Posted on 03/18/2010 7:50:32 AM PDT by SantaLuz
Yesterday in an interview with Fox New's Bret Baier Presidente Obama laughed off concern from people who were agast at the process Congress was using in order to deem a non-voted bill passed. The "procedural matters" are not a concern to El Presidente as long as they are able to move his beloved "ObamaCare" back to his desk to be signed into "law". However it won't become law in the United States of America; but in a transformative moment it will become the first law passed in the United Banana Republic.
What made us a great nation was not the President or Congress or the people or the natural resources, but the process called the US Constitution. Yesterday El Presidente was laughing at all who believe that to be true. He will be no different that Presidente Chavez or all the other Presidentes who viewed their Constitution as a hinderance to their grand plans. Sorry I can't bring myself to say God Bless our Banana Republic. May God preserve our United States of America over all who would do her harm for their own priveledge, power and purpose!
I knew the stakes on this health care vote a long time ago. Defeat it, and 0bama is a lame duck. If it passes, I think the rest of the dems toe the line, and everything passes or passed in the house get labeled “reconciliation” in the Senate. Cap & Tax, card check and open border all become “law of the land.”
And the American Century is over.
We are at a tipping point. The momentum is with those who want to parse what the meaning of “is” is. They will use whatever tactic, obfuscation, or lie that they bring in order to convince us that we need them as “Nanny in Chief” to all us small minded people who don’t know any better.
The “procedural matters” are not a concern to El Presidente.
His last mistake.
Reconciliation is only for bills already passed in the senate with 60 votes. However, I am concerned that the tricks/excuses they are using are getting more bizarre and more dishonest all the time.
Excellent illustration.
It’s like playing chess against an opponent who keeps changing the rules depending on the situation on the board.
I played chess once with my wife’s uncle he was a diagnosed schizophrenic. That’s exactly what he did.
I use a similar analogy with my son except I use football. I told him the difference between a conservative and liberal is that the conservative may challenge the call/ruling but not the game/rule itself. He will feel bad and acknowledge when he has run out of bounds, and then accept the penalty. The liberal will challege the rule and the game if necessary. What is the meaning of “out of bounds”. They only care about getting to the outcome that perceive as justified. Rules, laws, constitutions are to be played...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.