Obama, Pelsoi, Reid, et al. think I am scared of them, think again. I have defied death four times. In comparison, you are cockroaches to be stepped upon.

You hear that Obama. Come and get me. If your unconstitutional bill passes using the Slaughter Rule (which itself is blatantly unconstitutional) then it is my intention to increase my exemptions on my W4 form to ensure the tax revenue for your bill is denied you until next year and then I may consider paying – may. Am I entitled to the number of exemptions under penalty of perjury? You bet I am – I deem it so.

I hope millions will do the same. For then you will have neither the manpower nor the ability to enforce your unconstitutional law. If the Democrats think they are stubborn by shoving this down the throats of an unwilling public, we will show you the true meaning of stubborn.

I am not going to wait for the Supreme Court to rule ObamaCare unconstitutional. If they do, fine, if they do not, fine. In my mind this is the last proof one needs that nullification is the only option to stop the madness that is Washington DC – regardless of what the SCOTUS ruling is on ObamaCare. Too many other violations of our rights as defined in the Constitution require addressing. Only the states can fix this problem now and only if many of them stand together.

Washington, this time you have gone to far. Your tiny brains cannot begin to comprehend the storm that will hit you should you not kill ObamaCare now. If clear-headed Democrats still exist in the Congress, then I would highly recommend that enough of them get together and write a letter to Pelosi telling her exactly where she can put her bill and that they will not, under any circumstances, vote for either the Slaughter Rule or for ObamaCare. The well has been poisoned and the game is over. Recognize that or go down in history complicit in the destruction of your own party.

Will I pay the tax penalty for underpayment? No, I will not. I deem it true that the penalty is not required of me. I deem the President and any liberal who votes for the Slaughter rule or for ObamaCare unfit for office and a traitor to this country. As President it is your job to stand up and say enough when the constitution itself it being trampled upon. The fact you do not clearly demonstrates your contempt for this document. As you swore to uphold it, any failure to do so had better be met with your removal from office when we take over in 2010.

Resolved: The federal government derives its power from the people and state’s of this country. This has been true from the times of the Constitution itself.

Resolved: The federal government has overstepped its bounds and grabbed power to the point that it has corrupted the minds of many politicians with such a level of contempt and insanity that the only recourse is to fight tyranny. As it states in the Declaration of Independence, it is our duty to fight tyranny. Not our right – out duty. It can be done peacefully and will be done peacefully. Our leaders not longer hold power. Rather, it is power that holds them.

Enough is enough. Bring. It. On.

Not only will you lose your precious ObamaCare, you will kill progressive politics and set it back a century or more. You will have done more in one year for the rights of the people and the states than we could possibly have imagined and you will, in the process, remove yourself as an obstacle to liberty for a very, very long time.

Today is the day to not ask questions – it is the day for action. The Senate GOP must shut down the Senate, and halt the normal course of business in Washington on all matters of legislation for the foreseeable future until ObamaCare is dead or until the 2010 elections. No longer will fig leaf and wobbly excuses suffice. Do it and do it now. Use this time to expose those who would abscond with our liberty by ignoring the very document that made this country great. The campaign for 2010 starts today. The Democrats have lost the mandate, their jugular is exposed and now is the time to move in for the kill. Show yourselves to be field mice who scatter at the slightest noise and the results will not be to your liking. Show yourselves to be wolves and lions and we will consider you strong allies.

And would someone please send Pelosi, Obama, and Slaughter the School House Rock cartoon “I’m Just a Bill”? Perhaps this better fits their intellectual capacity to understand basic civics. Then we can move on to the alphabet.

Go ahead Obama, make my day. I want to be the poster child that brings you down. I want to chronicle for the world a new narrative of David vs. Goliath. I want this to be the beginning of an army of Davids, taking down your entire agenda and shattering it to pieces around you. You are a thief of liberty, a manipulator, and an egotistical maniac, keeping company with like-minded thieves. This is the beginning…of the end. I will not rest until the states have taken back their rightful place in the power structure and I want you to know that you will be responsible for heralding in a new age of liberty – much to your chagrin. Now if you will excuse me, I have to get back to clinging to my gun and my bible.

Oh, and by the way I am hearing from the AP you are open to some deals now on your bill. The only deal that is acceptable is for your bill to die a well-deserved death until the next Congress can take it up. We need health care reform in this country. We just don’t need your version of it. I’d like my doctor and I to make decisions concerning my health care thank you very much, and I would appreciate it if you would quit lying through your teeth about the benefits of your bill. You are past the point of looking like an disingenuous fool on this issue.

Related:

Constitution Butchers: Stop Pelosi’s Slaughter House; Update: Dems don’t have the votes

Obama flip-flops on dealmaking for ObamaCare

Reconciliation bill posted; Update: Shell bill

Steamed does not begin to describe my reaction to this piece by Politico:

It is not clear how effective DeMint’s flamboyant brand of politics will be in the long term. For now, however, he is the most vivid example of how, in a new-media age of cable television and the Web, a politician willing to step on toes and play to ideological crowds can jump the line of older colleagues in establishing a national profile.

In an earlier age, a politician like DeMint — a former House member and businessman whose fiery views coexist with a surprisingly mild personality — could have expected to languish for years in relative obscurity.

By becoming for practical purposes the Washington leader of the tea party movement, DeMint also illustrates the degree to which energy on the right is now flowing to the capital and not from it. Congressional GOP leaders like House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell derive their power from the inside, by virtue of the support of their colleagues. DeMint is the model now for how a rank-and-file member otherwise consigned to the back bench can be relevant without any title. It may not make him popular at the weekly caucus lunches, but it will get him on Sean Hannity’s show…

…On politics, it means offering only a deafening silence toward senators facing primary challenges he views as insufficiently conservative — Arizona’s John McCain and Utah’s Bob Bennett — and backing more ideologically pure candidates than his party’s leadership prefers in the Senate primaries in Florida and California.

Further rankling his colleagues, DeMint is using his political action committee, the Senate Conservatives Fund, to rate senators on just how conservative they are. Several who were given relatively low marks by DeMint — based on their votes in the last Congress — are dismissive of the ratings.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said his 89 percent lifetime ranking from the American Conservative Union is “what counts” — not the 76 percent rating from DeMint, who, not surprisingly, is the only senator to receive a 100 percent rating on his website.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, vice chairwoman of the GOP Conference, who got a 50 percent score for her votes in 2008, said that DeMint’s ratings were “assuming his standard of conservatism.”

And Bennett, a close ally of McConnell’s who received a 60 percent score from DeMint’s PAC, said he had “no idea [on] what basis people make these kinds of calculations.”

“I can show you surveys that show you I’m one of the most conservative members and another survey that shows me that I’m not,” said Bennett, who is facing multiple GOP candidates running on his right flank. “It all depends on who is picking the votes to come to the conclusion he wants.”

Asked to respond to DeMint’s decision not to endorse him in the race, Bennett said: “I have no comment.”

McCain said he wasn’t bothered by DeMint’s decision not to endorse him in his primary contest with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, pointing out his support from other conservative figures, such as his 2008 running mate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

What is clearly bothering others in the caucus, though, is DeMint’s seeming preference for being pure and in the minority than having a squishy majority.

His new stump speech mantra: “I’d rather have 30 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters.

Read the whole thing and remember the names of establishment GOP whose habitual dismissive behavior of DeMint is disingenuous as the reader will soon see.

Looks like DC needs to break some bad habits, like identifying effectiveness and then attempting to squash it. Not on my watch. A little history is in order.

Why would leaders such as Senator McConnell squirm at the mention of Senator DeMint? That requires a trip down memory lane.

Last year, two events happened during the fight against ObamaCare that, had the Senator from South Carolina not stood on principle for the people of this country and championed fiscal responsibility, we would already have ObamaCare, Scott Brown win or not.

Senator DeMint understood the need to obstruct and use the tools of obstruction to block the passage of the liberty stealing behemoth that is ObamaCare. Erick Erickson picked up on this process in December and wrote an excellent piece titled Fight:

The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, has parliamentary rules and procedures that give the minority the ability to stall legislation. In fact, unlike the House, the minority have the ability to virtually paralyze the Senate. Doing so is not something we would want or expect for every bad bill that comes through Congress, but the proposed healthcare legislation is probably the worst piece of legislation ever considered by the United States Congress. It is the most intrusive, most damaging, most costly, most dangerous bill to the economic and personal freedom and liberty of individual Americans that Congress has ever considered. If there is any bill that deserves being stopped by shutting down the Senate, it is this one.

There are a whole series of parliamentary maneuvers that could be used by Republican senators to stop this bill. There is a hard backstop to the current process (Christmas). The Republicans’ goal should be to prevent Reid from passing the bill before that time. If he goes past Christmas and is forced to adjourn or recess, the momentum will shift in favor of those opposing the bill.

How could this be done?

To start with, they should stop constantly agreeing to “unanimous consent” requests from the Democrats. Senate Republicans, to date, have allowed Democrats, by unanimous consent, to process 10 amendments. The amendments that have been accepted – Democrat amendments – did not make the over 2000-page atrocity any better. The Republican strategy of trying to pass their own “message” amendments carries no message unless you consider “no strategy to kill the bill” a message.

When DeMint removed unanimous consent, there existed an expectation that other GOP members join the fight. When Democrats threatened to retaliate against the GOP for this obstructive tactic, done on behalf of the American people, the GOP backed down. What ominous threat could possibly cause such a mass defection from standing up for the rights of the American people in fighting an unpopular bill? The GOP was told they would be kept in the Senate until and even beyond Christmas break. God forbid such a horror happen.

This prompted a campaign by a number of organizations to expose the lack of starch in the spine of many GOP members. I was honored to be a part of this campaign and work with the likes of such luminaries as Dr. Larry Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan. This campaign, titled I Object, sent out an email blast, some of which follows:

Just say “I Object” to Stop ObamaCare

Shame on Republican Senators!

They are paving the way for ObamaCare to be enacted into law this year because they want to go on Christmas Vacation.

Yes, that’s right, REPUBLICAN Senators are going to be responsible for the impending government takeover of healthcare. They have the power to prevent the Reid Health Bill from passing the Senate this year but they are not doing what needs to be done to stop the socialization of one-sixth of the American economy before the New Year arrives.

I know it sounds unbelievable that REPUBLICANS are the ones who will be responsible for a government takeover of healthcare but that is the sad and outrageous truth.

Don’t Let Republican Senators Put Their Christmas Break Ahead of Their Country. Tell Republican Senators: “Just Object to Harry Reid’s Fast-Track Rush on ObamaCare”…

…Our Capitol-Hill operatives have learned that the Senate Republican Leadership is working hand-in-glove behind the scenes with the Democratic Leadership to move one amendment after another through the Senate without adequate time for debate and deliberation. In exchange for this collaboration with the enemy, the Democratic Leadership is assuring Republicans they will be allowed to offer their own “message amendments” and that Republicans will not be forced to work long hours through the night during this holiday season.

These “message amendments” are not intended to be adopted in order to improve the bill—this bill is so horrible it cannot be improved by amendments—they are designed simply to put Senators on the record and hoodwink voters into believing Republicans are fighting the good fight against ObamaCare.

Republican Senators, with a few exceptions such as Senator Jim DeMint (SC), ARE NOT fighting the good fight. They are collapsing like cheap suits all over Capitol Hill. If they don’t reverse course immediately and stiffen their spine, it will be the REPUBLICANS who are responsible for enacting ObamaCare into law.

Republican Senator Jon Kyl let the cat out of the bag on Bill Bennett’s radio show last week. When guest host Rick Santorum asked Kyl, “What is your strategy, to the extent you can share it,” Kyl said, “Actually, I think we can be fairly upfront about it. Our strategy is not actually to delay and not take votes.” Kyl went on, “Our strategy is to have a lot of good amendments and highlight the problems in the bill. It is not our strategy to somehow slow things down.”

This complicity by Republican Senators is despicable, and it is illustrative of how your representatives in Washington say one thing and do exactly the opposite.

For example, last week Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado offered a do-nothing amendment that purported to protect Medicare from cuts. It was a classic congressional fig-leaf amendment for ObamaCare supporters to hide behind.

The amendment was carefully and narrowly crafted with much hortatory language about not cutting guaranteed Medicare benefits but the amendment actually does NOTHING to change provisions in the bill that WILL cut Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars. Behind the cover of this Senate fig-leaf amendment—political cover for the Democrats, which all 40 Republicans voted in favor of—the Reid bill will undermine Medicare Advantage plans and squeeze the life out of Medicare by putting doctors, hospitals and other medical providers in a reimbursement vice that fixes prices and leads to Medicare rationing.

Rather than filibustering this amendment to expose the duplicity and deception behind it; rather than insisting on unlimited debate on the amendment and forcing Harry Reid to file a cloture petition to shut off debate, which would have guaranteed two days of debate, deliberation and sunshine on the amendment; rather than voting against the amendment to expose the shenanigans behind it; the Republican Leadership instead agreed to wrap up the amendment with only a few hours debate.

In exchange for this Republican complicity in providing Democrats political cover, the Democratic Leadership graciously allowed Republicans an amendment to be offered by Arizona Senator John McCain that would recommit the Reid Bill to committee and strip out provisions that actually DO cut Medicare. Republicans knew 20 Democrats/Independents would never vote with them to recommit the bill (it would have taken 60 votes to do so). Yet, Republicans traded off two days worth of debate and voted for a fig-leaf amendment to provide ObamaCare supporters political cover in order to be allowed to offer a “message amendment” of their own, which misled the public into believing Republicans are trying to fight the bill when in fact they are facilitating its ultimate passage before the New Year.

The Bennet amendment passed with only hours of debate by a vote of 100 to zero. Then, the McCain amendment to recommit the Reid Bill to Committee in order to actually strip out provisions of the bill that DO cut Medicare—think of it as an amendment to actually implement the do-nothing amendment that just passed by 100 votes—was defeated on a virtual party-line vote. Only two Democrats (Jim Webb-Va. and Ben Nelson-Neb.) were given free passes from the Democratic Leadership to vote in favor of it. Message sent: “Republicans are allowing themselves to be played as the Democrats’ useful idiots.”

All of this was little Medicare drama was precooked by the Republican and Democratic Senate Leadership in what is called a “Unanimous Consent Agreement,” which lays out the terms and conditions under which amendments are offered, debated and voted upon.

What is a Unanimous Consent Agreement?

A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected.

The Republican Senators have been protesting vehemently in the media about how much they oppose ObamaCare and the Reid Health bill, and despite their constant reassurances to grass-roots activists that they are doing everything humanly possible to defeat the bill, Republicans in fact are quietly stepping aside and allowing the ObamaCare Express loaded down with the Reid Bill and tons of amendments to barrel through the U.S. Senate so they can go home for Christmas Vacation without delay and not have to work long hours in the meantime.

The ONLY exception is Senator Jim DeMint (SC).

He is the lone Senator willing to stand in the gap and do what it takes to defeat socialism, defeat ObamaCare. But he cannot do it alone. He cannot be on the floor 24/7, which is what it takes to stop these unanimous consent agreements. He needs his fellow Republicans assist him by standing sentinel on the Senate Floor against unanimous consent agreements when he cannot be there.

Republicans need to follow Senator DeMint’s brave example and just Object to Harry Reid’s Fast-Track Rush on ObamaCare.

If you have a U.S. Senator who is OPPOSED to the Reid plan for a Washington takeover of healthcare, you have a huge opportunity right now to take action—action that could stop ObamaCare from being rushed into law this year. Let Republican Senators know that if the Reid Bill passes the Senate this year, you will hold them personally responsible for ObamaCare being enacted into law and despite anything else they say or do in the interim, you will vote against them they next time they stand for reelection, yes even if that means voting for a Democrat because it will be clear by their INACTION that they are nothing but tools of the Democrats anyway.

Republicans have the power; all it takes is one Senator to object to each Unanimous Consent Agreement every time Reid tries to ram another amendment through the fast-track process. Republicans must take turns following Senator Jim DeMint’s example when he objected to the use of a Unanimous Consent Agreement to ram the very first amendment to the Reid Bill—the Mikulski Amendment—through the Senate on the “Fast Track.” DeMint demanded that Reid get 60 votes on a cloture motion, thus guaranteeing two days of sunshine and scrutiny on the amendment. Republican Senators MUST STAND WITH DEMINT AND DEMAND at least two days debate and public scrutiny of EVERY amendment proposed to the Reid Bill.

The GOP holds only 40 seats in the U.S. Senate but that is enough to stop ObamaCare from passing this year if Republicans man up to the situation and play their cards right—even if that means casting some difficult votes, taking heat for dilatory tactics, staying up late at night and yes perhaps even working Christmas Eve and the week after Christmas. Republicans must not put their Christmas Break ahead of their country. Republicans must not put their personal political careers ahead of the general welfare.

If ObamaCare is enacted into law this year, IT WILL BE THE FAULT OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS because they refused to suffer a little bit of personal inconvenience and political risk to defend their country against another government takeover. Make no mistake, all Republican Senators must do to stop ObamaCare this year is object to the Democrats fast-track scheme to jam one amendment after another through the Senate with limited debate and restricted public scrutiny.

It doesn’t take 40 Republicans to succeed in stopping the Reid Bill; it doesn’t take 20; it only takes ONE Republican to object each time Harry Reid propounds a unanimous consent agreement to rush another amendment through the process.

Let me say that again: It takes ONLY ONE Republican to object each time Harry Reid tries to jam another amendment through the process with limited debate and little public scrutiny. With 40 Republicans in the Senate, that means even if Harry Reid kept the Senate in session 24 hours a day (as the Democratic Whip has threatened), each Republican Senator would have to spend no more than 36 minutes a day doing floor duty as a sentinel against the Majority Leader jamming another amendment through the Senate process under a rigged unanimous consent agreement.

All year we’ve been trying to convince senators who support government health care to change their minds and senators on the fence to come out against it. That’s still vitally important. But given the way the Senate works, it is more important right now to make sure Republican Senators who claim to oppose the Reid Bill have the courage and perspicacity to use the enormous leverage they possess to prevent the bill from passing this year. Remember, there is no way the Reid Bill can pass the Senate as it is currently written. Therefore, it must be amended to pass. But those amendments will be highly controversial, even among Democrats. That is why it is vitally important that each and every amendment be given close public scrutiny and at least two days’ debate.

If the Democrats want to play brinksmanship by holding the Senate in session long hours, seven days a week until Christmas Day, so be it. If the Democrats drag Senators back to Washington between Christmas and New Years for marathon sessions, so be it. Giving up Christmas Vacation is the least Republican Senators can do to stop a socialist government takeover of healthcare this year.

Our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq don’t get to take time off from combat to celebrate Christmas, and they are putting their lives on the line every hour of every day. No U.S. Senator fit to serve in that august body would even think about shirking his or her duty to defend America against a government takeover of healthcare just so he or she can work bankers’ hours and enjoy college-student vacation time.

Millions of Americans across America don’t even have a job this Holiday Season and they are demanding that Senators do their jobs to protect and defend America against another government takeover.

If one or both of your Senators are opposed to the Reid Bill, contact them and make a very simple request: “Do not help Harry Reid rush any aspect of this outrageous legislation through the Senate by giving him your consent to proceed along the fast track. Use your power to object to any unanimous consent agreement limiting debate and restricting time for deliberation; demand that every amendment be given at least two-days’ debate and public scrutiny so that everyone has time to understand and comment on each one of them. ”

Right now, the Senate Democratic Leadership with the complicity of the Republican Leadership is preparing to propound one unanimous consent agreement after another to circumvent regular Senate procedure. Tell your Senator to JUST OBJECT.

Not only could these amendments pave the way for the bill to be enacted into law but the amendments themselves contain huge policy changes that directly effect our health care and our economic future. They need to be analyzed carefully and thoroughly—Two Days Minimum.

Fortunately, under Senate rules the Democratic leadership can rush these amendments through ONLY if they get what’s called “unanimous consent.” That means all 100 senators have to agree to rush the amendments through by consenting to a unanimous consent agreement, which severely limits debate and restricts the time available for experts to analyze the amendments. It’s the old bum’s rush.

Even ONE senator objecting would be enough to slow the rush of amendments down and give the American people at least two days of debate on each amendment. Two days is the minimum we should have to analyze amendments and to allow Senators an opportunity to comment on and debate them.

Please contact your senators TODAY and demand that they NOT CONSENT to rushing amendments through.

The American people deserve the right to know what the Congress is preparing to do to our healthcare. The American people deserve to be represented by Senators who have the courage and the dedication to put the good of the country ahead of their own convenience and political expediency.

Just say “I OBJECT.”

This should have caused a GOP about-face. It did not. Instead, the Sunday news shows, talk radio, and press releases were filled with GOP leadership and other Senate GOP members defending their position. The only exception was Michael Steele, who shot a memo over to the Senate GOP telling them to obstruct. The memo was ignored until another, more egregious incident caused a seismic shift in the GOP strategy. This piece was also cross-posted at Politico and was written by Dr. Larry Hunter, CEO of the Social Security Institute and Lewis Uhler, CEO of the National Tax Limitation Committee:

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.

Paraphrasing Barry Goldwater, we argued, “Obstructionism in defense of liberty is no vice; cooperation in pursuit of tyranny is no virtue.”

Rush Limbaugh waded in to the fray: “I’m not a parliamentary expert. But I know a disaster when I see it. And I know that [Obamacare has to] be stopped, and whatever parliamentary steps are available to people who do know … should be taken — every blocking tactic.”

Even RNC Chairman Michael Steele opposed Senate Republicans’ “messaging strategy,” which was designed not to kill the bill but simply to use message amendments to put senators on record in a manner that could be used to good political effect in campaigns next November. Steele urged Republican senators to rise above politics and do whatever is necessary to “delay, stall, slow down and stop the Reid bill.”

Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Senator DeMint of South Carolina is not a silent man. To the establishment GOP, this is a character flaw. If not for the Senator and a few other patriots like Dr. Larry Hunter, Lewis Uhler, and many others who worked with them, ObamaCare would be law – right now. Instead we are able to live on to fight another day.

Jim DeMint is a friend of liberty, an ally of Tea Parties everywhere, and a man of real character who stuck his neck out only to be abandoned and embarrassed by his own party. The fact he is still willing to pick up the gauntlet is a testament to his qualities. What almost happened last year could be characterized with a small change to Jefferson’s quote: “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to want to go on Christmas vacation.”

To its credit, the establishment GOP is now on board with the will of the American people. I leave it to the reader to guess their motivations. It is telling that while one man lead the way, others were hauled, kicking and screaming, to stand up for this country and reject political expediency and the self-serving strategies of those who do not have a grip on power but rather find themselves in power’s grip.

Who truly represents the views of fiscal conservatives? The leftovers from the George Bush era of Republican big government spending that lead to Obama’s victory, or a single Senator from South Carolina who stood up when nobody else would follow him?

It would do the establishment GOP a great deal of good to pay attention. We ordinary folk out here have long memories. I would consider a strong alliance with Jim DeMint to be in the best interests of a party badly in need of a spine transplant.

Major Update:

Very worrisome and beyond the pale: Dump Demcare: 2,000 protest in St. Louis; keep the no-mentum going; Dems push “Slaughter Solution;”:

Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House – without an actual vote by members of the House.

More at Redstate: House Dems Try to Pass Obamacare Without a Vote

If the House pulls this stunt and the Supreme Court does not quickly strike down the entire bill, dodging the entire issue with the dismissive excuse the highest federal court in the land does not address Congressional parliamentary procedures even when those procedures clearly violate the Constitution, then nullification is the only solution left available to us. So egregious would this action be, that if there ever was a case for outright nullification by a multitude of states this is it. If this does not pass the muster for whipping up the fight for nullification, then nothing ever will.

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.

Original Post—————–

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. The answer is clear – a lack of understanding and apathy. If you find you are too busy to take the time to understand your role in taking back this country and ending the fiscal insanity, then your contribution to this country’s demise is a forgone conclusion. If you say, “I am too busy with my job” or “I have children”, know that if you fail to act quickly that job may not exist in a year. Know that you will watch in dismay your children and their children’s future abandoned to those whose very existence is to take from you and continue taking from you, leaving nothing but small remnants of a once great spirit of independence, until that too is gone. If you are prone to apathy, leave this page. If you are ready to begin the fight towards your freedom, continue reading.

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 U.S. Congress member. It is not, however, impossible to recall a governor or a state legislator 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. If you find yourself surprised you are out of touch with the political reality we find ourselves in today:

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.

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?

Control the narrative on Senate reconciliation and leveraged pressure against wavering House members is yours. Public knowledge of Byrd’s strong feelings against using reconciliation for healthcare as outlined here and here. This knowledge alone kills the meme that reconciliation is a harmless little fuzzy bunny that has been used before by Republicans and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use it to overhaul 1/6 of the U.S. economy.

Ubiquitous public awareness the architect of Senate reconciliation is against using the procedural tactic to pass ObamaCare will cause vulnerable House members to reach for the Maalox and lose trust in both the process and the end result in terms of the blowback by their constituents and the unceremonious end of said Representative’s political career. Pelosi would find it even harder to garner support for ObamaCare; nobody is willing to fall on a sword for the queen of contempt. In short, House members will be tainted by the Senate procedure.

To state it another way, the Senate procedural maneuver will effectively scare away votes in the House. This will work if the GOP starts talking – and talking a great deal. Wide exposure on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, talk radio, and in the blogosphere will only aid our cause and the goal to kill ObamaCare for good. There will be an argument that reconciliation will only be used to pass “fixes” to the bill. However, if the bill will not pass without reconciliation, then it is clear that reconciliation is the means by which the entire healthcare system will be overhauled. The argument falls apart and reconciliation is once again front-and-center as the means by which ObamaCare will be passed.

I don’t believe Pelosi will ever have the votes, but this beast of a bill won’t die, which requires an extraordinary effort on ObamaCare opponents to kill the bill for good. Right now the Democrats are controlling the reconciliation PR messaging within some of their ranks and it’s the fence sitters that worry me. The public knows something is wrong with using reconciliation to subvert the will of the electorate, but let them know the architect of the process is against it and watch public opinion push the Democratic fence sitters into the correct field of opinion. We need to control the narrative about the process and make it very painful for any Senator, Representative, or the President to even bring up the subject.

We need the birth of a new meme, one so powerful that it cannot be countered by anyone advocating quashing of minority rights in the Senate while concurrently ignoring the will of a majority of the electorate without looking ridiculous, partisan, contemptuous, and thoroughly out of touch.

Words have meaning and memes can carry far and wide. Tie in Senator Byrd’s statement’s on reconciliation with the idea of rule by tyranny. The GOP talking heads should be screaming Byrd’s views from the mountaintops and I have yet to hear a single reference to Byrd’s feelings on the matter of using reconciliation to shove healthcare down our throats.

His words are powerful. The fact that they come from him is PR gold.

Also, let us not forget that many Democratic Senators are on the record stating they are against using reconciliation to pass healthcare. This is a little know fact and tied in with the Budget Resolution last year. The fact that Senator Kent Conrad ignored the will of the Senate during the Budget Conference does not erase the fact those votes were taken. This can and will be used against those Senators who show themselves to be hypocrites.

Update: Welcome Michelle Malkin readers. It is an honor to be mentioned by the First Lady of blogging.

Related:

Abortion still the stumbling block for ObamaCare

GOP rep: Obama’s “bipartisan” bill has less substance than … “Jersey Shore”; Confirmed: Obama to endorse reconciliation tomorrow

Here comes the reconciliation “nobody” is talking about. Now if Michelle will only bring up Byrd we would be on a roll.

Harkin: It’s Reconciliation Time

The Cynicism of Reconciliation

Let the avalanche begin: Oh my: Two House yes votes on ObamaCare may flip to no

Update: Plan C: Obama set to introduce “much smaller” health-care bill on Wednesday. If true, we need to stay on top of this and ensure we don’t get railroaded into RINOCare (government backed insurance cartels) or any other unsavory legislation. RINOCare would be the Republican’s Waterloo. Watch your GOP Senator and Representative like a hawk. If you want my advice, visit the Social Security Institute every single day to find out if your GOP Senator or Representative is about to row you down the creek and throw away the paddle. SSI is run by Dr. Larry Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan. Watch for Trojan Horses to single-payer and public option. This is not over yet.

Upon further thought, this may be, as Hot Air is reporting, nothing more than Obama’s plan with a few Republican ideas in it. If so, it is still a government takeover of healthcare and the fight will continue to kill the bill. Contact your Representative and Senators and ensure they do not support any bill that does not start over from a clean slate.

—————–Original Post

If ever a narrative needed to make it far and wide, it is the following one. When the main architect of reconciliation comes out against it so strongly, I would consider that quite newsworthy.

The Democrat talking heads have a new talking point – the Republicans have used reconciliation before so we can too. They fail to mention the differences between the use of reconciliation in the past and the intent to use it today to shove an unpopular bill down an unwilling public’s throat, and in the process fundamentally impact over 1/6 of the U.S. economy while inserting monumental government bureaucracies between you and your doctor, in the end creating rationing, higher taxes, killing innovation, and reducing our quality of care. While other solutions exist which avoid destroying the best medical system in the world, the Democratic leadership and the President of United States show little interest in pursuing free market solutions and instead are prepared to play the role of tyrants by simultaneously ignoring the will of the minority in the Senate and the majority in the country.

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. Why is Senator Byrd’s opinion so important in the matter? Because the Senator from West Virginia is one of the authors of the reconciliation process and a current serving U.S. Senator. He is also a Democrat. Let’s see what the Senator says about reconciliation and healthcare:

Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts, or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with Section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other Committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after five years. Additionally, numerous other non-budgetary provisions of any such legislation will have to be omitted under reconciliation. This is a very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that will make crafting the legislation more difficult…

…It is the one place in all of government where the rights of the numerical minority are protected. As long as the Senate preserves the right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws might be discovered and changes might be made. Remember, Democrats will not always control this chamber, the House of Representatives or the White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from the bear trap of the reconciliation process…

…While I support the admirable budget priorities outlined in this resolution, I cannot and will not condone legislation that puts political expediency ahead of the time-honored purpose of this institution.

Newsmax also reports the Senator as stating that using reconciliation in this manner is

an outrage that must be resisted.

Why Republican rebuttals do not include the opinion of the architect of reconciliation is beyond me. I have yet to hear a single talking head speak of the Senator Byrd’s opinion of using reconciliation. Reconciliation has never been used in such an abusive manner for such far reaching legislation. To do so amounts to nothing short of rule by tyranny, and it is the moral responsibility of level-headed leaders to recognize and identify it as such. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and any legislator who supports the use of such a tactic to expedite unpopular and liberty stealing legislation is acting the tyrant.

During the summit, President Obama stated:

The American people are not all that interested in procedures inside the Senate.

With this statement Obama is either outright lying, completely out of touch with the American people, or believes we lack the necessary intelligence to understand the procedure. None of these options should provide the reader with much comfort. The first is inexcusable, the second shows a lack of competency, and the third is patently insulting. As Michelle Malkin reported:

Oh, really? A new USAToday/Gallup poll reports that 52 percent of Americans oppose using the procedural maneuver to pass the health care bill in the Senate on 51 votes rather than the 60 votes required to end any filibuster.

In the end, it is clear the word tyrant must be used to described anyone who supports using reconciliation in the manner currently under consideration for healthcare. It is also clear the statements and opinion of Senator Robert Byrd be repeated and repeated often. The American people must know the architect of the process is strongly against using it to pass healthcare and that doing so is a tyrannical act. The meme must spread and spread far.

Going farther, passage in the House of the Senate bill is also a tyrannical act. The people of this country have made it very, very, clear, this bill is not wanted, it is not liked, and Congress should start over. No amount of spin by empty Democratic talking heads is going to change this reality.

Pass this bill by reconciliation – or pass it at all – and all bets are off. When the GOP retakes Congress, it will be clear – and expected of them – to invent rules to kill ObamaCare by any means possible. The traditions and comity of the Senate will already be destroyed, the Democrats in the House will have demonstrated both their severe intellectual myopia and ideological clinging, so why not continue the tradition and just de-fund ObamaCare or pull some other bit of trickery. While repealing ObamaCare at the federal level sounds good, I would much rather watch a blanket of ObamaCare nullification legislation fall across this country. If the Democrats feel like opening Pandora’s box, don’t come crying to me when the law of unintended consequences rears its head. The Democrats will have shown the country that you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want.

Let me be clear (my God, I sound like Obama): I still think ObamaCare is dead, reconciliation is a deflective strategy, the votes do not exist in the House, and the current Democratic posturing is to placate the base as the Dem leadership looks for an exit strategy.

However, the fact remains many Democrats were willing to cram a government take over of healthcare legislation through regardless of the consequences. It is the our job to ensure the country does not forget. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are Socialists at best and Marxists at worse. Their willingness to use every questionable trick possible to achieve their power grab regardless of the wishes of a clear majority in this country is the very definition of rule by tyranny. Many of their colleagues are just as duplicitous and come November they must and will pay very dearly for their condescending and contemptuousness attitude towards America and its people.

The moderate base of the Democratic party must ensure Pelosi and Reid pay for their arrogance and willingness to sacrifice the political careers of their colleagues in pursuit of an ideological goal – a pursuit characterized by the obsessive-compulsive tendencies of the neurotic. Obama, the ideological brother of Reid and Pelosi, is recognized less for his skills as a leader and oratorical genius; his tendency to prevaricate is now legendary as he loses credibility at a pace only a NASCAR driver could appreciate. The shine is off the shoes – and we see the dirt, the obfuscation, and the real intent of this President. The fig leaf is gone and there is no rock to crawl back under.

As the Chines proverb says: May you live in interesting times.

Related:

Still want ObamaCare? UK health care horror: 1,200 die needlessly in filthy, blood-splattered hospital. The bad part is, this is not a joke or a parody.

Kyl: Republicans do not want to stall health bill with unlimited amendments:

Forcing amendments (although I don’t think we will even get to this point) is a good strategy as one can force the Democrats to take difficult votes. I certainly hope McConnell is paying attention.

It would be in the Senator Kyl’s best interest to recall the GOP was exposed as wanting to put up a lackluster fight against ObamaCare so its passage would guarantee GOP gains in November. The Senator would also be best served to remember when a team of organizations exposed not only this GOP tactic but the betrayal of Senator DeMint by many in the Senate GOP when he tried to slow down ObamaCare by removing unanimous consent.

Roll over on reconciliation and see where that gets you in November. The American people do not want ObamaCare so you had BETTER OBSTRUCT and use a little strategical thinking here or face the consequences. The gains in the electorate can disappear as quickly as they appeared. The narrative of GOP weakness is not an animal that needs feeding, especially given the excellent performance at the healthcare summit. Now is not the time to remove the spine.

Precious: The Day ObamaCare Died – American Pie Parody

Dems: Screw bipartisanship, full steam ahead on Obamacare hara-kiri

Is Obamacare doomed?

Pelosi’s challenge

“Reconciliation is a dodge” and more Monday morning reads

Pelosi And The “Bullet In The Head” Factor

Are Democrats choosing to run off a cliff with ObamaCare?

CNN: We need a radical procedure to save the ObamaCare patient

Challenges of the two bill strategy.

Keep in mind that in order for Reconciliation to work, the House must pass the Senate version first.

A couple of thoughts after reading Kim Strassel’s Wall Street Journal article The Summit Sideshow:

There is a concern about how many free passes Pelosi gave to conservative Democrats to vote against ObamaCare during the House vote last year in an effort to provide them political cover. In reality, the concern is not ours, but Pelosi’s.

Those who voted no have seen what happened to those who voted yes. Plummeting poll numbers of conservative Democrats who voted yea on the bill are not encouraging signs for their nay counterparts, so why flip and ruin your political career? For Pelosi? I don’t think so.

Pelosi faces many challenges. One, hold the yes votes. Two, flip the no votes on enough conservative Democrats to pass ObamaCare, and three, hope that retiring conservative Democrats who voted yea originally are not convinced that vote hastened their departure and will express their displeasure at the Pelosi, Reid, Obama triumvirate that seems hell-bent on destroying the Blue Dog conservative Democratic caucus and political careers in the process.

Look for a lot of no votes to stay that way. Especially after yesterday’s lackluster performance by the Democrats at the healthcare “summit”, I don’t see a lot of Representatives rushing towards the cliff for a leadership that has demonstrated nothing but contempt and disregard for the political careers of their colleagues in what amounts to an obsessive-compulsive neurotic rush to shove an unpopular bill down an unwilling public’s throat.

Add to that Senate pressure and a promise by Senate Republicans to throw enough amendments at any reconciliation attempt to keep the ball rolling until 2050. The only way out of that trap will be for the Democrats to evoke the Bryd Option and kill the fillibuster. How many Senate Democrats will sign on to that, and if you are a House member from a state with a Senator that stands firmly against that tactic (a true nuclear option), how do you stand on your vote for ObamaCare? The pressure will be enormous to buckle and vote against ObamaCare. The same argument holds for reconciliation itself.

Newsmax is reporting today that Senator Byrd, the architect of the reconciliation process said using reconciliation to expedite health-care reform would be “an outrage that must be resisted.”

Eric Cantor makes the case that Pelsoi faces an uphill climb getting votes for ObamaCare. I think the problem is an even bigger one that described by Representative Cantor.

I think this bill is dead.

Related:

Pelosi losing grip on the House?

Oba-Kabuki: A box-office bomb

Health Care In Spinsville

Does Pelosi have the votes to pass Obama’s new bill?:

Ironically, for all of the left’s endless whining about the filibuster, it ain’t the Senate that’s their biggest problem anymore. A simple question for you from Philip Klein, who’s been counting heads in the lower chamber for weeks: Given that they’re starting with only 217 “yes” votes, who’ll be stupid enough among the no’s to flip in favor of what even David Brooks is calling a “fiscal time bomb”?

Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House health care bill [in November], 31 of them were elected in districts that went for John McCain in 2008, according to a TAS analysis. One of the Democratic “no” votes, Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, has subsequently switched parties. Given that a Republican who campaigned on being a vote against the health care bill was just elected to fill the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy in a state that went for Obama by 26 points, it’s hard to see why anybody in a McCain district who already voted “no” would decide switch their vote to “yes.”

While Obama won the districts of the remaining eight “no” votes, in six cases, he won by only single digits, making them potentially competitive races this time around. And a closer look at several members who represent these areas are not very encouraging to proponents of Obamacare…

The biggest problem she faces is that President Obama’s proposal maintains the abortion provision in the Senate bill, rejecting Rep. Bart Stupak’s more restrictive language. When the bill passed the House the first time around, 41 Democrats voted for the health care bill only after voting for the Stupak amendment. Any of them could explain switching to a “no” vote on a final bill by citing abortion funding. Stupak himself has said there are at least 10 to 12 Democrats who voted for the bill the first time who would vote against it if it didn’t include his amendment (he reiterated Tuesday morning that the Senate abortion language adopted by Obama was still “unacceptable”). One of his co-sponsors, Rep. Brad Ellsworth, said at the time that he was only able to vote for the bill after the Stupak language was adopted, and he’s now running for Senate in Indiana, where a Rasmussen poll taken last month shows voters oppose the health care legislation by a 23-point margin.

An alternative explanation from former Bush economist Keith Hennessey: They know they don’t have the votes and this is all just a blame-shifting exit strategy.

It is possible that we are witnessing uncoordinated Democratic leaders each pursuing their own exit strategy in anticipation of legislative failure:

• The President proposes a “compromise” and blames Republicans for being unreasonable and unconstructive. Legislative failure is the Republicans’ fault, not the President’s.
• Speaker Pelosi continues to press for a two bill strategy in which the House and Senate will pass a new reconciliation bill. If the Senate cannot or will not do so, legislative failure is the Senate’s fault, not the House’s or Speaker Pelosi’s.
• Supported by outside liberals, Leader Reid points out that the House could just take up and pass the Senate-passed bill. Legislative failure is therefore not his fault or the Senate’s.

From Investors Business Daily: If ‘Unsustainable’ Is New Normal, Collapse Is Closer Than We Think .

The other day, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, described current deficits as “unsustainable.” So let’s make them even more so.

The president tells us, with a straight face, that his grossly irresponsible profligate wastrel of a predecessor took the federal budget on an eight-year joyride, so the only way his sober, fiscally prudent successor can get things under control is to grab the throttle and crank it up to what Mel Brooks in “Spaceballs” (which seems the appropriate comparison) called “Ludicrous Speed.”

Obama’s spending proposes to take the average Bush deficit for the years 2001-08 and double it, all the way to 2020. To get out of the Bush hole, we need to dig a hole twice as deep for one-and-a-half times as long. And that’s according to the official projections of his economics czar, Ms. Rose-Colored Glasses.

By 2015, the actual hole may be so deep that even if you toss every Obama speech down it on double-spaced paper you still won’t be able to fill it up. In the spendthrift Bush days, federal spending as a proportion of GDP averaged 19.6%. Obama proposes to crank it up to 25% as a permanent feature of life.

But if they’re “unsustainable,” what happens when they can no longer be sustained? A failure of bond auctions? A downgraded government debt rating? Reduced GDP growth? Total societal collapse? Mad Max on the New Jersey Turnpike?

Testifying to the House Budget Committee, Director Elmendorf attempted to pull back from the wilder shores of “unsustainable”:

“I think most observers expect that the government will act, that the unsustainability will be resolved through action, not through witnessing some collapse down the road,” he said. “If literally nothing is done, then eventually something very, very bad happens. But I think the widespread view is that you and your colleagues will take action.”

Dream on, you kinky fantasist. The one thing that can be guaranteed is that a political class led by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, a handful of reach-across-the-aisle Republican accommodationists and an economically illiterate narcissist in the Oval Office is never going to rein in unsustainable spending in any meaningful sense.

That leaves Elmendorf’s alternative scenario. What was it again? Oh, yeah:

“Some collapse down the road.”

Speaking of roads: I see that, according to USA Today, when the economic downturn began, the Department of Transportation had just one employee making over $170,000. A year and a half later, it has 1,690.

Happy days are here again!

Did you get your pay raise this year? What’s that, you don’t work for the government? Yes you do, one way or another. Good luck relying on Obama, Pelosi, Frank and the other Emirs of Kleptocristan “taking action” to “resolve” that.

In the last month, the cost of insuring Greece’s sovereign debt against default has doubled. Spain and Portugal are headed the same way. When you binge-spend at the Greek level in a democratic state, there aren’t many easy roads back. The government has introduced an austerity package to rein in spending. In response, Greek tax collectors have walked off the job.

Read that again slowly: To protest government cuts, striking tax collectors are refusing to collect taxes. In a sane world, this would be a hilarious TV comedy sketch. But most of the Western world is no longer sane. It’s tough enough to persuade the town drunk to sober up, but when everyone’s face down in the moonshine, maybe it’s best to just head for the hills.

Well this is just great.

Read the whole thing.

More from Hot Air’s Greenroom.

ObamaCare is dead and very unpopular with 58% opposing the current bill before Congress, but that does not stop the One from calling, what even CBS is admitting, a faux bi-partisan meeting with the GOP in a last ditch attempt to salvage his failing plan. Obama seems to understand how Newton’s first law of motion applies to legislation; legislation in motion will remain in motion and legislation at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an external force. As ObamaCare is most certainly at rest and dead, Obama has nothing to lose and the GOP has nothing to gain by this farcical display. To flip it around, Obama has everything to gain and the GOP has everything to lose by attending the so-called healthcare summit.

Attend or not attend, the liberal media will spin the story in Obama’s favor, so again – why the hell is the GOP leadership committing such a explicit act of stupidity? ObamaCare is treading water and the GOP is about to throw it a lifeline. From the CBS story:

What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.

(AP)Mr. Obama said he “won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party.” But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.

And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he “won’t hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that’s rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience.”

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its “obstinacy” and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his.

So my first instinct is to state that attending the summit, if ObamaCare subsequently passes, the GOP attendance will be scored by the grassroots of this country as a vote for ObamaCare. As Representative Eric Cantor already committed to attending, the GOP better pray that Obama does not walk circles around them as he did recently during the Republican retreat in Baltimore:

This wasn’t supposed to be televised, incidentally, but both sides agreed to it at the last minute in the name of showing the public how bipartisan they are. The GOP figured it’d give them a platform to prove that they actually do have policy ideas of their own, but I think the format ended up benefiting Obama more than them. He was on camera the whole time; he did most of the talking; he got to show that he’s perfectly capable of extemporaneous debate even with multiple prepared challengers lobbing questions. (Which should have been clear after 20+ debates in 2008, but the TOTUS jokes have taken on a life of their own.) Even conservatives I follow on Twitter were saying that he seemed more appealing in this format than in his thousand speeches last year. Who knows? Maybe that means we’ll see more of this.

Update: Not surprisingly, White House aides tell HuffPo they’re ecstatic with how things went while GOP aides tell NBC it was probably a mistake to let the cameras roll. Oh well.

Prior to Representative Cantor’s foolish committal to attend the One’s Hail Marry summit, I was quite pleased to read the letter from House Republican Leader John Boehner and Rep. Cantor (House Republican Whip) to Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel:

Washington, Feb 8 –

February 8, 2010

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks.

For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

I have also read Gibbs sorry excuse for a rebuttal to the Boehner and Cantor letter. Gibbs letter is proof positive they other side is bankrupt of ideas and is rehashing the same old tired rhetoric. It also shows they smack of desperation and have nothing substantial to say. Gibbs basically channeled Obama’s typical generalites (see page 2 of the Politico story).

By sending this letter and then accepting the invitation, it’s time to hold the feet of the GOP to the fire. They asked for it, and now its time to pay the piper. If the GOP wishes to continue to forge and nurture the relationship it has enjoyed with grassroots organizations and voters across this country, then it is time to step up to the plate and prove your worthiness. Therefore, I submit the following if ObamaCare passes subsequent to the meeting (the following scores apply to the GOP):

• The meeting will take place at a round table with no teleprompters allowed. If this agreement is not accepted the meeting is off. Failure to secure this agreement prior to the meeting will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The President and Democrats in both Houses have already said they will not start over. More to the point a Politico story states that “Obama hopes to walk into the Feb. 25 summit with an agreement in hand between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on a final Democratic bill, so they can move ahead with a reform package after the sit-down.” The GOP must make this an issue and call out the President on the false premise of the entire event. If agreement is reached on a final bill, what is the purpose of the meeting? Where is the bi-partisanship if the bill was agreed to a priori to the event? Failure to do so will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The President stated that reconciliation will not be taken off the table. As this amounts to shoving an unpopular bill down American’s throats and trampling on minority rights in the Senate, the entire premise of the summit is again called into question and the President’s real agenda for the meeting exposed. The GOP must challenge the President on this point. Failure to do so will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The GOP must insist they be able to invite House Democrats opposed to the measure. If they are not allowed to do so, the meeting is over. Failure of the GOP to insist upon this provision will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The GOP must be allowed to invite officials and lawmakers from those states that has passed or are working on passing legislation/resolutions challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Failure of the GOP to insist upon this provision will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The GOP must be allowed to invite their own experts, including but not limited to actuaries from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and members from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Failure of the GOP to insist upon this provision will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare

Again, whether the GOP attends or not, the liberal media are going to spin, spin, spin. This “summit” is a disaster in the making; we have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have dug a deep hole, jumped in and are now extending their hands for our assistance in extricating them out of a disaster of their own making. If Republicans help revive this bill, they will lose a number of us out here in the voting world. I fear going to this summit will be a turning point.

If the Senate is going to use reconciliation, they are going to do it with or without this summit and I doubt they are going to use it, although the summit may embolden the House to pass the Senate version if Obama plays his cards right. I and many others have VERY strong reservations about this summit. The House GOP needs to think really hard and ensure the President does not use this as a platform to railroad over any real discussions. Equal time, no teleprompters, the President at a table and not lording over the event from a podium, and all the above relevant conditions met prior to the GOP accepting this offer and during the event itself.

The President wants no preconditions for good reason; the entire “summit” loses its utility if it is controlled in such a way as to force the President to address the issues related to the bill on terms not entirely of his own making. If the meeting is held, use it to highlight the flaws in the bill and remind the President why the American people do not like this bill. Bring your testosterone boys, you are going to need it. You made the promise, you wrote the letter, now it’s time to deliver. Failure to do so would be very bad….for you.

A piece of advice for the GOP: as three-quarters of independents now have a favorable view of the Tea Parties, either turn down the offer or bring your A game.

Oh, and let’s not forget that we may have a bill here that fines and imprisons people for not having insurance. I would like to see these aspects discussed if they are indeed in the bill. Also, last I heard – it’s so hard keeping up with all the changes – the current Senate bill places some type of constraint or rules requirement on future chambers to amend or repeal certain aspects of the bill. If true, I want to know the details and hear Obama’s response.

Update: It does not appear, at least to me, this is a done deal yet:

When asked by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News last night if Republicans would attend, Boehner said he was awaiting answers from the White House.

“There are a number of questions I’d like answered before I give you or the President an up or down answer,” Boehner told Fox News last night.

Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith told HUMAN EVENTS last night that they have not received a formal invitation, any details on the event or a response to their letter.

Keep up the pressure folks.

Update 2: Dr. Hunter agrees:

Now, Republicans have reverted to their old ways and appear prepared to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Instead of negotiating the point of departure of their own defeat, Republicans should be insisting on postponing any consideration of healthcare reform until after the new Congress convenes in 2011. This Congress has lost all legitimacy where healthcare is concerned. This is a lame duck Congress, and it is time for it to fold its wings and float on the pond in silence and inaction until the people have an opportunity to vote for a new Congress a few months hence.

So, here we go again. Hey, Republicans, heads up, ears open, eyes on the prize: Object, Obstruct and Delay any effort by the White House and congressional Democrats to revive the death march toward nationalization of healthcare. And most importantly, don’t do anything to allow RhinoCare to be resurrected from the dead.

Remember, obstructionism in defense of liberty is no vice and cooperation in pursuit of tyranny is no virtue.

This Congress is lame; don’t give it legs.

Read the whole thing.

In other news:

Porkulus II: Return of the Phony Jobs Boondoggle

WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama losing command of the issues

The Negotiations Fraud

Will the Stupid Party Blow It?

Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival

Update: Nullification resolution with teeth: ResistDC: The State Authority and Anti-Racketeering Act:

If teeth is what you want, you need to go no further than Georgia. House Bill 880 (HB880), introduced by Representative Bobby Franklin, is called the “State Authority and Anti-racketeering Act.”

Unlike the many 10th Amendment Resolutions that have been introduced around the country since 2008, HB880 is legally-binding legislation…

…that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

House Bill 880 includes strong language to assert this principle:

Any actions taken by the federal government through its agents or employees that are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States are unlawful; and being unlawful, they are criminal offenses against the affected parties

This bill would make it a crime – with imprisonment for up to 30 years for each offense – for “any judicial officer, law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of the federal government, any multinational government, any international government, or any global government” to attempt to “enforce any federal, multinational, international, or global law” reserved to the State of Georgia under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

As of this writing, the bill has had two readings in the Georgia House. Will such a strong piece of legislation go anywhere? Only time will tell. The reality, though, is this – it’s going to take some serious effort to push back against decades and decades of unconstitutional federal acts.

————————

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

As the saying goes – strike when the iron is hot.

Many of my friends will disagree with me this is the time or that healthcare is the issue to fight the nullification battle and start the long journey back to re-asserting states rights; it is a nasty and drawn out process, not an event as many would think. There is the beginning, a middle, and an end. The middle and the end are often, shall we say, fraught with peril. However, given the sheer level of contempt the Democrats are preparing to level at the American public it is clear the time for niceties is over. And I am not talking about the nullification of just the individual mandate which, if successful, may only serve to usher in more quickly the single-payer system, I am talking about the nullification of the entire bill. I’ll go even further and suggest that as many states as possible draft and pass legislation that would allow that state to nullify any federal law which violates state sovereignty. What I am talking about is an virtual (not literal) act of war by the states against the federal government. It would not be pretty; it would not be easy. Continuing a campaign of pressure against the federal government while steadfastly supporting state’s governors and legislators as they embark on this journey of defiance requires great skill, leadership, patience, and gumption. So get ready.

In his excellent piece A short history of the destruction of state sovereignty, a worthy read in itself, Dr. Hunter notes the following regarding the rolling back of tyrannical federal powers:

But, it won’t be simply a matter of untying the knot or walking this cat back. It is impossible to simply retrace the steps that brought the American political system to its present perilous situation; it will require courage, steadfastness, truculence, defiance and a will of iron to stand up to Washington and stand down the power of the federal government. It will be an undertaking not in principle different from but even more daunting and difficult than the Civil Rights Movement, namely reviving America and restoring liberty by overcoming oppressive government that is acting illegally and immorally with a pointed gun under the color of law.

Later, Dr. Hunter goes on to say (emphasis mine):

After spending several weeks traveling around the country speaking at grass-roots events and Tea Parties, I am impressed by the pent up anger at the federal government spilling out across the land. It is diffuse and largely unarticulated but it is real, and it is growing.

I also am impressed by the actions already taken and under consideration in several states to re-establish state prerogatives and “sovereignty”—from unilaterally withdrawing from the federal government the authority to regulate guns manufactured, sold and used solely within the confines of the state (MT & TN), to opting out of national healthcare (AZ) to consideration of refusing to be ensnarled in cap-and-trade (IN).

It is a messy, boisterous process and mass movements such as the Tea Parties frequently get it wrong in their enthusiastic assertions about what is and what is not constitutional. That said, there may be a kernel here—“state sovereignty”—around which a movement may be coalescing and the Spirit of ’98 revived.

But, the state sovereignty movement must be about more than simply unfunded federal mandates; it must go beyond making intergovernmentalism efficient and bearable; it must aim to revive genuine federalism in order to restore individual rights and personal freedom.

Certainly, to be a lasting political force, the Tea Parties need a focus rather than simply running around making noise and venting their frustrations. But time is not likely to wait for the intricate schemes and the best laid plans of man; from the sorry looks of states such as California and plans the current administration has in hand for a complete takeover of everything in sight, events may take on a life of their own.

In the not too distant future, America may face a spontaneous and violent crackup designed by no one but out of the control of anyone, followed by a backlash of severe national-government oppression and tyranny. That is why it is vital for citizens to get ahead of the curve and organize a peaceful rebellion against Washington—a restorative revolution led by the natural depository of power—the States—which were intended by the Founders to be the locus of resistance to check an oppressive and tyrannical national government.

If the states do not intervene to halt the national government’s takeover of everything and act to restore some semblance of balance to the American political system, there is a real danger that Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek’s prediction in The Road To Serfdom will come to fruition. Hayek feared that in times of turmoil and hardship, the appeal of dismantling the free-market system under the allure of central planning and the distemper of envy and fear would inevitably place society on “the road to serfdom,” which ultimately ends in the destruction of all individual economic and personal freedom.

Hayek argued that once a society progresses sufficiently far down the road to collectivism and consolidated central control, the failure of central planning would be perceived by the public as an absence of sufficient power by the national government to implement an otherwise good idea. According to Hayek, such a perception would lead the public to vote more power to the national government, and ultimately allow a “strong man” to rise to power. Once a charismatic strong man who is perceived to be capable of “getting the job done” consolidates his power, Hayek foresaw the ultimate and ineluctable descent into outright totalitarianism.

Or, America may traverse the road to serfdom via another route. Rather than a strong-man takeover, a consolidated and centralized national government may instead visit upon the American people tyranny by committee every much as destructive of economic and personal liberty as the rule of any strong man.

Although all the wounds of slavery, segregation and the Civil Rights Movement may not yet be behind us, it may be, one hopes, that they are sufficiently healed to allow a critical mass of Americans from all walks of life to join together and rejuvenate their states. To revive American liberty and restore our constitutional republic, people will have to rediscover their courage to resist the way Martin Luther King and his followers resisted. But whereas civil rights activists looked to the national government as the font of legitimacy to take down immoral and oppressive state laws, a restoration of freedom from national-government oppression will have to look to state governments as the font of legitimacy in resistance.

The Revive America Movement must begin by electing and supporting governors and state legislatures who will act with the Spirit of ‘98 in truculent and defiant resistance to Washington. It will require citizens standing shoulder to shoulder with their governors and state legislators to confront the federal government where possible, defy Uncle Sam where necessary and restore some semblance of balance to the American democracy before it is too late.

Reviving America and restoring liberty to Americans won’t be simple because we are too far down the road to serfdom for simple unwinding and backtracking. It is not self-evidently obvious what a true Restorative Revolution would look like but the civil rights movement offers a model that may be the last best hope we have before passing a point of no return.

As Redstate’s Brian Faughnan reports, Democratic pollster James Carville’s recent poll indicated just one-third of voters support ObamaCare:

Democrats are currently saying that no matter what happens in tomorrow’s Senate election, they will pass a health care rationing bill.

Now there’s some audacity for you.

I am reminded of our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.

The train of abuses has been long, and with the Brown win, President Obama is promising a combative turn. Translation: more abuses of federal power and even less attention paid to the will of the people. Therefore, it is time, in this author’s opinion, for the Tea Parties to work with state legislators and governors, standing shoulder to shoulder with them, unbending and stalwart in the battle for the freedoms and rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. Together, state leaders and citizens must stare down the federal tyranny with an icy glare. So perilous is this journey that the path must be carefully prepared, our leaders steadfast, and our own resolve unbreakable. What of federal repercussions and our legislative preparedness to deal with them? Are each of us prepared, as in the civil rights movement, to resist in a passive-aggressive manner the abuses of the federal government with acts of civil disobedience? When will the movement reach critical mass, causing the federal powers to crumble under their own weight and lucre?

If the Senate or the House passes the current and very unpopular health care bill, especially if the process of reconciliation is used, this very well could be the tipping point, forcing our hand to take measures to ensure a federal government oblivious to the will of the public is spanked hard and spanked often until it caves to our will. As Orrin Hatch recently stated, the use of the process of reconciliation in the Senate is will lead to an all out war in that chamber. The states would not be far behind.

Already, we have seen the Democrats in the Senate vote, along party lines, to increase the debt ceiling to 14.3 trillion. Combined with the soft on terror approach of the current administration, balooning deficits, a Congress that seems hell-bent on ignoring the American public to the point of brazen arrogance and dismissal, an appology tour by nothing less than the President of the United States, a recent Executive Order by the Presidet that surrenders U.S. sovereignty to Interpol, and a host of other abuses that would fill a book, there is a growing sense that enough is enough.

It is interesting to note that many today believe the Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of all things within the borders of the United States while in fact this Court is only a check against the other two forms of the federal government, not the states. Where the Constitution is silent, the states can govern themselves.

From The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (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.

The public in each state must ensure its state government does not fold like a bunch of cheap suits when the federal government attempts its first act of retribution – the withdrawal of state funds. While money is a very powerful weapon, the stream flows both ways. Let us not forget our resolve nor allow our leaders in each state to ignore their constitutional duty to each citizen to fight for the rights of the state against the tyranny of the federal government. Let us not waver in the face of opposition from tyrants whose own audacity places them at odds with each of us. This is the time to use federal lucre and abuse of power to grab back the rights duly possessed by the states of this country. In this, the Supreme Court holds no sway over the authority of the states. The Constitution makes this clear. So long and slow has the erosion of state authority occurred, the we forget the people of this country and their respective states wield power over the federal government – not the other way around. Time has eroded our feeling of empowerment, and like pawns on a chessboard, we feel moved by the powers that be, forgetting that it is US that moves THEM. It is time to take back that power. It is time to save the future for our children and grandchildren. It is time to put the federal government back into its proper place. The road will not be easy, but if our resolve is strong, we can have back the country our forefathers left for us.

Update 1: While not a great Ron Paul fan, the an article at the Tenth Amendment Center basically lays out the same approach as above, but offers a few more details. I found the following to be highly interesting:

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.

Of course, it all depends on the people of the several states: ordinary people like you and I. Although I’ve discovered that there are more elected representatives at the state level who are committed to acting in a courageous and principled manner than I ever dared hope, most of their peers lack such a brave commitment. Most of them will stick their head in the sand or sit on the fence until they determine which way the wind is blowing. And so it’s our opinion, not the opinion of the American people in aggregate, but our opinion as citizens of our respective states, that will influence the decision of our state representatives to either stand tall or to kneel down and knuckle under.

Living in Texas I am particularly interested in one of the comments:

We are developing nullification legislation for Texas that might serve as a model for other states. See http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2010/01/cautions-for-nullification-proponents.html

Proposed Components:

1. Commission. Establish “Federal Action Review Commission” – special commission with grand jury powers to meet continuously with rotating membership drawn from a pool of legal historians and constitutional scholars, appointed by the Governor, Attorney General, or Legislative Council; empowered to review the constitutionality of congressional legislation, or federal regulations or decisions, and if it finds such legislation, regulations, or decisions to be unconstitutional, to issue an edict, with the force of law, requiring that no state or local officials, employees, or contractors cooperate in the enforcement of it, and urging state citizens to refuse to cooperate. This Commission would be established by an amendment to the Texas Constitution.

2. Structure and procedure. The Commission shall consist of 23 members, who shall serve for staggered terms of 4-8 months, drawn at random from a pool of at least 230 constitutional scholars and legal historians, who shall meet for at least one hour once a week, with a quorum of 16, and a vote of 12 required to issue an edict, based on a presumption of nonauthority and requiring strict proof of constitutionality from logic and historical evidence. It shall be open to direct complaints of the unconstitutionality of federal actions from any citizen. It shall have the power to subpoena witnesses, and its deliberations shall be secret, except that it may disclose anything in its presentments. It may authorize criminal prosecution by issuing an indictment to any person, not necessarily a lawyer, upon a finding that the court cited has jurisdiction and that evidence of guilt is sufficient for trial.

3. Penalties. State and local officials, employees, and contractors shall be duly notified in writing of such edicts within ten days and shall have twenty days to comply or be subject to termination after one written warning and a second failure to refuse to cooperate.

4. Funding. Establish a state fund to pay for legal and financial support of state citizens and officials who refuse to cooperate with unconstitutional federal statutes, regulations, or decisions, with the intention to obtain judicial decisions that support the unconstitutionality of the federal actions.

Update 2: Another reason to start the nullification movement: Reconciliation flip-flopper of the morning

Update 3: Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival

Great deeds are not accomplished by great men and women; great deeds are done by normal people facing extraordinary circumstances. It is through actions during troubling and trying times taken by those of us who are ordinary that mold and shape what will become a great and historical figure. Right now, in the Senate and the House, a single Democrat or group of Democrats have the chance to become great in the eyes of this nation. From broken promises of transparency to outright lies, the Obama administration and the leaders of the Democratic Party in the House and Senate have consistently taken this country down a path it does not want to travel.

Who among you is willing to remove the “for sale” sign on your vote? Who among you is willing to demand in a loud voice for the transparency promised eight times to televise health care negotiations? Who among you will stand up to the strong arm of Chicago style politics and stare down the administration with an icy glare? Do this for the country and we will forgive all past transgressions. Show us that greatness is still a quality that means something. Step up and protect us from this madness.

The profligate vote buying in the Senate has gotten out of hand. The special treatment granted and federal lucre handed out to the states of a few balking Senators has been disgraceful. This is not compromise, it is bribery pure and simple.

As neither party in the Senate truly understands what is in the health care bill, the law of unintended consequences demands a deliberative and transparent process. The purpose behind rushing through this bill is political and completely disconnected from serving the best interests of this country and the people who live in it.

It is time for a new style of politics, not one of obfuscation, hidden backroom deals, and broken promises. Yet lately it seems many politicians in the Democratic party are pitting themselves against the will of the American people, both liberals and conservatives. America needs someone of great quality to stop this madness—someone who understands the responsibility derived from freedom and position.

Someone once said, “The ear of the leader must ring with the voices of the people.” The Democratic party appears deaf in this regard. We the American people implore Democrats in the Senate to stand on principle, to separate themselves from the pack, be the guardian of freedom and demand total and open transparency on our behalf. We urge you to vote against this bill. We urge you to lift the veil of deafness and hear our voices.

Related:

Pelosi: We’re “very close” to a deal with the Senate on ObamaCare. Perhaps Senator Blanche Lincoln will do the right thing.

Press corps grills Gibbs: Um, didn’t Obama totally shamelessly lie about C-SPAN?

Darkness reigns: Obama and the Vampire Congress