Obamacare 2.0: More Brass Knuckle Lawlessness and Stunning Hypocrisy from Democrats

In April 2005, Sen. Barack Obama rose to oppose any change in Senate filibuster rules.

Republicans propose this rule “because they can get away with it not because they know it’s good for our democracy.” Ironic much? If there were ever a phrase that describes virtually every lawless action of the Obama administration that’s it.

Watch as other democrats in 2005 also lament “vaporizing” the “checks and balances” contained in the filibuster “changing the rules in the middle of the game,” “putting an end to democratic debate,” becoming a “rubber stamp” for the President, a “stunning moment,” a “fundamental power grab” that our Founders warned us against.

Yesterday, the democrats did the very thing that they so strongly opposed only 8 years ago, and blew up the filibuster. Of course, the hypocrisy is stunning. It’s important to understand what happened yesterday, and why.

First, the tremendous irony is that it is the democrats during George W. Bush’s presidency who came up with the idea of filibustering a president’s nominees. It has become a hackneyed liberal talking point, always accompanied with the predictable faux disgust and outrage, that Sen. Mitch McConnell actually said that he wanted Barack Obama to be a one-term president! What an outrageous, shocking statement especially since every democrat obviously wanted to repeal the XXII Amendment so that George W. Bush could serve at least three terms. What is in fact stunning and unprecedented is the pow wow that several liberal activists had right after Pres. Bush was sworn in. That’s where they cooked up the idea of filibustering judicial nominees. I wrote about it here. 

Second, there is a reason that the democrats were desperate to pack the D.C. Circuit. That’s where challenges to regulations, and to Obamacare, will be heard. Knowing that fact, the democrats pushed the panic button.

Third, as noted in a very cogent way, by the Wall Street Journal in their piece, Senate Rules for Radicals:

The move shows how foolish Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch were to worry that if they broke the filibuster, Democrats would then do it too. Democrats did it anyway. The only way to deter bloody-minded Democratic behavior is to treat Democrats as they treat Republicans. (emphasis mine) Democrats sicced special prosecutors on GOP Presidents for years, but they gave up the independent-counsel statute only after Ken Starr investigated Bill Clinton.

Absolutely. I know that they suffer from East Coast Brain Rot, but let’s hope that finally the GOP has learned its lesson. As I reminded them here, there was a reason that Ronald Reagan was so successful fighting the Left. He understood what he was up against.

So this disgraceful event is just the latest episode in the on-going drama that we find ourselves forced to live in, in which a radical leftist and his minions lawlessly “transform” our country.

One silver lining, noted in that WSJ piece: now we need only 51 votes to repeal Obamacare.

Debt Ceiling: GOP Didn’t Make The Best Argument Because Leadership Wasn’t Really Feeling It

Some people make things happen. Some people watch things happen. Some people stand there and ask “what just happened?” For that last group, I present the following explanation. The establishment GOP went into the latest battles with Barack Obama and the democrats. on the continuing budget resolution and the increase in the debt ceiling with their usual defeatist attitude, completely buying into the party line that “Obamacare is the law of the land.” Based on past experience, everyone assumed that they would not even try to use the leverage they have to try to rescue the American people from the horrific effects of Obama’s health care scheme. Then came Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee who joined with some of the GOP members of the House to say “Hey, we aren’t feeling like doing the democrat door mat thing for a while. Let’s try fighting.” No matter what East Coast Brain Rot ™ afflicted pantywaist pundits say, that was a good thing. I’m sure that they realized that they were facing long odds since they had to defeat not only the democrats and Obama, but also Sen. John McCain, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Rep. Peter King and the rest of the gutless RINO usual suspects. It’s like that Tom Hanks line from “A League of Their Own.” The hard is what makes it good.

Some of you may be wondering if it really had to be so hard, and if the GOP had to give Obama everything he wanted. They ask why the Republicans didn’t approach this fight from the very beginning, using the clear, simple, winning message that was all on their side, the issue of Obamacare unfairness. It’s clear that the special treatment accorded under Obamacare for members of Congress and their staffs, unions and other Obama cronies, like big business is a winner with the American public. The issue of “one rule for me but not for thee” is straightforward and easy to understand. Had the GOP focused on that fairness issue from the very beginning, and made one unified argument demanding (1) the same 1-year delay in the individual mandate that Obama gave to big business, and (2) a repeal of the Office of Personnel Management’s decision, allowing members of Congress and their staffs to get subsidies to purchase their insurance from Obama’s exchanges, I think that the GOP would have won the day on those two concessions. The argument that it’s only fair for the people to get the same 1-year extension in having to purchase health insurance that Obama gave to big business would have been even more compelling as the disastrous roll out of the changes unfolded, allowing the messaging to connect the unfairness and incompetence dots. You want to penalize people for not purchasing something that’s nearly impossible to purchase in the system you had over three years to create and test? And businesses get a break for a year? And members of Congress are getting a special break on their premiums? Even an Obama supporter can understand that! So, had the GOP spoken with one voice and repeated their irresistible fairness argument over and over again, they would have gotten some decent concessions from the One. It’s not the same as repeal, but it would be a good start.

Sounds good doesn’t it? So why didn’t the GOP take this obvious path to victory? Well, as previously noted, we had people supposedly on our side who were consorting with the enemy. OK, leave the RINO caucus aside. Why didn’t Speaker Boehner and the leadership  initiate the battle by making the fairness argument and press it aggressively? Were they just being their typical lame, clueless selves? I wish that was it. They didn’t because–wait for it–the elites, including the House GOP leadership, don’t have a problem with special deals for members of Congress. From Business Insider:

Boehner railed against the so-called “exemption” for Congress, but the politics of the ploy were better than the practicality. In July, Mike Sommers, Boehner’s chief of staff, went through David Krone, Reid’s chief of staff, to try to set up a meeting with President Barack Obama to find a way to maintain the subsidies.

Business Insider obtained the email exchange (which you can see below) in which Krone requests that they come up with a different cover story than Obamacare for the meeting.

“People will know we are going down there,” Sommers wrote. “We can’t let it get out there that this is for the [Speaker] and [Leader] to ask the President to carve us out of the requirements of Obamacare. … I am even ok if it is the President hauling us down to talk about the next steps on immigration.”

Krone responded that the White House would love to say the meeting would be about immigration.

“I really don’t care what it is about — it just can’t be about what we know it is about,” Sommers wrote back.

So, while I’d like to tell you that when Speaker Boehner heard that Reid and Obama wanted special treatment for the political class, he was steam-nearly-coming-out-of-his-ears enraged, so angry that he was nearly speechless, insisting that this unfairness be remedied immediately, that’s not what happened. In fact, it was just the opposite. Quietly, and behind the scenes, he was trying to make sure that they did get that special treatment. When he realized it would be politically expedient to stand against it, he pretended to believe in that. His stooge was conspiring with Reid’s stooge and trying to cover it up. Was he really going to charge to the barricades and demand its end? We’re fighting for our country’s survival, though, and we need some of that barricade charging stuff, and fast.

It’s pretty hard to fight for principles that you don’t believe in, which is why so often the establishment Republicans end up standing there with dumb looks on their faces, looks that say “what just happened?”

Cross-posted at Illinois Review


Politics, Pop Culture, the Hottest Issues of the Day, and Your calls. The Teri O’Brien Show, featuring America’s Original Conservative Warrior Princess, Live and in color, Sundays 4-6 pm Central time  at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Teri-OBrien. Daring to Commit Common Sense, Fearlessly, and More Important, Cheerfully, in the Age of Obama.

Make My Day: Text “FAN TOBCWP” to 32665

Can’t listen live? Download it from iTunes and listen on demand. 

As one listener wrote “one of the most insightful and entertaining pundits in America. Also, her voice is magical.”

Serious Ideas, Irresistible Entertainment. Warning: listeners may become hopelessly addicted.

How to Go From Paying $1302/month for Health Insurance to $94/month: Show Notes, The Teri O’Brien Show, 10-13-13

talk radio, The Teri O'Brien Show

Thanks to our guest Prof. Charles R. Kesler, editor of the Claremont Review of books, and author of a great book, I am the Change: Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism.

Amazon.com: I Am the Change eBook: Charles R. Kesler: Kindle Store

Amazon.com: I Am the Change eBook: Charles R. Kesler: Books

The Claremont Institute – Claremont Review of Books

No Thanks, Mr. President | National Review Online

Obama’s game is now and has always been, not to debate his opposition, but to “punish” his “enemies,” and destroy them. All Alinsky all the time. Five days before he was elected in 2008, he said he would “transform” America, and he has set about doing it. Obamacare is the key to that transformation. As our guest, Prof. Kesler explained on this edition of the show, and as I have often noted, Obamacare dramatically changes the relationship between citizens and the government. Despite Chief Justice John Roberts’ doing a Bill Ayers and re-writing the legislation, it’s as anti-Constitutional as ever, delivering the coups de grace to that document of “negative rights” that Obama has so long despised.

Obama now haunted by his ex-political mentor (Story about how Obama paid his political mentor, communist Alice Palmer, back by getting her kicked off the ballot so he could be elected to the Illinois State senate in 1996)

By the Numbers Segment

Chrysler Spends $1.2 Billion to Expand in Mexico – NYTimes.com (Query: shouldn’t they be using this $$ to pay back the U.S. government or, failing that, create jobs in the USA?)

ObamaCare mandate could lead Washington grocery workers to picket line | Fox News

Report: U.S. government keeps data of innocent Americans innocent for up to 75 years | The Daily Caller

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652 (Mooch needs 26 servants for all her important work

Lower 2014 income can net huge health care subsidy – SFGate (How to reduce your monthly health insurance premiums from $1302/month to $94/month–reduce your income by $2000 a year. Remember, there are “winners” and “losers,” under Obamacare. The way to be a winner is to reduce your involvement in productive work.)

NBC Blasts Obamacare Exchanges: ‘The Focus of Ridicule’ and ‘A Complete Mess’ | Washington Free Beacon

Protected: Subscribers Only: Enhanced Show Notes, The Teri O’Brien Show, 10-13-13

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Subscribers Only: McCain’s Game, Amnesty, Missing Audio, and More! Enhanced Show Notes, The Teri O’Brien Show, 9-1-13

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Just Shut Up (AGAIN) File: Sen. McCain Says AZ Should Re-Visit Its Stand Your Ground Law

Sen. John “Often Wrong, Never in Doubt” McCain (R-Amnesty) says Arizona should think of changing its “Stand Your Ground” law. Let me quote my Twitter pal VaTxn:


Terms of the Deal That Avoided “Nuclear Option” Include Swallowing Excrement Sandwich, Thomas Perez

From Politico:

Senators have reached a tentative deal to avert the “nuclear option” on filibuster rules.

Under the proposal, which the White House has not yet agreed to, President Barack Obama would pull two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board – Sharon Block and Richard Griffin – and replace them with two nominees who could receive Senate votes quickly.

Votes on the other five nominees would be allowed to go forward – including those of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Gina McCarthy as EPA administrator and Thomas Perez as Labor secretary.

Cordray’s nomination got 71 votes to move forward, which doesn’t mean that he’s confirmed, but that debate on his confirmation will be ended after 8 hours of debate, and then they will vote on his confirmation.

This is the compromise that I told you about about 4 hours ago herereplacing the two NLRB nominees who were illegally appointed and replacing them with two new ones, who, if Obama is operating true to form will be even worse than these two.

Speaking of worse, there could be no one worse to hold any Cabinet post with the possible exception of Eric Holder, but it’s a very close call. As many of you know, Thomas Perez is a radical left-wing ideologue who enthusiastically agrees with both Barack Obama and Eric Holder that racist Amerika deserves a lot more payback, and he’s not above using any means necessary to get it. As Josh Robbins at Heritage notes in an excellent piece, “10 Reasons Not to Confirm Thomas Perez as the Next Secretary of Labor:”

5. Perez engaged in an ethically questionable quid pro quo with two cases involving the St. Paul, Minnesota. The City of St. Paul was sued by the landlords of low income housing, arguing that the city’s attempt to enforce its building codes and improve the horrendous living conditions for those low income tenants had a “disparate impact” on minorities. At the same time, the federal government had two potential claims under the False Claims Act against St. Paul and stood to recoup up to $200 million in taxpayer money. Perez agreed to drop the False Claims Act claims (involving the return of millions in taxpayer money) in exchange for the city abandoning their effort to have the Supreme Court throw out the disparate impact suit even though the government was not even a party in the suit. Perez feared that the Supreme Court would have blown apart the dubious “disparate impact” legal theory he has used to extort large settlements from banks and mortgage companies using questionable statistics, not evidence of any intentional discrimination.

6. Perez misled the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in sworn testimony when he claimed that political appointees at the Justice Department had no involvement in the dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party members who were videoed in front of a polling place, during the 2008 election in Pennsylvania. A recent report from the Inspector General (IG) on the Voting Section also reveals that Perez misled the Commission when he said he believes in the race-neutral enforcement of federal voting laws. Two former Voting Section lawyers have confirmed that Perez testified inaccurately based on briefings they gave Perez. Perez even told the IG that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act does not protect white voters from discrimination, a view of the law that seriously draws into question his ability to enforce the nation’s labor laws judiciously.

The 17 Republicans who crossed over read like a list of the usual suspects, including McCain (of course), McCain, Jr. aka Lindsay Graham, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Jeff Flake.

This result is predictable, and less a tribute to John McCain’s mighty hand and more about the fact that the democrats realize that the shoe could, and we hope will, be on the foot soon. There’s also this fact, one which even many Senate watchers haven’t noticed; specifically, that it takes 67 votes to change Senate rules. Reid didn’t make it clear how he was going to make that happen, but knowing this democrat bunch, led by their gangsta leader, maybe they were going to do a Nike, as in just do it.