I expressed my disappointment yesterday immediately after Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Kerioth) announced that he’d been satisfied by a promise made on some piece of paper by the most pro-abortion president we’ve ever had—a president, one of whose first acts after being inaugurated was to repeal the Mexico City Policy which had restricted our funds for overseas abortions—that is overruled by the same legislation he would later vote for (and about which he had written a letter to Sen Ben Nelson (D-His Own World) expressing how it wasn’t good enough for him—at the time).

I was very disappointed at the time and said so. I classified Stupak as having been the dupe of the president and Nancy Pelosi. I gave him the benefit of the doubt but pondered how he could be so gullible. Since then however, I have become much more educated on Congressman Stupak’s history, and feel I formally owe our readers an apology. (I had issued this as an update to the original post, but I feel so betrayed that I feel the need to make a seperate post here, the original having been buried in the tons of writing Dan and I have done last night and today.)

Bart Stupak betrayed me, all pro-life Americans, and frankly the entire Nation. Not simply because he voted in favor of this assault on our Constitution and our liberties (he joins 218 of his disrespectful friends in this alone). No, he lied to us this entire time. We all knew he was in favor of the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010, but we had been led to believe, based on his genuine-seeming demeanor and earnest-sounding words that this whole thing was eating him up inside.

As I reflected that nobody could be so credulous, or frankly, so stupid as to fall for Obama’s latest lie, I concluded that he must not be that stupid after all, and that he knows well that this is an empty promise from someone who doesn’t mean it and who can rescind it at any time. This led to further consideration of the character of Stupak. If, as all evidence shows, he knows that this is no way of stopping taxpayer-funded abortion, it calls into question not only his dedication to the unborn in the first place, but also the contemptible nature of the charade he acted out over the past several months. Stupak made himself the poster-boy of principled dissent, standing athwart Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Infanticide Cabal, even to the point that he tortured himself by opposing a piece of legislation that he fundamentally wanted to see passed lest it fund abortions with taxpayer dollars. But we were had. Comes the evidence:
(more…)

As promised, here is the roll call from the House vote last night. Sorry for the quick hit-and-git here, but I have too much crap to do tonight.

Rest assured, however, I’ll soon be culling this list, Googling like mad, and producing for you a comprehensive list of the “Ayes”‘ opponents.

I’d love for anybody who wants to help out to email me (my address is in the bar at the right) if you already know of any opponents.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

The contempt I feel right now for President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while not quite as intense as it was last night, may well match that the American patriots felt for King George and Parliament 235-odd years ago.  That king, like this president, trampled on our liberties and sought to expand the power of government in clear contravention of the will of the people.

The pressure against this bill came from the grassroots, even in such states as Massachusetts.  The pressure to pass it came from the White House, the Democratic congressional leadership and their allied special interests.

A recent CNN survey (and their surveys tend to skew left) finds that by a margin of 3 to 2, Americans oppose the Democrats’ health care bill–that margins is even greater than the one found by the supposedly Republican pollster Scott Rasmussen.   And here’s an interesting tidbit from that poll, “56% say the bill creates ‘too much government involvement in the nation’s health care system,’ 28% say about the right amount, while 16% say not enough.”

According to Gallup, a near identical percentage of Americans, 57%, believe “government is trying to do too many things that should be left to businesses and individuals“.  And the Democrats’ health care bill does just that.  In yesterday’s Investors’ Business Daily, David Hogberg detailed 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms.  No wonder we’re up in arms.

In an underhanded manner, House and Senate Democrats rammed through an unpopular bill which takes away our liberties. As Robert Zelnick writes: “Everything about [that] House-passed bill smacks of political excess rooted in ideological purity.”  (Via Jennifer Rubin.)

Under the leadership of President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have divided our nation even further and decreased our liberties while increasing the size and scope of the federal government.

This is not what the Founders fought for.  Not by a long shot.  Nor what the American people want.  In his successful campaign for the White House, Obama tapped into popular discontent at the growing cost of government, telling us that we had been living beyond our means.  And now, despite clear majorities of the American people opposing increased government intervention in our lives, he works overtime to increase the level of that intervention.

While Barney Frank demands that Republicans “differentiate” themselves from mean-spirited insults allegedly hurled at him by citizens disgruntled with the Democrats’ health care overhaul, he still has yet to apologize for, on the floor of the House, telling Republican colleagues they suffer from “a psychological disorder.”

Today, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R., Texas) ‘fessed up to being the Congressman who called his Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), a “baby-killer” and apologized:

Last night was the climax of weeks and months of debate on a health-care billthat my constituents fear and do not support. In the heat and emotion of the debate, I exclaimed the phrase “it’s a baby killer” in reference to the agreement reached by the Democratic leadership.

While I remain heartbroken over the passage of this bill and the tragic consequences it will have for the unborn, I deeply regret that my actions were mistakenly interpreted as a direct reference to Congressman Stupak himself.

I have apologized to Mr. Stupak and also apologize to my colleagues for the manner in which I expressed my disappointment about the bill. The House Chamber is a place of decorum and respect. The timing and tone of my comment last night was inappropriate.

It’s been nearly a year since Frank made a comment which was equally inappropriate.  That Democrat has yet to apologize.

If it is true that some Tea Party protesters hurled anti-gay insults at the unhappy Barney Frank, then we should condemn the individuals spewing the bile.  Even though Mr. Frank may himself issue much mean-spirited invective against his Republicans adversaries, accusing his Republican colleagues, in one memorable instance, of having a “psychological disorder,”  it is wrong (and counterproductive) to level anti-gay attacks against him–or any gay individual for that matter.

Given Mr. Frank’s partisanship and the scorn he has expressed for conservatives and their ideas, please forgive me for remaining skeptical of his accusations.  It was particularly rich yesterday when the self-righteous Massachusetts Democrat demanded that “his GOP colleagues . . . do more to ‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech spewed in the healthcare debate’s final hours.”  This from a man whose own staff deemed it a “useless conversation” to discuss whether or not the career politician had ever criticized anti-Bush hate speech during the previous Administration.  (I called Mr. Frank’s office earlier today to ask if they had any record of such statements.)

Not one reader responded to my challenge to provide examples of his standing up for civil discourse and against anti-Bush invective during when we had a Republican in the White House.  For Barney Frank and the media ever eager to echo his plaints, this is not about civil discourse, but about his favorite past time, attacking Republicans.

In Barney’s mind, only Republicans can be guilty of hate speech.  That’s how this mean-spirited man can get away with demanding Republicans differentiate themselves from statements they never made while he refuses to apologize for hateful statements he actually did make.

Last night’s cartoon was a bit grim though I drew exactly how I was feeling. However, as a child of the 80s I remember Reagan’s relentless optimism and so this morning I decided to gird up my proverbial loins and get back to work. November will be here sooner than we think!

Drawn to: “All the Rivers Run” by Bruce Rowlands
(Same guy who wrote Man from Snowy River. Yeah, I’m that kind of nerd.)

Follow me on Twitter!

While many in the right-o-sphere (including yours truly) have been using a clip from one of the lesser Star Wars movies (er, prequels) to describe what happened yesterday, one of our readers, Bruce W, who has a blog of his own offered a clip (albeit slightly altered) from the best Star Wars movie to describe Bart Stupak’s deal:

You can now contribute to the campaign of Dr. Dan Benishek, Stupak’s opponent via Paypal.

Criticizing the Boxer-Pelosi health care plan which squeaked through an overwhelmingly Democratic House yesterday after the majority party’s leadership crafted special deals in back room and offered payoffs to various wavering legislators to secure their votes, the woman whose chances of replacing Ma’am Barbara Boxer in the Senate increased dramatically last night had this to say:

While our nation’s health care system is in need of reform, the legislation passed today is an example of the ‘cure’ being worse than the disease. It is a patchwork of Washington insider deals, and it will cost California taxpayers millions, if not billions, of dollars we cannot afford.

Carly Fiorina then repeated the points she’s been making for some time about what real reform would look like:

• Building on programs that provide incentives for receiving preventative care and for healthy lifestyles.
• Reforming malpractice on a national level as has been done in California.
• Providing greater access to lower-cost community-based primary care clinics.
• Encouraging more transparency about pricing and quality of health care services.
• Allowing consumers to purchase any health plan from anywhere in the country.
• Creating more market-based competition for everything from health insurance to prescription drugs.

Unlike the schemes Senate Democrats unanimously backed last December and which a divided House Democratic caucus adopted last night, Fiorina’s reforms are based on ideas which have lowered the costs and increased the efficiency of services in health care and other industry.  By contrast, most provisions in the Democratic plan aren’t based on programs which work, indeed, many of them are based on programs which have seen huge cost overruns and led to a rationing of services.

Let us hope that in her first days as a United States Senator next January, this breast cancer survivor from California introduces a bill to effect these reforms in the debate Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opens to repeal the bill just passed.

Yesterday we saw history made as the largest take-over by the United States government of a private industry was narrowly passed by the House of Representatives and will soon be signed by the president in the face of an overwhelming opposition from the population of the Nation and zero support from the opposing party whatsoever.

I wrote in my post right after that fateful vote that it was time for America to choose which sort of moment that was to signify. As I slept on it (and wished I hadn’t given up alcohol for Lent) last night, I started thinking about what we do next. And here’s what I’ve come up with:

Last spring we told them “No” at Tea Parties. They responded by calling us all racists.

Last summer we told them “No” at town hall meetings. They responded by calling us un-American.

Last fall, we told them “No” in voting booths in New Jersey and Virginia. And in January in Massachusetts of all places. Their response was not to reconsider their positions in the face of their clear unpopularity, but rather to redouble their efforts to find a way around us and our wishes.

And now it has come to this. We can no longer say, They’re not hearing us; we’ve been loud. We can no longer say, They’re not listening to us; we’ve been clear. The only conclusion we can come to is that they knowingly defied us, and this cannot stand. They must all be removed.

The time has come for action.

It is time now to remove these people from their offices. Every Congressman and Senator who voted in support of the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010 MUST lose his or her seat this November 2d. It is imparative for the survival of our Nation.

This is not about malice. It’s not about vengence. It’s not about “teaching them a lesson.” It is simply about caring for our Union. It is the (metaphoric, mind you) watering of the tree of Liberty. (more…)

Via TigerHawk’s Tea Party flickr page, via Instapundit.

This wonderful piece of “analysis” begins an AP piece which led Yahoo! as I was having my late-night yogurt snack before bed:

The initial blush of President Barack Obama’s health care triumph immediately gives way to a sober political reality — he must sell the landmark legislation to an angry and unpredictable electorate, still reeling from the recession.

Um, wasn’t he supposed to do that selling before pushing the bill through the House.  And didn’t the people turn against the bill as he was hawking his big-government package?

“Voters,” AP National Political Writer Liz Sidoti writes, “may not buy it.”

May not buy it? Liz, you seen the polls?  They haven’t bought it.  I mean, just a few paragraphs down, you do quote a poll:

Ahead of the vote, a Gallup poll showed more Americans believe the measure will make things worse rather than better for the country as a whole and for them personally. And most polls show most people don’t like the plan although some surveys showed Americans giving high marks to individual elements.

So, maybe that’s the reason, as you report that, “Voters are furious. They hate Washington. They also detest incumbents.”  I mean you might want to ask yourself something before penning a piece of analysis, if voters detest incumbents, why is it that only Democratic incumbents seem to be facing tough reelections when every Senate Republican running for re-election looks safe and the only House Republican looking vulnerable represents a district Obama carried by a margin of 3-to-1?

Some of my conservative friends are more glum than I was last night.  Now, to be sure, I’m upset.  As I watched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the vote on the Senate bill she didn’t want to vote on, she reminded me of the Wicked Witch of the West, only the latter had better make-up.  And her devilish smile looked real.

My conservative friends are glum because they have bought into the conventional wisdom (“wisdom” which surely animated the last-minute push for Obamacare despite the president’s January promise to focus on jobs) that you can’t repeal an entitlement.  But, let me remind the purveyors of that piece of “wisdom”:  never before has an entitlement been passed in the manner this one has,* with myriad backroom deals, strong popular disapproval and an organized and energetic grassroots opposition.   “Never before in American history has a measure of such importance been imposed on the country by the majority party over the unanimous opposition of the minority.”

The long national nightmare begun when Obama, in the face of declining popular support for his overhaul, forced the vote on the American people, has only just begun.  Now, we have a week, likely more, of debate in the Senate.  And repeal will certainly be the first item on House Speaker John Boehner’s agenda next January.

The “mother of all culture wars . . .[, the] showdown between Americans who want bigger government and those who want smaller government“, Michael Goodwin writes, “won’t be over anytime soon”:

Not only does it encompass and include other wedge issues, such as abortion, taxing and spending, but the war over the size of government goes to the heart of the concept of American exceptionalism. . . .

His health-care obsession, with industry tentacles reaching 17 percent of the economy, reveals his vision. There is little dispute the industry has big flaws, yet Obama passed up a bipartisan chance to fix most of them.

He opted for a sweeping expansion and takeover that would put Washington in charge of every aspect, from levels of care, to cost, to mandates, to jobs and taxes.

Ultimately, no American will be able to escape its centralizing impact, which is why opponents are so ferocious and frightened. (more…)

Drawn to: John Adams- HBO Miniseries by Joseph Vitarelle & Rob Lane

Well, we won’t know until November, but, I didn’t find the following names, some from districts where McCain ran ahead of Obama, on the list of Democrats voting, “No,”:

Suzanne Kosmas (Florida), Earl Pomeroy (ND), John Boccieri (OH), Steve Driehaus (OH), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Charlie Wilson (OH), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA).

Given popular outrage against this bill and the competitive nature of their districts, should these Democrats’ Republican opponents run decent campaigns, come November, these current Congressmen will all be looking for jobs in the Obama Administration.

To make their defeats ever more certain, I have already contributed to the campaigns of Republicans running against two of the Democrats listed above.  I encourage you to join me in supporting Rick Berg running against Pomeroy and Steve Chabot running against Driehaus.  You can also contribute to Steve Stivers running against Kilroy.

I also made a modest donation to fire Nancy Pelosi.