Democrats Pass Bill they didn't write.

Obama won election by promising an end to the absurd practice of the Democrats to pass bills that nobody had a chance to read.

Well, as rediculous as that is, the Democrats have found a way to make things even worse.

It turns out that on Friday, they passed a bill that they hadn't even bothered to WRITE.

Story by Powerline: (quoting the Examiner):

Through a series of parliamentary inquiries, the Republicans learned that the 300-plus page managers' amendment, added to the bill last night in the House Rules Committee, has not even been been integrated with the official copy of the 1,090-page bill at the House Clerk's desk, let alone in any other location. The two documents are side-by-side at the desk as the clerk reads through the instructions in the 300 page document for altering the 1,090 page document.

So nobody could read the final bill, because nobody has written the final bill yet. As the Republicans sarcastically ask:

"If a bill for which there is no copy were to actually pass this body," Barton asked, "could the bill without a copy be sent to the Senate for its consideration?"

The House was in such a rush to pass this, they couldn't be bothered to read or write it. But there was no need for a rush, as this bill won't be considered by the Senate until September. The only reason they rushed it is because they would lose votes every day they waited, especially if they ever wrote the bill so people could see what is in it.

Poster Explains Obama's Health Care Plan

Obama Discusses Death Bed Treatment

Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

So if your parent gets sick, and the treatment has a 70% success rate, say goodbye, because the treatment won't "necessarily" improve care.

And note that it is "improve care", not "improve your life". If the treatment will be successful, but leave you taking medication the rest of your life, that will drive up the cost of care, and won't "improve care", so you might as well just go off and die.

Obama, who is a multi-millionare and raised 700 MILLION dollars for his campaign, left his grandmother who raised him confined to a wheelchair, and hardly visited her, when doctors told her she could die in 9 months and she needed hip replacement surgery:

She fell and broke her hip, "and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"

Actually, He never said whether she got the surgery, but the story makes no sense if he gave her the surgery. But who cares if a millionare spends their own money to make their own parent's end-of-life experience better? How does Obama paying for his granmother's surgery drive up MY health care costs?

The only reason this makes any sense is if you assume that we all have to pay for everybody else's care. If you don't, you have no reason to tell other people what kind of care they can get with their own money.

But Obama wants to take over health care, because he says the problem with rising costs is ingrained in the system. It is -- we want better treatment, we want to live longer, and every new procedure, new drug, new discovery costs us more, but gains us more as well.

The solution to rising costs due to better care, is to stop giving better care. An analogy -- a new owner of a baseball team can cut costs by hiring less-capable athletes. But then the team doesn't do as well. Obama says we spend too much money keeping old people alive, and he wants to stop it -- by forcing everybody into a public health plan that won't ALLOW anybody to do so (except I'm sure congressmen and rich democrat donors, who will be exempted).

Because, after all, if the federal government can't afford to give expensive treatment to a poor unemployed welfare recipient, Bill Gates shouldn't be allowed to get that treatment either -- it wouldn't be "fair".

If your parents are putting off any treatments, better rush them in now -- Obama is looking for some clean white pillows for them.

Obama Strongly Opposes Obama's "Health Care" plan

Obama, in a scathing speech last October, ripped apart President Obama's proposed funding schemes for his ill-considered health care plan:

“[President Obama] and I have real differences on this issue. [President Obama]'s been eager to share some of the details of his health care plan, but not all of them. It's like those ads for prescription drugs. You know, they start off, everybody's running in the fields and everybody's happy and then there's the little fine print that says, you know, side effects may include.

Now, first of all, we found out that [President Obama] wants to pay for his plan by taxing your health care benefits for the first time in history. Just like George Bush. That was bad enough.

But ‘The Wall Street Journal’ recently reported that it was actually worse than we thought. It turns out [President Obama] would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare. $882 billion worth. $882 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for an ill-conceived, badly thought through health care plan that won't provide more health care to people. Even though Medicare's already facing a looming shortfall.

...

So what would [President Obama]'s cuts mean for Medicare at a time when more and more Americans are relying on it? It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year. If you count on Medicare, it would mean fewer places to get care and less freedom to choose your own doctors. You'll pay more for your drugs. You'll receive fewer services. You'll get lower quality care.

I don't think that's right. In fact, it ain't right.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks, Roanoke, VA, 10/17/08)

As much as I disliked Senator Obama, the Presidential Candidate, he was still better than President Obama, left-wing Lackey.

(note: In the original text, the name was not "President Obama", but rather "Senator McCain". Also, while here Obama decries 882 billion in medicare cuts, President Obama has actually proposed more than 900 billion in cuts now that he is President.)

Post Continues to shill for Democrats

Even when they are trying to report something negative, the Washington Post does it's best to make people feel good about Obama and the Democrats. The front page is not a place to do political endorsements, but the Post joins it's big brother the New York Times in doing it's best to minimize the damage.

In today's article, "Obama's Spending Plans May Pose Political Risks", the shilling starts in the headline. Note the "May" along with "Political Risks". In fact, his spending plans DO pose serious risks to our economy and the livelyhoods of the American people, along with the savings of our elderly retired citizens. By suggesting this is merely a political problem, and that is is only a possibility, the Post suggests that, whatever the risks, they are not reasonable.

And lest even this mild headline throw off their readers, the Post starts this analysis of the shortfalls of spending trillions we don't have by lying about Obama's meager record of the first five months:

After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama's spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections.

Let's start with the closest to the truth, the "towering poll numbers". First, some history: Bush's March 2001 poll numbers:

Two months after becoming the 43rd President, George W. Bush is riding high in the polls. His job-approval rating hovers near 60%, and some two-thirds of Americans like him personally. His Cabinet gets very high marks. A large majority favors his tax cut.

In fact, Gallop had Bush at 69%, while Obama's march numbers from Rasmussen were only 56%. Heck, Bush Sr. had higher poll numbers in march:

George W. Bush 69%
George H.W. Bush 63 %
Barack Hussein Obama 56 % !!!!

Of course, CNN polling has shown that 110% of real Americans love Barack Obama.

How about those months of "legislative victories"? Well, certainly the Democrats, being in charge of the house, senate, and the executive branches, and having a decade worth of plans to implement, should have a bevy of bills passed, right? But so far Obama has failed to pass Card Check, the congress defeated his request for money to close Guantanamo, he has no support for his plan to put terrorists in our country, and even on the Stimulus package, he failed to get what he wanted, instead having to bow to an even worse plan by democrats in the house.

He did manage to pass SCHIP, which had already passed several times, and would have been law if the democrats hadn't insisted on covering the world with the child medical plan.

Of course, by "victory" they must have simply meant "passed", because by any measure the OBama "stimulus" package is a dismal failure. They rushed a bill of 900 billion dollars saying the money was needed. But so far only about 20 billion has been spent, unemployment is ABOVE where it was projected to be at the end of the year WITHOUT a stimulus, and the weakening of the Dollar due to the overspending has helped drive Oil and gas prices up again.

Meanwhile, his attempts to save two car companies failed, leaving him a socialized takeover of GM and Chrysler, no doubt driving unemployment even higher.

On bill after bill, Obama has provided only the vaguest of hints as to what he wants, because when he makes it clear, the house and senate democrats ignore him and pass what they want anyway. Easier to claim "victory" when you claim whatever comes out as your own.

And don't forget that while Obama promised to allow the American people to see each piece of legislature for 5 days before signing them, he has yet to allow us to see ANY bill he has signed for that long. So he can't even implement policies that he has complete control over.

But the most laughable is the 'Well-received foreign policy initiatives". In his brief time trying to learn how to be President, he has become the laughingstock of the world. He slighted our closest ally, England, multiple times, mistreating Brown, and more recently with the Uigher fiasco in Bermuda -- a country who Obama has now managed to seriously destabilize, along with Palau.

Iran just re-elected their anti-American leader. Obama refused to eat with Sarkozy claiming he had more important things to do, and then Obama came home and played golf. He has seriously undermined our solid relationship with a close ally and democratic country Israel, while his kissing up to anti-democratic muslim governments and extremists has earned the US no benefit.

North Korea is blatantly testing nuclear weapons, and has announced the will enrich uranium, and Obama has no answer. While Europe is electing new leadership that sees the danger of muslim radicals taking over their countries, Obama is lying about the number of muslims in our country, and trying to sell the fiction that we used to be the enemies of the Muslim world. This after we sent our troops to die defending muslims in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Albania, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and have been close allies with Pakistan and and other muslim countries.

No, in the short time Obama has been in office, our nation's debt has skyrocketed, the respect we had in the world (not the kissy-faced platitudes, but the actual respect that kept our enemies at bay and our friends close beside us) has been destroyed, muslim extremists are launching terror attacks on our own soil again, the world is increasingly dismissing our currency, oil and gas prices are skyrocketing, and our businesses are being undermined by Obama's ill-considered belief that the government can run things better than we can.

Obama has no answers, other than to continue to blame the previous administration for actions the democrats took over the past two years when they controlled congress. The Washington Post helps out:

"The reckless fiscal policies of the past have left us in a very deep hole," Obama said last week. "And digging our way out of it will take time, patience and some tough choices."

But in fact, for the spending of the last two years, except for the war in Iraq, Obama voted FOR all the spending. He pushed for and claimed credit for the TARP bill. He joined his fellow democrats blocking the fixes to the mortgage industry that might have staved off the worst of the downturn. Obama cannot blame others for the economy, which was fine before his party took over the Senate in 2007 and drove gas and oil prices to record highs.

Note that the oil and gas prices only dropped when the democrats, trying to win re-election, allowed bans on drilling to expire. Then, when he took office, Obama blocked exploration of offshore oil, and announced plans to ban more drilling, and oil and gas prices shot back up.

Obama doesn't get it though, as seen by his "plan" to fix the deficit:

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, said that a quick economic recovery would have the single biggest effect on the grim budget forecasts and that the administration's top priority will be "getting America's fiscal house in order" once Congress finishes work on health-care and energy reform legislation.

"energy reform" is their name for cap-and-trade, which will kill our economy and run up the deficits more. health-care as perceived by Obama means trillions more in government spending. So in addition to the record deficits Obama has charged up this year and last year as a Senator, he plans on trillions more, before he gets our "house in order".

A quick economic recovery would have been the best. The TARP passed last year didn't help, although it might have worked if it was smaller and more targeted to what it was supposed to be, buying off toxic assets to free up capital. The failure of the democrats to pass a good TARP bill (and many republicans went along with that fiasco) hurt our economic recovery. But Obama's "stimulus" package sunk our recovery, directing money we didn't have NOT to stimulate, but to pay off his political supporters. They gave him 700 million dollars to win the election, and he returned the favor with 700 billion in money paid out to unions, colleges, ACORN, and liberal groups throughout the country.

Democrat Senator Leahy questions Sotomayor's impartiality.

In 1990, faced with confirming conservative judges appointed by the Bush administration, the Democrats on the judiciary committee decided to implement a rule regarding the membership in exclusive, discriminatory clubs.

From the Washington Times:

In June 1990, Arlen Specter, then a Republican from Pennsylvania, and all but one of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee sponsored a resolution warning nominees that having belonged to such clubs could be enough to deny them confirmation. The resolution claimed that membership in such organizations "conflicts with the impartiality, and the appearance of impartiality" expected of judges and that it will be held against the nominee unless they "actively engaged" in efforts to get underrepresented groups into the organizations.

Sens. Leahy, Specter and Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Democrat, supported the resolution and are still on the Judiciary Committee. Joseph Biden, who was the committee chairman at the time, is now vice president.

Well, it turns out that Judge Sotomayor is a current member of a discriminatory, exclusive organization:

It was revealed Friday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor belongs to the Belizean Grove, a highly selective club for women only.

The Democrats applied this rule against nominees if they had EVER, no matter how far in their past, been members of such an organization, even if they had quit, and even if they had denounced the group.

In 2001, they held up one nominee for over a year for belonging to a fishing club:

When Judge D. Brooks Smith was nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001, his confirmation was held up for almost a year in part because he belonged to an all-male fishing and gun club.

But Sotomayor has never denounced this group. In fact, she JOINED the group well after being confirmed as a judge, just last year in fact (from the Politico):

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor last year accepted an invitation to join the Belizean Grove, an elite but little-known women’s-only group.
...
Sotomayor’s membership in the New York-based group became public Thursday afternoon in a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Of course, because she is a Democrat, and they are Democrats, Leahy and Kohl will ignore the rules and vote to confirm her anyway. Democrats in general are very bad when it comes to consistancy, prefering hypocrisy.

But in fact, Sotomayor has violated more than a longstanding Democrat-sponsored judiciary rule. She has violated the ethics standards for Judges:

The American Bar Association's Canons of Judicial Ethics stipulates that judges "shall not" be members of any organization that unfairly discriminates based on gender.

So Sotomayor, having a lifetime judicial appointment to the appeals court, knowingly defied the ABA canon of Judicial Ethics, casting doubt on all her rulings by joining a discriminatory exclusive club. She should be censured, not given a promotion.

Her membership in a club that excludes men from it's membership casts a new and disturbing light on her previous comments that a "wise latina woman" would make better decisions than a "white man". She can no longer pretend she treats genders equally, now that we know of her bigoted membership in this club.

IN many ways, this is much worse than her membership in the racist organization "La Raza". We already know she is biased for people of her own ethnic background -- I have no doubt that a white man won't get justice from her against hispanics. So it isn't really a surprise that she belongs to a bigoted racist organization like "La Raza", (whose name says it all).

Sotomayor: conflict of interest in Ricci Case?

A recent revelation of a legal seminar in which Judge Sotomayor participated in the 1990s reveals a conflict of interest which should have caused her to recuse herself from the Ricci firefighter case.

That she did not do so raises new questions about her ethics.

According to CNN:

The female panel members politely objected to her characterizations of how she overcame such obstacles, pointing out she graduated from law school with honors and was on the prestigious law review. Sotomayor countered that those were signs test scores alone do not offer the full measure of a person's capability. Test scores, she said, often can be the result of "cultural biases."

The question in the Ricci case was whether test scores are the result of "cultural bias" and therefore could be thrown out. Sotomayor already had an opinion on the merits of the case, and made a flippant ruling which simply reflected her biased and preconcieved notions.

It is no wonder that she didn't really look into the facts of the case, as she already "knew" from her "life experiences" that the Firefighters were wrong and the city was correct.

This isn't the only unethical thing about Sotomayor that is being ignored by the media.

Study: Children raised by Gays 7 times more likely to be Gay

A doctor doing analysis of studies performed in the last decade of children raised in homosexual households discovers a "hidden" statistic supporting an obvious observation: such children are much more likely to have homosexual encounters than the general population.

Dr. Trayce Hansen, Phd, makes this discovery public in a recent column "Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality":

Research by social scientists, although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others. Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children.

Dr. Hansen goes on to point out ways that the various researchers tried to bury this information, since it goes against the public message that homosexual couples are just as good for children as biological families, and that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, not something that could be induced by environment.

But if true, this analysis of studies would blow a hole in that theory, showing instead that encouraging homosexual acceptance will in fact encourage homosexual behavior among children who would otherwise live an exclusive heterosexual lifestyle.

Along with other recent studies showing that any genetic component of homosexuality can only account for about 10 percent of homosexuality, it is now becoming clear that Americans have been sold a bill of goods by the homosexual lobby in their push to justify and "normalize" nontraditional, nonreproductive sexual activities.

Regardless, no one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, "Of course our children are going to be different."

You would expect that children raised in a homosexual household would be more accepting of homosexual activity, since they would naturally want to believe their parents are normal and acceptable.

And in fact, the insistance that being gay was something you were born with and couldn't be taught was so ingrained that most people arguing against gay couples adopting children focused on the serious deficiency of children raised with only one gender of parent.

Findings from the best and most recent twin studies have found that homosexuality, unlike eye color, is not genetically-caused. But there are a number of non-genetic mechanisms through which homosexuality could be transmitted from one generation to the next. Those mechanisms include role-modeling, social learning and differential reinforcement, as well as outright encouragement of non-heterosexuality by parents or others.

It is one thing to argue that two consenting adults, who desire to have a non-traditional relationship, should have the right to do so without interference by the government. It is another to argue that gay couples have a natural right to impose their sexual preference on children through the act of adoption.

Obama: too busy for his job

Obama, asked why he refused to eat with French President Sarkozy (who is, shockingly, more conservative than our current President), laughingly said:

“I have a very tough schedule and I would love nothing more than to have a leisurely week in Paris, stroll down the Seine, take my wife out to a nice meal, have a picnic in Luxembourg Gardens,” Obama said, pointing out that he was caught up in dealing with the pressing financial crisis at home.

Of course, last week his "tough schedule" didn't preclude him from taking a day off to spend tens of thousands of our tax dollars to take his wife to a broadway play in New York, inconveniencing thousands of New Yorkers in the process, all of whom probably had tough schedules of their own that were ruined by the President.

Not that Obama really understands schedules, as he is late for everything.

But he had to rush home to do his job, after all. Except within 90 minutes of arriving back at the White House, he was rushing off to his next pressing financial engagement -- a leisurely round of golf.

Of course, it would have been fun to watch Obama walk on water, so I wish he had taken the time to "walk down the Seine".