h/t – iowntheworld.com/blog via AmericanDigest.com
7 Mar
Obama At the Bat
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Sunday, March 7th, 2010 at 7:40 pm | 28,335 views
Stats
DAMMIT!!!
I was just gunna post this!!!
(I was delayed by having to pick my laughing-ass off the floor!)
This was good, dang good! Great material and delivery. We need more, much more. Humiliate and harass, this pretender doesn’t like harassment. Send this to all you friends! And tell them to do the same. It’s nice to know that there are patriotic people in Hollywood, thank you! Now do some more!
Too funny!
Pingback: A (new?) piece of Americana | Conservative Hideout 2.0
Awesome find! Thank you for posting. I decided to post it at the ezine I contribute to, Conservative Hideout 2.0 – with attribution, of course.
Outstanding!
Wonderful and inspired.
I’m crying here …
THAT was pure beauty *SNIFFLE*
Thanks for this.
I give it 5 STARS! *****
Pingback: Obama appeals for support on health care
Great !!! Sarah can sure throw a fast ball !!
That is awesome. I had to put it on my blog and also on my facebook page.
oops, I think I wet my pants…hilarious!!! Great Job!!
This was fantastic, I am still laughing.
Go Sarah
Very good! America needs a new team with honest leadership for the
benefit of our country and our children. Not the lies being thrown at
America daily by this administration.
Sarah, if she was a starting pitcher, would never be pitching in the ninth inning…she would have resigned by then!
I really like Pete’s comments!!! How about taking bush and chenney to task for spending $90 billion a month for 9 years for 2 wars that have ruined our economy!!! 9/11 should have been prevented if
any one in the bush ad. had a half a brain. Newt and all these horrible people have almost destroyed our Republic and made the Constitution a miserable form of governning. It’s too bad that all the red states citizens have not the brains to see reality. Sarah Palin is simply an opportunist and going for the money. Thank you
Freeing Iraq cost 1 trill over 7 years. 35 million people are now free.
Obama spent that in one Bill, in one month. It got us nothing but less freedom.
Besides…You’re a drone with no opinion of your own. Begone ye.
@Patvann…well said! Flo reminds me of a drone that wrote something similar in a letter to the editor in my local paper. It was a mish-mash of blame Bush whining and I could not help myself, I HAD to rebut it. Here is what I wrote:
“To the person who wrote the piece titled “Quick to forget” in Speak Out on Thursday, March 11th:
You said, “To those that keep whining about the current administration spending too much; every Congress spends too much.” Then you listed some of what I am sure you thought were surefire reasons that hold the Obama administration blameless for the state of our economy and national debt. In the interest of being fair, let me straighten a few things out for you.
Bush did pass the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, much to the dismay of true conservatives everywhere. However you failed to mention that the Democrats offered their own version of the same bill and it was projected to cost $800 billion over 10 years. The Bush plan was originally to cost half that and today costs a third less than first proposed because the free market forces help drive the prices down.
After this you complained about the Bush tax cuts and his spending. Well from 2001 until Obama took office in 2009, the debt held by the public grew 3 trillion dollars under President Bush’s watch. Also, the economy grew thanks to those pesky tax cuts. According to the Office of Management and Budget, in only 20 months, Obama has ramped up the publicly held debt by $3.3 trillion, spending more in just under 2 years than Bush did in his entire 8 years. Obama’s spending plan approved by a Democratically controlled Congress calls for doubling the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10.
Finally, you wind up your complaints by blaming Bush for the TARP program. Again, true conservatives were solidly against this. But once again you fail to point out some interesting facts about Obama and TARP.
Bush did sign TARP into law, loaning $240 billion to the big banks. Those banks are returning those loans with interest (profit) to the US Treasury. What does Obama do with that money? Pay the debt down that he is creating? Nope. His far left liberal tendencies have him using those repaid loans for NEW spending. He also twisted TARP from its original purpose that of bailing out banks, and gave $320 billion of those funds to two car companies and his union buddies.
Add to all this, under Obama’s watch and due to his anti-small business policies we have seen nearly 4 million Americans lose their jobs. Quite the bargain for his $787 billion so called “Stimulus Plan” that wouldn’t let unemployment climb above 8 percent. Now what I think we are seeing in this country is that a great deal of the American electorate is suffering from “buyer’s remorse,” it seems the price of Obama is just too costly.?
@anticsrocks
Nice…
You forgot to mention the 4 trillion promised to banks by Barney Frank. Yes, that’s on top of all the other billions and trillions given already.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ
@Flo: Typical idiot reply from a typical liberal who has his ass so far up obama’s ass he can’t see daylight!!!! loser liberals!!!!
The latest moves by Pelosi and Chief of staff to move for no vote but trickery
is the latest dirty move by the liberal Socialists and so called democrats. American
people will not stand for this stuff anymore. This week is showdown for this
administation. they asked for this fight, and now they have it. America will
not stand for this Socialist movement to get their way with America.
Thanks Patvann. Now I know why we can’t afford Health Care in America. We spent the money setting up Universal Health Care for 35 million Iraqis.
“The latest moves by Pelosi and Chief of staff to move for no vote but trickery
is the latest dirty move by the liberal Socialists and so called democrats. American
people will not stand for this stuff anymore.”
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
@StageRt:
Oh, the Republicans used it, is that right?
Well, StageRt, how about a list of bills/laws passed using this method.
I’ll wait….
Oh, there’s nothing on the list you say?
Here’s a hint: Self executing rules have been used for the removal and addition of amendments and for joint resolutions (which are guides to the House, not “bills” under the Constitution). They have never been used to pass an entire bill without a vote.
Thanks for playing though.
Publications
Bimonthly Column on Procedural Politics from Roll Call
House Executes Deliberation With Special Rules
June 19, 2006
By Don Wolfensberger,
Roll Call Contributing Writer
Back to Document List
Telling John Q. Public there is something in Congress called a “self-executing rule” likely would draw a blank stare or a shocked look. No, it is not a political suicide pact for corrupt politicians. (That’s natural law.) Rather, it is a device used by the House Rules Committee to automatically attach amendments to bills on the floor without a separate debate or vote.
Here’s how it works:
Almost every major bill must obtain a special rule, or resolution, from the Rules Committee permitting immediate floor consideration. The resolution also specifies the amount of general debate time and what amendments will be allowed. A special rule also may contain other bells, whistles, gizmos and gadgets. One of these optional attachments is a self-executing provision, which decrees a specified amendment to have been adopted upon the rule’s passage. In other words, once the House adopts the special rule it effectively has adopted the amendment before the bill has even been called up for consideration.
Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party’s bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.
When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”
The substitute submitted by the Rules Committee did not combine all the amendments adopted by the three reporting committees, as is customarily done. Instead, it deleted two amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee that would have required disclosure of lobbyists’ contacts with Members and staff, and lobbyists’ solicitation and transmission of campaign contributions to candidates.
It then further amended its own substitute by automatically deleting a third Judiciary amendment requiring a Government Accountability Office study of lobbyist employment contracts.
The third self-executing provision occurs at the end of the special rule and states: “In the engrossment of H.R. 4975, the Clerk shall … add the text of H.R. 513, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 4975.” In other words, the Clerk was authorized to add as an amendment an entire separate bill, in this case, the House-passed legislation regulating Section 527 political committees, and thereby put that issue into conference with the Senate (which has no comparable provision in its bill).
The special rule had other problems since it allowed only nine amendments to be offered out of 74 submitted. Moreover, appropriators were unhappy with the earmark provisions included in the bill. This forced Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) to pull the rule after 20 minutes of debate, followed by a five-hour recess and Republican Conference meeting before the House reconvened and the rule again was called up and narrowly adopted, 216-207.
@StageRt:
Nice copy/paste job there but you missed the mark miserably on what you were assigned to do.
I’ll repeat the instructions:
Your source proves precisely what I said to you above:
Care to try again?
Well, there’s always a 1st time for every thing.
@StageRt:
I would strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with Article I of the US Constitution, Section 5 and Section 7 in particular, to see the problem behind what the Dims are trying to do here.
This is dangerous territory that they are looking to tread into. Territory which, I will point out, I would not willingly allow the other party to tread into either.
The US Constitution is the keystone for our republic. We cannot allow it to be disregarded by anyone.
Section 5: Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,
Section 7, in regards to over riding a veto: But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.
@StageRt:
You didn’t read quite far enough. Each house may, indeed, determine it’s own internal rules for proceedings and debate. I have no problem with that. They can do things however they want internally as long as those internal functions are not in conflict with the Constitution.
Article I, Section 5 lays out the requirement for a recorded vote if 1/5 of those present want it:
The rules requiring each of the two houses to pass bills with the exact same language are inflexible however because those rules are established by the Constitution.
Article I, Section 7 is not simply covering bills in regard to veto:
Those are the most basic, fundamental premises of the US Constitution. The requirements were clearly and unequivocally established by the Framers.
The two houses are required to vote on bills of the exact same language. The votes are required to be recorded so that the People can know what their representatives are doing.
That is the way things have been done in this country since 1787 or so. There are no grounds for ignoring the Constitution.
Stgeright
Everytime it’s been done in your samples, it was pre-agreed because there was no changes to the Bills in-question. It sped things up so they could go play golf or make a waitress sandwich in the back of a bar.
This Healthbill has many differences, and no one has seen all of it, in it’s complete form.
I’m REAL sure what your reaction would be if McCain/Repubs used this method to disband the Education, EPA, and NEA departments…Which could be reeeeeeal easy-like.
I’m done with this tape recorder.
The whole paragraph in Section 7 you cite has to do with how a Veto may occur and how the houses must handle the over ride. If your interpretation were correct, there are a lot of laws we would not be following now because they were passed on a simple voice vote. When Congress declared war in 1941, it was a voice vote with one dissenter, a lady from New Hampshire. She was also the lone dissenter when Congress declared WW I.
The Congressional Record used to be free. I received it daily for almost 5 years. Now, if you want the Record it will cost you $252.00 every 6 months.
Starting about twenty-five years ago (Reagan’s 1st term), in response to developments such as increased partisanship and uncertainty with respect to how long or controversial the amendment process on the floor might be, the Rules Committee began to issue more procedurally imaginative and complex rules.
Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule.
One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting” rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed” provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in [section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.”
When the House adopts a rule from the Rules Committee, a recorded vote is not necessary. The party in power controls the Rules Committee and, obviously, the rules the committee writes.
So, don’t get mad at the Democrats because the method is there. A Republican Congress put it in place. They’ve used it (and abused it). It’s just good old political tit for tat.
@Patvann
I would hardly say it was already agreed to. Under the example cited the special rule had other problems since it allowed only nine amendments to be offered out of 74 submitted.
The agreement was among the ruling Republicans to keep the Democrats from stalling the bill. 65 amendments were killed without a hearing.
BOTH parties do it. 2 of the leading Republican critics, Gingrich and Dreier, used it quite often. It was fine when they were running the train.
As far as this particular bill, you’re right. I haven’t had a chance to read the bill for the same reasons you cite. There are things left out I’d prefer be in there. Public Option for one. I can’t see any way to get costs down with out it. Between 1993 and today the Insurance Companies have cut their MLR ( Medical Loss Ratio ) from 93% to under 80%. That means for every dollar they get in premiums they’re paying out less than 80 cents on the dollar. The Senate Bill requires that they move that number back up to at least 90%.
When you break the bill down to it’s parts, Americans approve the details in polls over 60%. The whole bill, despite all the demagoguery, is till at 48% approval.
I would suggest, and I’m not trying to be a smart a@@ here, that anyone can check the facts regarding the statements made about the bills at FactChek.org
They gore every body’s Bull. If Obama is lying, they’ll call him on it. If it’s a Republican, they’ll clobber them also. They’re an equal opportunity stick.
How about if we “self excecute” ALL LIBERALS!!! My my, how wonderful America would be without all the LOSERS!!!!!
@StageRt…You are ignoring the fact that when John Adams wrote that part of our Constitution, he was explicit on not only WHAT a bill is, but HOW a bill is to be passed. All members must vote for or against and have their vote recorded. Tell us, how are their votes to be recorded WHEN THEY PASS A BILL THEY DON’T FREAKING VOTE ON!!!!??????
And if you are gonna link a source to back up your little arguments, try a website that is not so left leaning…
factcheck?? *rolls eyes*
What’s next, HuffPo?
@Patvann
If you look at the sample I cited, you’ll note that 65 proposed amendments were quashed by the rule. I would hardly characterize that as agreement on both sides of the aisle. The rule did exactly what it was supposed to do. It kept the Democrats from stalling the bill while all the Amendments were heard.
Congressman Dreier was the Chairman of the Rules Committee in the example. It was his Rule the Republicans were using. Today, he is one of the most out spoken critics of what is going on. It didn’t bother him when he was writing the rules.
As far as this bill, I also want to read the whole thing. There are things I like ( forcing MLRs back above 90% ) and some things missing ( public option ) I wish were there. I don’t see the altruistic Insurance Companies cutting prices with out a stick over their heads. We spend 1/3rd more than almost any country in the world for a Health system rated at 37th in the world, between Costa Rica (where Limbaugh went) and Cuba. Even Sarah and Todd sometimes crossed the border to avail them selves of the cheaper health care in Canada.
When the bill is broken down, polling shows Americans overwhelmingly support the ‘guts’ of the bill.The numbers are over 60%. Despite all the demagoguery, the entire bill is still rated at 48% approval.
I listen to both sides, then I go to Factcheck to find out the truth. They tell you who’s lying no matter the party.
@anticsrocks
If you look at the example, they’re NOT voting on the bill. They’re voting on accepting the rule and that vote doesn’t have to be recorded. John Adams also wrote that each house could set their own rules. That’s what the House Rules Committee does and the party in power controls the Rules Committee.
I didn’t write it and both sides have used it to their advantage. Frankly, I just wish they’d get it over with so we can bring more attention to jobs and killing Schumer’s Immigration Bill.
I’ve got a feeling Dick Armey and the Tea Party are going to get a divorce real soon.
@StageRt:
Fact check Aisle 37 please.
Fact check Aisle 37.
As to the remainder of this conversation, you’ve still not produced a single example of a bill that was deemed passed simply by virtue of voting on a self-executing rule.
Way back in #24 I asked you for that information.
What you’ve produced instead is an example whereby amendments were adopted and/or removed through the use of these types of rules, which I’ve already said was the way it works.
So, basically you’re still arguing, and proving, the point that I’ve already made.
I’m not sure what else you have to offer at this point.
PS….John Adams didn’t write any portion of the US Constitution. In fact, Adams was in London when the Constitution was being written, and did not return to the US until 1788.
@StageRt:
That is entirely irrelevant as the Constitution, miles above John Adams’ writings as far as legitimacy to this country’s supreme law of the land goes, clearly states in Article I, Section 7:
Is that not simple enough to understand?
March 6 Speech in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic? ”— Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and U.S. vice-presidential candidate
Section. 5. Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Section. 7. Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
The third self-executing provision occurs at the end of the special rule and states: “In the engrossment of H.R. 4975, the Clerk shall … add the text of H.R. 513, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 4975.” In other words, the Clerk was authorized to add as an amendment an entire separate bill, in this case, the House-passed legislation regulating Section 527 political committees, and thereby put that issue into conference with the Senate (which has no comparable provision in its bill).
@StageRt:
You are waisting your time attempting to teach law to the fine members of Flopping Aces. Your time would be much better spent correcting Justice Stevens, as he obviously blatantly erred in his opinion of how a bill becomes law. I doubt you would have reason to fear a scorching rebuke from Justice Stevens or his staff as your correspondence would undoubtedly find it’s way to File 13. You would then be able to assume, due to the lack of a reply, that you know what you are talking about, all will be well in your world.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508_Page2.html#ixzz0iRyd1EJT
What our gabby interloper has missed, is the fact that this is the first time in history, that a bill will be signed into law, THEN brought BACK to the House for changes/reconciliation.
Which if done, the Repubs will “Byrd” it to death, and have all the ammo it needs to win every election in Nov.
It also gives ammo toward the impeachment of everyone who signs it, including the Prez.
His historical notes, have nothing in common with this maneuver, or else they would be calling it the “joecongressman rule” from 197somthing.”
New rules have new authors. We have the new “Slaughter rule of 2010″. Thus, it’s never been done.
If Pelosi gets her 216 votes, it’s all academic any how. I’m quite sure if the Dems resort to this tactic, there will be a court challenge.
Whether this results in a wholesale change in Congress is debatable. The mood on this board doesn’t reflect the mood in the country. The Republicans have to wrest 35 seats away from Democrats just to gain a majority. Can they? As it stands right now, every incumbent has to watch their back. More Republicans are retiring than Democrats; 10 v 8 at the last count.
And even if they do, the only thing that will change is it will be the Democrats obstructing just the way the Republicans are doing now.
That will result in the Republicans using these same tools to get legislation through, as they did under G.W., that the Dems are talking about now.
Of course, that will be a GOOD thing to this audience. It will be characterized as the Republicans out foxing the Democrats and everybody here will cheer.
@StageRt:
Somehow I thought you’d be smart enough to double check your source before you ran yourself out to the end of your limb.
I guess not.
Just for the sake of fun, I’ll give you an additional opportunity to go and do some research.
Here are the nuggets you need to dig for:
1) Define “We” as Palin used it in her speech.
2) Tell me what year she was referring to.
3) Finally, tell me what year socialized medicine came to the Canadian province in question.
The answers are not what you think they are.
As to the remainder of your post, it seems that you’ve resorted to simply repeating yourself over and over and over.
The individual houses may, indeed, adopt their own internal debate and procedural rules. As I’ve already said, I have no problem with that as long as those rules are not in conflict with the US Constitution.
The Slaughter Rule, while slick and shiny, is in direct violation of the Constitution. Neither house of Congress has the authority to “deem” a bill passed simply by voting on something else.
The example that you provided and keep tirelessly referring to is simply not cogent to this discussion in that it does nothing to further your point. In reality, the example you cite serves to bolster my argument that self-executing rules have never been used to pass a bill, simply to amend.
@StageRt…you said:
“March 6 Speech in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic? ”— Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and U.S. vice-presidential candidate”
She was referring to a time when she was a little girl.
1. She lived at that time in a small town that had no doctor.
2. It was before Canada adopted socialized medicine.
3. Her family PAID for the care they received.
You really just keep digging yourself a deeper hole StageRt.
Point of clarification: I mistakenly said John Adams wrote the particular section of the Constitution that we are debating. Instead I should have said James Madison. Forgive me for the error.
In 1962, Diefenbaker appointed Justice Emmett Hall—also of Saskatchewan, a noted jurist and Supreme Court Justice—to Chair a Royal Commission on the national health system—the Royal Commission on Health Services. In 1964, Justice Hall recommended the nationwide adoption of Saskatchewan’s model of public health insurance. In 1966, the Liberal minority government of Lester B. Pearson created such a program, with the federal government paying 50% of the costs and the provinces the other half. Sarah Heath was 2 when that occurred.
The Calgary Herald has a fuller, slightly different version of the quote.
“My first five years of life we spent in Skagway, Alaska, right there by Whitehorse. Believe it or not – this was in the ‘60s – we used to hustle on over the border for health care that we would receive in Whitehorse. I remember my brother, he burned his ankle in some little kid accident thing and my parents had to put him on a train and rush him over to Whitehorse and I think, isn’t that kind of ironic now. Zooming over the border, getting health care from Canada.”
Juneau, Alaska was about the same distance away, but her Dad chose Whitehorse in Canada. Of course, the US dollar went further in Canada at that time.
During the presidential campaign, Palin discussed how she and husband Todd had “gone through periods of our life here with paying out-of-pocket- for health coverage until Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs.”
The House Parliamentarian has yet to rule on the strategy. I’m quite sure that person will be taking all of your points prior to rendering his decision. As I commented above, this all becomes academic if Pelosi gets her 216 votes.
Senator Byrd has already signed off on using Reconciliation to adopt the changes the House wants to make via a supplemental bill.
We Americans know that obama is lying, and the Socialist democrats are lying. If
this bill is passed, democracy is lost. Pelosi and chief of staff will see to it. That
is what this fight is all about. America cannot stand for this Socialist movement
anymore. We have lost too many good men in Wars to stand for this move by
the democrats. I see the strong arm tactics being pulled on congressmen and
senators, and the unions are the democratic strong points that seem to be polluted
with dishonesty. Only democracy wins in this situation, and the bill must be voted
down. States could still secede and leave the federal government in a real swamp.
The Supreme Court comment is a bunch of crap in this commentary. Everyone knows
who is the true Americans in this fight, and we also know what the fight is about. Pelosi
and chief of staff wants to make a big splash for the Socialist president. I don’t care
who is retiring, for it is a new ball game now. America has seen enough of the lies
and Socialist commentary from the white house and Pelosi and Reed. The good news
is that the bad people are trying tell this country what is right for America, and they are
dead wrong. take a look at Hillary and her crap that obama said to tell Israel. It is a farce!
These people do not know what they are doing and it is hurting us in the military and
world opinion. obama and the Socialist democrats have made America look like a bunch
of buffoons. Now, America must choose the right Conservative way and tell the Socialist
democrats to shutup and go away. Impeachment is next, and they better get ready. We
will not stand for this crap ANYMORE.
@StageRt
You repeated Art. I, Sect 7 of which I posted as trying to bolster your argument that it’s legal according to the Constitution, however, I repeat again: Is that not simple enough to understand?
The wording is in plain english, simple enough that someone with an elementary school education can read and understand it to mean that any bill which will go to the president, MUST be voted on by both houses of congress and the Yeas and Nays recorded. By simply placing a line in another bill which states something to the effect of “We deem HR XXXX to be passed upon passage of this bill” goes against the SIMPLE language in the Constitution on how a bill becomes law.
The only thing you got halfway right in all of your posts was:
Even then, there is much that will be challenged not only to the supreme court, but by the states themselves passing legislation with the support of the 10th Amendment in opting out of Obamacare. Despite what you may read on the lefty sites, there are much more people who strongly oppose the government takeover of healthcare than support it, and it will show itself in numerous ways if this outrage is passed and signed into law, no matter which way they end up doing it. You and BRob can come here and repeat all the lefty talking points you want about the support and opposition to Obamacare, but in the end, the people will show you how wrong you are.
If the Health Care Bill and Adjustment Bill pass, these are the items the Republicans will have to convince the American people are bad:
Eliminating caps: If you buy a policy, a health care company will not be able to place a lifetime — or annual — cap on how much they will cover.
Pre-existing conditions: The Senate bill includes $5 billion in immediate support to provide temporary coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions. The money would help you until the new health care exchanges in the Senate bill are put into effect in 2014.,
Children and pre-existing conditions: no exclusion of children with pre-existing conditions.
Dependent children: Your children will be covered until the age of 26,
Small business tax credits: Tax credits of up to 50 percent of premiums will be available to firms that offer coverage
Preventive care: free preventive care in order to “catch preventable illnesses and diseases on the front end.”
Help for seniors: If you fall into the Medicare Part D Drug Benefit coverage gap, dubbed the “donut hole,” you will receive $250 to help pay for prescriptions.
Key Provisions in the President’s Proposal:
The President’s Proposal builds off of the legislation that passed the Senate and improves on it by bridging key differences between the House and the Senate as well as by incorporating Republican provisions that strengthen the proposal.
One key improvement, for example, is eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision and providing significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid.
For America’s seniors, the proposal completely closes the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap.
It strengthens the Senate bill’s provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families, while also strengthening the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid to save taxpayer dollars.
The threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans will be raised from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and will start in 2018 for all such plans.
And another important idea included is improving insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to review and rein in unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans.
@Chuck, I’ve been listening to this ‘scare’ drivel for 50 years. It doesn’t impress me any more now than it did when McCarthy was screaming the Sky is Falling. We didn’t change the national slogan from “In God We Trust” to ‘In Pope We Hope’ when Kennedy got elected. No President lied more than Nixon when he declared we had no troops in Cambodia or Laos. No President has put the Constitution under higher attack than G. W. Bush when he authorized the tapping of YOUR phone without a court approval.
@johngalt: you keep trying to take the paragraph apart to suit your needs. The entire paragraph deals with the Veto and the process of overturning it. The paragraph deals with that subject alone. It’s rule doesn’t extend beyond it’s subject, the Veto.
All the Republicans have to say if this bill is passed is to say, hey America, look at
the Socialist Democrats in Washington and the Socialist muslim leadership in the white
house. it is pretty obvious that this BILL IS BAD, BAD, BAD! and no amount of discourse
from the Socialist leaders will change Amerca’s mind on what this administration and
the Socialist Democrats are trying to do, and that is to gut America and make it totally
socialist, like Europe. AMERICA DOES NOT WANT THIS CRAP, AND AMERICA DOES NOT
WANT THESE LEADERS ANYMORE! WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF THE LIES!
Are you saying that Chuck has been using his phone to carry on conversations with terrorists?
G. W. told the truth. He was a great President! He told the truth! He liked America!
He was a true American citizen. That is more than I can say about the current leader
that is in the oval office.
You’re presuming all they listen to is terrorist talk. It’s well documented they listened to the private conversations between husbands and wives in the military talking to their spouses in the states.
As one analyst observed, some of those calls got pretty ‘steamy’.
They can and do listen to what ever they want to. Have you ever talked to a computer tech who you KNEW was in a foreign country. I have. If that person is taking part of their pay and supporting terrorist activities, your call is probably monitored.
It would appear, Chuck, not ALL Americans agree with you.
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll — February 2010
Question: For each element of health care reform I name, please tell me how important it is that this be passed into law. (percentage saying extremely or very important.)
1. Reforming the way health insurance works (ie, guaranteed issue, eliminating lifetime benefit caps) … all adults 76%; Democrats 85%; independents 79%; Republicans 64%
2. Providing tax credits to small businesses … all adults 72%; Democrats 77%; independents 70%; Republicans 67%
3. Creating a health insurance exchange or marketplace … all adults 71%; Democrats 78%; independents 71%; Republicans 67%
4. Helping close the Medicare “donut hole” … all adults 71%; Democrats 78%; independents 70%; Republicans 66%
5. Expanding high-risk insurance pools … all adults 70%; Democrats 79%; independents 67%; Republicans 61%
Chuck Socialists and Muslims in the White House,impeachment,secession,GWB a great president.DAMN, you been hanging with Massa?
@StageRt
No. The entire paragraph deals with how a bill is passed and sent through congress AND actions taken when a veto is presented by the president. It really is easy reading and comprehension. If you don’t comprehend it, then I really can’t help you, but it does explain why so many lefties feel the way they do about the Constitution. Is it that it is so hard to read and comprehend for them that they just make stuff up they think sounds good?
@johngalt
John, after reading a few more sources, I have to agree with your interpretation.
BTW, don’t lump me in with lefties. I didn’t see you when I was campaigning for Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon again, or Reagan.
I could NOT, in good conscience, support G. W. Besides being a Coke Head and drunk, he wormed his way out of serving in Viet Nam. For political gain, he besmirched the military record of an officer who didn’t hide behind his Daddy’s coat tails. The Swiftboat lies were later documented, but the election was over by then.
He lied to support his war in Iraq. That’s not precedent setting. Eisenhower did it in ’54 and LBJ did it in ’65. You’d think we would have learned something about politicians since ’65.
Worse, while we went trotting off to Iraq, we lost sight of the true enemy, al Quaeda, and now we have to go fight for the same ground in Afghanistan we had already won in ’02 against a reconstituted Taliban.
That defies Patton’s 1st Rule of combat.
He allowed the troops at Abu Ghraib to be tried and imprisoned all the while KNOWING they were following the orders of their commanding officers. You ever had a boss ‘throw you under the bus’?
I won’t even go in to his assault on the Constitution. We probably won’t know the depth of that for another 20 years.
@StageRt:
And you’re presuming that they listen to things beyond terrorist talk. A presumptuous assumption which, by the way, is based in nothing but the paranoid delusional fantasies which occupy the otherwise vacuous space betwixt your ears.
I do believe that listening in on the conversations of military personnel serving overseas, if that really happened, would fall under the definitions of OPSEC.
Military personnel, more likely than not, are informed that their conversations while on deployment should not be considered private.
The concept of protecting information during wartime goes all the way back to George Washington. It was widely known that the US concentrated on keeping secrets secret in WWII.
Perhaps one or more of the multiple military vets here at FA can chime in on this issue.
And your evidence of this is?
Hmmmm…presumptuous assumption on your part at best.
Calls to and from known terror suspects are monitored…with court approval…and, quite frankly, I doubt the tech geeks I’ve had on the line for various issues would even be smart enough to blow themselves up much less participate in a terror network.
Finally, let’s address the accusation that you leveled about Bush:
Clearly you are out of your element here.
The truth is that Obie’s Justice Dept has simply carried over the very same Bush policies…even expanding on them here and there.
Furthermore, Obie’s Justice Dept recently took the position that:
Now remember…what is being referred to above is the tracking of US citizens on US soil without a warrant.
Got that? Warrantless tracking on US soil…no “reasonable expectation of privacy”…
Most recently we have Obie’s advocating for the collection of DNA samples from every person arrested. Not every person convicted…every person arrested.
Did that make you soil your pretty pink panties?
It should.
You wanna whine, cry, and bellyache about Bush listening in on the conversations of known terrorists…with Court approval…when your boy at 1600 is doing much, much worse right here in the homeland.
Basically your boy-prez Obie equals Bush2 so your complaints about W ring hollow with me. Especially since the actions of President Bush have been upheld by the Courts multiple times.
Hey, Flopping Aces blogging cousins:
My blogging partner just emailed me this marked as “URGENT” … I’m searching for something solid on this, but thought I’d throw a cut-off to second base to you guys so you can look into it as well:
***keep an eye out. breaking news on my local channel. Iowa government passed bill to make secretary general sue the federal government if it passes healthcare reform. cant find the story anywhere yet but its coming ***
@Aye Chihuahua:
She knows she has a problem, tis why she desparately pines for Obamacare, anyway she can get it, Constitutional or not, it’s how they are, to hell with all that died defending a piece of paper. Then the stupid thing whines about GW. pfftt!
Heads up:
He just emailed again it’s NOT Iowa but Idaho.
Still searching …
Note that your cited opinion refers to cell phones. It still takes a warrant to tap my land line. If it makes you feel any better, I have repeatedly written my Congressman and Senators to fight this DNA sampling method.
The assault on the 4th Amendment is pervasive and ongoing. Gerry Spence wrote a very good book detailing the assaults. 90% of all judges are former Prosecutors and their trial motion rulings reveal their bias.
If a cop sneezes before breaking in a door, it’s called a ‘Good Faith Exception’. That was one of the reasons O.J. was acquitted in California. The Judge ruled the search was legal. The jury said ‘No, it wasn’t.’
When the NSA taps were 1st revealed there were NO court orders authorizing it. Bush acknowledged they didn’t present it for FISA Review. His reasoning: if a President does it, it’s legal. Deja Vue. That’s the same reasoning Nixon tried.
If the telephone companies were on such strong legal turf, why was Bush insisting their cooperation be covered under new law? Because the existing law said it was illegal.
There needs to be an Amendment that bars lawyers from elected office. Currently, they write the law, interpret the law, and enforce the law. That’s too much power left to one group of people. ‘PATRIOT’ should be allowed to ‘sunset’. It’s bad law, passed in the heat of passion, on a par with the internment law that rounded up the Japanese-Americans post Pearl Harbor. I don’t care if Holder an Obama support it, it needs to go. Ben Franklin said it best: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
BTW, your tech geek may not be able to fix your computer, but I bet he can field strip an AK-47 faster than you.
@StageRt:
One final return to your efforts to smear Sarah Palin due to her father choosing to use Canadian health care when she was a little girl.
You failed to properly define the “We” in Sarah’s comment. She was, of course, referring to her parents and her siblings. She was not referring to herself and her husband Todd as you stated.
You failed to properly identify the Canadian province in question. You stated that Whitehorse was in Saskatchewan. In reality, it’s in Yukon.
And what year did socialized medicine reach Yukon? That would be 1972…which is after the Heaths used the Canadian system.
Finally, this whole Canadian health care thing is a non-issue. Mr. Heath, Sarah’s father, did what any parent would do for a child who was sick or injured:
link
….The legislation, cosponsored by Representatives Jim Clark, Lynn Luker and Raul Labrador, attempts to prohibit the federal government from requiring people to carry health insurance — with the intent being to oppose any type of proposed federal health care legislation. AARP stands in strong opposition to the Idaho bill, which could cost Idaho its federal match for Medicaid — $1.26 billion — and the Children’s Health Insurance Program — $36 million — along with thousands of state health care jobs.
The Idaho measure is part of a national initiative to challenge health care reform underway in several states. The cookie-cutter legislation, similar to bills being introduced in other states, contradicts existing Idaho policy requiring students at state colleges and universities to carry health insurance (without it they can’t enroll). While the bill has been amended so as not to negate the state policy, it allows Idaho to mandate coverage while attempting to forbid the federal government from doing the same thing…..
Politico notes that federal health insurance was not put into effect until 1972, although Yukon, the territory Palin admitted to sneaking into for health insurance, did have a government-subsidized plan beginning in 1960. Talking Points Memo claims Canadian Medicare was implemented in 1966 on a national level. The Canadian health care system, as it exists today, began to take shape in the 1980s with the Canada Health Act becoming more explicit in how health care funds should be distributed.
My reference to Saskatchewan
had only to do with the model the federal government used. I KNEW Whitehorse was in YT. I ASSUMED you knew it. My bad.
@Maggie:
He was partly correct, Iowa has filed legislation, Utah has legislation that has passed both Houses and Virginia’s law went into effect this month.
There are 36 states in total that have begun the process of rejecting mandates, here is a good site to bookmark and watch as they progress.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=18906
@StageRt:
You’re not really the brightest crayon in the box now are you?
Here’s the time line on when the Canadian system was socialized.
You’ll notice that Yukon transitioned in 1972.
You’ll notice that link is from…wait for it…the Canadian Health System. They would be the people who would know about when things happened, eh?
So, let me get this straight now:
First, it was Sarah and Todd who went to Canada for health care….PROVEN FALSE.
Now Palin sneaked over the border for health care…that they paid for out of pocket….
Yeah…makes perfect sense to me.
Where’s the “sneaking” part in this story?
@StageRt:
In our back and forth exchanges I almost missed this one:
Uh-oh. Another FAIL for you:
@Aye Chihuahua
Sarah’s DAD and family members had to “sneak” because there was word that a strange and dangerous trapper was in the area. Prone to prose, and one with nature, his legend grew to mythical status in those parts.
He was the famed and feared creature known among the natives as “Susskookums”. (Roughly translates into: Big Funny-talking White Hunter.)
It was wise for Mr. Palin to tread lightly in his quest across the wildlands.
For some did not heed the warnings, and while details are sketchy, and the rumors rampant, it is said that only small parts of one particular rude and liberal interloper from Seattle has ever been found, and even then, parts were found hundreds of miles apart.
The only evidence so far is a small caligraphic “S” artfully pressed into each part. The Mounties thinks it’s a guy named Stanley from Quebec, but only the natives know for sure, and they ain’t talkin.
Nephew PV, the Mad Trapper of Rat River was shot down on a frozen river in a hail of gunfire. In his pockets he had a Canadian Jay (a bird not a baseball player) a roll of birch bark (for starting a fire, not good for tp) and a few matches. He out ran several dog teams and an airplane for hundreds of miles.
This new Mad Trapper has never been caught or seen, he travels as well under river ice as he does upon it. He has been known to take Mounties on a 50 mile ride at a trot and within a few hours leave them as veritable cripples and then tell them they had to ride back out the next day. He can drive an old truck or a new Mercedes equally well on ice mountain roads while listening to some of the most colorful characters that have ever worn snowshoes.
He swears never to be captured alive, and I believe him.
Oh, Skagway to Whitehorse, Saskatchewan? If such a place existed, would have been at least 2500 miles by the roads that existed back then, a pretty good sneak, even for the the Mad Trapper of Rat River. Of course putting Whitehorse in the Yukon Territories ( not Terrorists) blunts the effect of the story quite a bit. Being one of the most experienced with the Canadian medical system at least that of BC, I will write an article on the efficiency of said system after I eat dinner and have another glass of Cabernet. It may surprise you, not that my articles don’t surprise you all that much.
I will title it, A Conservative in A Socialist Quagmire, you can guess on how it will read.
@StageRt…you said:
“If the Health Care Bill and Adjustment Bill pass, these are the items the Republicans will have to convince the American people are bad:”
Things like the fact that taxes go up immediately and the vast, vast majority of the benefits don’t kick in for four years?
Hmmm, tell you what StageRt. I got a bridge I’ll sell you. You have to start paying me for it NOW, but I won’t give it to you for four more years…
I’m done with this drone. No matter how many of us throw facts at him/her, they just keep coming back with crap and trying to pass it off as fact. You can polish a turd, but its still a turd.
@StageRt #59:
Wow…talk about so much BDS in one paragraph. It’s always interesting when it comes from someone on the right-side of the political aisle (lemmee guess: Ron Paul Reverist?).
My own cut-and-paste:
More BDS:
What specifically, did he lie about?
If it’s just al Qaeda who is the enemy, what prompted Bush to say the following:
“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”
-President Bush in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington D.C., September 20, 2001.
Were KSM and Zubaydah part of al Qaeda before 9/11? Was Zarqawi?
Waah, waah, waah. Does NATO share any of the blame? Or is it just “Bush took his eyes off the ball” blame-handing? Guess what?
Setbacks are a part of life. The Taliban aren’t going to just roll over for us. Wars are messy and sometimes protracted.
Admiral T. Church III, Navy Inspector General, conducted an independent investigation and said: “the vast majority of detainees held by the U.S. forces during the Global War on Terror have been treated humanely.”
Going into the investigation, he had expected to find a policy of abuse that went up the chain of command. What he found was: “none of the pictured abuses…bear any resemblance to approved policies at any level, in any theater.”
An early focus of our investigation was to determine whether DoD had promulgated interrogation policies or guidance that directed, sanctioned or encouraged the abuse of detainees. We found that this was not the case.
Also from an Independent Panel led by James Schlesinger and Harold Brown, along with Congresswoman Tillie Fowler and Air Force General Charles Horner: “The events that took place at Abu Ghraib were an aberration when compared to the situation at other detention operations….No approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of abuse that in fact occurred.”
and
@StageRt #52:
Two book recommendations: John Yoo’s Crisis and Command: A History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush (Yes, THAT John Yoo):
Going through past presidents, beginning with the first “GW”, there’s nothing at all “unprecedented” about the 43rd president’s exercise of executive authority.
and then there’s Geoffrey R. Stone’s “Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism.”
Max Boot:
C’mon…Bush is a saint.
@Patvann:
@Skookum:
I bought Sarah’s book about a month ago but haven’t started it yet, been saving it for springtime on the deck.
Leafed through it yesterday to see if the trip to the doctor was mentioned, didn’t find what I was looking for, but I did see in one of the chapters that she has a friend named……………….Skookum! That name just lept off the page.
Hmmmmm, the plot thickens, eh? Fess up Skooks!
I contacted the Congressional Democrats and told them to vote against the
Health Care bill that this president is still lying about. Who is going to pay
the Cadillac tax? Why did the administration want to take away military coverage?
Why is there so many taxes in this bill? The big lie that the president is telling that
it is not for him? Well, hell, it must be, for he is lying awake at night trying to
figure out the next lie to tell the American people. He wants this bill for it was
a Socialist democrat campaign issue, and he continues to hide behind the desk
of the presidency and thinks that it is enough sway for the american people to
believe.WE ALL KNOW WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH, AND IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT,
PEOLOSI, OR THE CHIEF OF STAFF! The Socialist democrats in the congress have
been thrown to the fear mongers of not being re-elected, and not receiving money
for their campaigns. These people have no idea that the States of these United States
of America has something to say in this manner, and Idaho and several other
western states have already stepped up to the plate and NO- to the Socialists
and a Muslim in the white house.
Incidentally, November 10, 2010 is not that far away. So, Democrats, pack your
bags, for you are going away, and I don’t care where, maybe Mexico.
Also, the white house wants to approve illegals! Hell, the illegals already get Social
Security and other benefits that is costing us taxpayers a hell of a lot of money that
these Socialist democrats want to spend foolishly in bankrupting our country.
Therefore, America let us strike a blow for freedom and democracy and say NO to
all proposals that this administration is proposing. TEA PARTIES- LET’S SPEAK OUT NOW
AND EVERYDAY TILL WE CLEAN HOUSE IN WASHINGTON DC AND GET RID OF PELOSI,
REED, CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE Muslim president who is not serving the USA but
the devil!
Chuck–I think you’re one of the tea party folks that would like to see us back in the middle ages. It was Reagan who started this immigration catastrophe!! He gave amnesty to millions of illegals and then proceeded to bring millions of their families in as well as a way to swamp the middle class and get rid of them. As a so called pro lifer he also started the flooding of no abortions, no birth control which with all the amnesty gave us Catholics with children they couldn’t afford giving the tax payers more parasites to ruin this country. George Bush came in with a surplus and he proceeded with 2 wars that he wanted–Phil Graham of Texas got rid of the regulations on banks and wall street and now we have the melt down killing more middle class tax payers. The bushes bankrupted us with $90 billion a month for 7 years now and that’s a big chunck of change from the middle classes. Now we have millions more illegals demanding citizenship and all the perks costing tax payers billions of dollars. Hopefully Chuck you have millions of dollars because you’re going to need them to stay alive what with millions of people (formally illegal) wanting your dollars to have millions of kids they can’t afford. It was also Reagan who started the shipping and subsidizing corps. to ship jobs over seas and now we have very little manufacturing and China ownes us. Good luck Chuck for helping to kill the USA as we grew up in!!!!
@Flo
It’s a good thing for you that hate and stupidity don’t hurt, or you’d be writhing on the floor screaming.
It is so nice to be called a Reagan supporter. I believe that his policies should be
strengthened. I do not believe that the illegals be granted amnesty and citizenship
that the obamaites wish to do. If illegals are approved by the Socialist Democrats,
we can kiss Democracy good bye. I don’t prescribe to the current obamaite philosophy
to be nice to the Al Queda people either as several European countries do. I do not
like to say that the Muslims are nice people for THEY ARE NOT! That is why we are in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, Iran is creating all the IED’s and training terrorists to kill
Jews and Americans and NATO troops. Vote NO on Health Care. I have never seen
the ruthlessness in the current administration. It is much worse than Clinton, and
they have a clinton in the State department, and she bashes jews all the time following
obama philosophy which is anti-American.
@Flo…you need to brush up on your history. You can thank the late Teddy Kennedy for the change in our immigration policies from that of numerical quotas and immigration based on what trade skills were possessed to chain immigration that literally opened the floodgates of immigrants.
“# The 1965 revamp of the entire immigration system. It ended 40 years of low immigration, got rid of solid numerical caps and opened up chain migration into every overpopulated country in the world, exploding annual immigration numbers
.
# Massive expansion of the refugee programs in the late 1970s, opening up massive loopholes and encouraging a domestic resettlement industry that became a major lobby for more and more overall immigration.”
And what is chain immigration?
“It begins with one immigrant legally bringing a spouse and minor children � keep in mind that Mexicans average four children per family � and, within a few years, after they’ve been naturalized, parents and siblings; the same process is then repeated by their relatives, ad infinitum.”
Thank you Ted Kennedy, still screwing America from beyond the grave.
Why are all the O’faithful so math challenged? ahem, Flo….