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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perish as sheep, or thrive as a wolves.

Highly Recommended Reading:

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

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

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

Related:

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

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

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

State Sovereignty is About You!

The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe

Health Care Nullification: Things have just gotten underway

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

Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right?

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

Note To GOP: Our Freedoms Are No Longer Negotiable

Will Stupak be bought on Demcare?

So… What Next?

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

The original post is here, to which I would like to add some thoughts related to Karl Rove’s suggestions:

The congressional Republicans at today’s televised health-care “summit” at the White House naturally want to prevent the president from turning it into a PR stunt. This is no easy task. They’ll not only have to point out problems with his plan and offer their own ideas, but correct the president when he makes statements that are not true.

The GOP participants appear ready for the first two tasks. In an unusual approach, House and Senate members prepped together the way a candidate preps for a presidential debates—by pulling together debate books and conducting mock sessions. But the third task is the most critical and the most difficult.

President Obama has a habit of making false statements, and getting away with them. At a Republican conference in Baltimore last month, for example, he denied that his budget nearly triples the national debt over 10 years. He got away with it because he didn’t face follow-up questions or objections.

I disagree with him on one point made later in the article- this President does not deserve any respect. Obama is a socialist at best and a Marxist at worst. Do not be frightened of a man who is attempting to tear down this country. If the GOP does not correct the president during attempts to lie or mislead the American people the action will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare. All the gains by the GOP with the electorate will evaporate if ObamaCare passes because the GOP left its collective spine at home this morning.

Also, if reconciliation occurs in the Senate, as hard as it will be, DeMint’s tactic of using hundreds and, if necessary, thousands of amendments to slow down the process all the way to November if necessary must be done by the GOP or it will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare with all the accompanying consequences.

The GOP better head into the summit with every intention of killing ObamaCare. They had better head out of the summit with the same attitude. No excuses.

Also read from Dr. Hunter: Stop the Raid on Medicare before it begins.

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

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

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

Update: Hot Air believes VP Biden can shut down the amendment bomb process. However, Robert Dove, former Senate parliamentarian, disagrees:

Senators are also entitled to offer as many amendments as they choose during reconciliation. Though Democrats have a large enough majority to beat back GOP attempts to alter the bill, neither they nor the parliamentarian can limit the number of amendments introduced, Dove said.

A Senate insider agrees. The Vice President as President of the Senate can overrule the parliamentarian, but if the parliamentarian is not in a position to rule, the Vice President has nothing to overrule. What the Senate can do is invoke the Byrd Option, also known as the constitution option. This would effectively kill the filibuster period. Try getting 50 votes for healthcare after that. Such a move for sweeping legislation would have far reaching and disastrous consequences.

Whatever Dove said on MSNBC, it does not jive with his previous statements. Of course, being fired by Republicans in the Senate during the GWB years cause one to question anything Robert Dove says. However, note below what is NOT being said. Regardless of the process, the end result is to kill the filibuster. This would be a disaster for the country, and the Democrats are counting on the GOP to go spineless on this one. As I indicate below, that strategy may be working. Instead of buckling, the GOP needs to call their bluff or face the wrath of the public and watch electorate gains turn to losses.

Assume even for a moment that I and many others are wrong, the consequences for the VP pulling this stunt would also be disastrous. However, if the reader thinks about it, if the VP can do this, he IS effectively killing the filibuster – there is no difference. So the reality is the Senate can stop reconciliation by killing the filibuster. How they do that is of no matter, the end result and consequences will be the same and when we are in power the Democrats will face the same treatment. Just remember the gang of 14 and Senator McCain. He created that gang for a reason. Killing the filibuster would be a disaster and the Democrats know it. It won’t happen. Right now, my biggest concern is everyone is getting so worked up that Republicans will sense fear from their constituents and fold. Senator Kyl has already stated Republicans will not stall ObamaCare reconciliation with unlimited amendments. If we go weak, they go weak.

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 the GOP in November. The American people do not want ObamaCare so the Senate GOP 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. The same is true for us. It is time to present the facts and stand tall. If we lose this fight in the Congress, it is on to nullification and possible repeal (although the later will be difficult in the near term and even in 2013). That is not to say nullification is easy, but as a solution it offers the best long term survival of our country. If Washington is unwilling to listen, the states need to remove the purse strings except for those aspects of the federal government that require funding PER the constitution.

Also via Politico: The problem with reconciliation.

Also read Rule By Tyranny. Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) Thoughts on Reconciliation. If the architect of the process is vehemently against using it to pass sweeping legislation, don’t you think this needs national exposure? Why are the GOP talking heads so silent on this? Even the blogosphere, with few exceptions, is not reporting this. From a public relations perspective the words of Senator Byrd are pure gold.

Need to contact your Republican Senator to ensure they are on board with this process, or would you like to contact your Democratic Senator and tell them to say no to reconciliation? If so, look them up here.

——————–Original Post

Folks are getting pretty fired up over both the Redstate post concerning VP Joe Biden overruling the Senate parliamentarian during reconciliation and then this post from Hot Air stating that the Democrats are near a deal on ObamaCare ahead of the healthcare summit this month:

In other words, instead of bargaining with the GOP from scratch — as Boehner and Cantor initially insisted and as 57 percent of the public wants, per yesterday’s Zogby poll — The One’s going to do the opposite by walking in, pushing a fake deal in front of the GOP, and declaring before the cameras that America’s health-care problems can now be solved unless the “party of no” insists on further obstructionism. And if they do, of course, he’ll have no choice but to save America by ramming the bill through in reconciliation.

The thinking is that Democrats are going to use either standard reconciliation or what I like to call the nuclear option reconciliation described in the Redstate post. What many are forgetting is that even with a nuclear option reconciliation, the Republicans still have a trick up their sleeve. It is for this reason that I believe the threat of reconciliation is a bluff with the intent of getting the GOP to agree to something at the summit.

Falling for this trap would be foolish indeed. The GOP better hold its ground during this farcical summit and remain the party of no when it comes to ObamaCare, thereby implicitly daring the Democrats to attempt reconciliation.

The country demands it of them.

I doubt the Democrats have the guts or temerity to attempt a parliamentary trick if the end result is in doubt and the increased cost to their party come November beyond their ability to comprehend. The biggest mistake the GOP could make is to enable the Democrats to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by delivering any overtures of bi-partisanship towards a bill which is blatantly partisan. The cost to the GOP in the mid-terms would be incalculable and any gains in the electorate erased before their eyes.

The GOP must follow up on the threat of using amendments to slow down reconciliation.

Both VP Joe Biden and the parliamentarian would be unable to stop this process:

Senators are also entitled to offer as many amendments as they choose during reconciliation. Though Democrats have a large enough majority to beat back GOP attempts to alter the bill, neither they nor the parliamentarian can limit the number of amendments introduced”, Dove said.

The Dove referred to in the quote is Bob Dove, Senate Parliamentarian until 2001.

As there is no limit to the amount of amendments that could be offered, the bill would be delayed and obstructed until it died the death of a thousand cuts.

Recently, the Tea Party polled better than both Republicans and Democrats in a generic ballot. Why? Because they are the party of no – no to ObamaCare, no to bailouts, no to fiscal lucre – no, no, no. Obstructionism in defense of liberty is no vice and cooperation in pursuit of tyranny is no virtue. Republicans better get the message.

Some good advice from Dr. Hunter:

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.

So throw up those amendments such as tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, and anything else painful for Democrats to vote on. Make them go on the record as being against common-sense reform as the GOP continues to amend, amend, amend until the bill is dead.

If the GOP plays its cards right, the Democrats not only do not get to shove their precious bill down our unwilling throats, but face an even greater slaughter in November for daring to usurp the will of the American public and trample on minority rights in the Senate. Get the popcorn.

Related: Does The Public Want A Public Option – No It Does Not

Of course, if all goes wrong, there is always nullification!. Actually, the only way to really stop the amendment bomb would be to invoke the constitution option (once known as the Byrd option), which would effectively kill the filibuster. While I don’t think the Democrats have enough votes even for reconciliation, a part of me hopes that, in the end, they go the filibuster killing route (highly unlikely). That would be a perfect start to begin nullification with a bang instead of a whimper and bring us back to constitutional governance where the states hold the power as opposed to a centralized federal government. What many do not realize is that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the constitution – it is the states. What fun!

Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival

A Tortured History of ObamaCare. Dan Perrin has been a real rock during this entire debate. This is just one of many posts where he once again reassures us that ObamaCare is dead. However, just to be sure, keep up the pressure; Cut off its head, dismember it, scatter the body parts, and set them on fire before blasting them individually off into deep space.

It Lives!

Love it: NYT Admits Conservatives Are Right About Government Healthcare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

Breaking: Lincoln will oppose reconciliation

ObamaCare: Night of the Living Dead Bill

Reconciliation flip-flopper of the morning

Oh my: GOP ready to boycott ObamaCare summit?

It is tiring writing about the complete lack of strategic thinking by the Senate GOP. Why they are unwilling to vote strategically on ObamaCare is a mystery to me. That latest casualty of a bunch of strategical dinosaurs is the rejection of the Dorgan amendment which would have allowed the importation of low cost drugs.

Before proceeding, one of the best primers on Unanimous Consent agreements requiring 60 votes can be found here. If one is confused by the procedural descriptions in the email I quote below from Dr. Larry Hunter, the gist of the matter is this: there is a procedural hurdle that can delay debate in the Senate on healthcare called the removal of Unanimous Consent. Below I link to a post on this site which goes into more detail. This tactic would effectively slow down and ultimately block ObamaCare from passage. The typical Republican excuse of not wanting to be labeled the “party of no” is also addressed.

Per an email I received from Dr. Larry Hunter (some editorial changes were made to translate from email shorthands to a more formal presentation):

Had the Dorgan re-importation amendment been adopted, it would have blown up the deal with Pharmaceuticals. This would have been another huge poison pill on top of the abortion poison pill that remains in the current Senate bill. Add on top the recent “public option/Medicare expansion” problem and ObamaCare would have been getting very heavy and taking on water.

The Republicans made several mistakes. First, they agreed to requiring 60 votes for the amendment to pass. But then, that was part of the original bigger problem in which they agreed to do everything by Unanimous Consent including making all amendments pass the 60-vote hurdle. Instead, they should have not agreed to any Unanimous Consents and filibustered every amendment, forcing Reid to file cloture, burn time and get 60 votes to shut off debate.

On the Dorgan amendment in particular, Republicans should have recognized the perfect opportunity to vote strategically, pass the amendment and put the poison pill in the bill. The amendment failed on a vote of 51 – 48, because it failed to get 60 votes. Here is how the vote broke down: 27 Democrats, 23 Republicans and 1 Independent voted in favor of Dorgan — 30 Democrats, 17 Republicans and 1 Independent voted no. Had but 9 of those 17 Republicans voted in favor of the amendment, it would have passed and the poison pill would have been in the bill and it would have punished Pharmaceuticals big time for selling out to Obama.

Better yet, Republicans should have never agreed to Unanimous Consent to begin with; forced Reid to file for cloture and then all vote no on Cloture. The Democrats would have been stuck between a rock and a hard place: Opponents of the Dorgan amendment would not want to invoke cloture because if they moved to a vote on the amendment itself, it would have passed with 51 votes; but had the opponents prevented cloture from being invoked, the Senate would have remained stuck on the Dorgan amendment and the Reid Bill could not have proceeded forward. You see, had the Republicans had their wits and guts about them, they could have tied the Senate up in knots and made life very, very difficult for Reid et al, and perhaps have weighted the bill down so much that it would have sunk of its own weight.

Once again, the GOP passed up the chance to be the party of no, which is why they poll lower than a generic Tea Party candidate. The American public does not want this bill, so being the party of no when it comes to this legislative boondoggle should make sense – to a sensible person – but then we are talking about the Senate GOP leadership and many of the GOP Senators themselves whose strategy is basically a non-strategy of being hands-off.

As the Tea Parties are the party of no, you would think the Senate GOP would pick up on the obvious and switch strategies. As explained here ObamaCare should be procedurally blocked at every turn, a fact even RNC Michael Steele is picking up on.

Next we have the pro-life movement whose complete lack of understanding of Senate strategy is going to bite them in the end. Make no mistake that their hero right now – Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) – is acting the part of Judas to the movement. In the end, through manager amendments, make no mistake that Nelson will get the language he needs to provide him coverage, but he language will be so obscure that, with the government running healthcare abortion will be covered, probably sooner rather than later. This is how DC works. By improving the bill you help guarantee its passage. Read The Endgame Strategy To Kill ObamaCare – Lessons From The House Bill and Killing ObamaCare In The Senate – The Need For Strategic Voting. From the later post:

The Republicans knew full well Pelosi’s plan but voted in the name of political expediency to include the Stupak amendment, all but guaranteeing the passage of healthcare legislation in the House. So twisted is the current legislative process that if the general public were truly aware of the posturing and cowardice of our so-called leaders it would sicken them. As Dr. Larry Hunter wrote to me in an email:

If you haven’t already figured it out, most everything that goes on inside Washington is pure posturing and self-serving. Most of these jokers would rather have the issue to raise funds on than win the battle. I knew asking people to engage in strategic voting would be a heavy lift, and it looks like it is going to be beyond them.

The reason politicians are able to pull off these shenanigans is the complete ignorance of many, but not all, of the public to the importance of strategic voting and our unwillingness to hold accountable those whose interests are self-serving, thereby aiding the enemy in the full-scale assault on our liberties and ultimately destroying this country. We must be willing to hold them accountable for their cowardice. Even more guilty are the tools of the Democrats, the Family Research Council, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Americans United for Life, and National Right to Life Committee. The reader may be shocked to read these groups are unwitting tools of the Democrats, but a useful idiot is a tool until they decide to quit being useful idiots.

Which is why I am frustrated this morning to read Stop the abortion mandate:

To get the latest breaking news from our nation’s capital, you are invited to participate in a LIVE webcast event on Tuesday, December 15, at 9 PM Eastern (6 PM Pacific, 7 PM Mountain, 8 PM Central.)

The event will be approximately one hour long. If you have access to the Internet — even with a dial-up connection — you can listen to the live webcast audio and ask questions.

During this important nationwide event, you will discover:

* The LATEST UPDATES straight from our nation’s capital…
* The shocking implications of the bill that the abortion industry is trying to ram through the United States Senate RIGHT NOW…
* Why respected leaders, national organizations, and pro-life people are joining together in record numbers to BLOCK this attempted power-grab…
* How YOU can make a difference at this crucial moment…
*… And much more!

We have met the enemy – and he is us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One comment on first post linked above comes from jfxgillis:

G.J.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other news and opinion:

Does Anybody Actually Like the Baucus Health Care Bill?

Doctors Threaten to Go Galt if ObamaCare Passes

ACORN’s Comprehensive Ho-migration Reform

The Useful Idiots Are After Rush Limbaugh Now

President Obama: Back to Square One on Health Care

ObamaCare: Who loves the Baucus bill?

Coward-in-Chief

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

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

Rasmussen: ObamaCare hits highest disapproval rate yet

A few more myths from the White House