Video by Alfonzo Rachel of PJTV.

Just a few days ago, Rep. Bill Delahunt announced his retirement after serving seven terms for the “state’s most conservative congressional district”—read regular Democrats as opposed to fringe-Left, Pelosi Democrats.  The Democrats have since vowed not to lose his seat to a Republican.  There are several flaws with this statement.  First, Obama is useless during elections.  He has proven this multiple times over.  If there was ever a time when Democrat strongholds were in danger, that time is now.  Second, while the GOP may have mounted a significant effort to take the seat, no one is expecting Massachusetts to become the new seat of Conservatism.  They will be making their biggest gains in the “purple states.”  And third, their obsessive concern with a seat in the most liberal state reveals just how concerned they are about Democrat Party prospects in the 2010 midterms.

Don’t get me wrong, the Democrats have every right to attempt to cling to those seats they can still win.  They have every right to attempt to retain their majorities, and in many ways, the GOP would benefit from narrow Democrat majorities in both houses.  However, if Urban Meyer came out vowing not to lose an exhibition match with a local community college, Gator fans would be understandably concerned about the coming football season.

Democrat concern over the “Delahunt seat” reveals just how much ground the GOP can gain in November.  If the DNC actually considers the Massachusetts race a toss-up, then what does that say about liberal seats on the outskirts of the capital in northern Virginia?  In North Carolina, my home state, the GOP has filed a candidate for every single race statewide and has a legitimate chance to seize control over the state legislature in a redistricting year after over a century of dormancy.

The Democrat hand-wringing has only energized a Conservative base eager to block as much of Obama’s agenda as possible.  Their visible distress lends credibility to Republican forecasts.  As Dick Cheney commented during CPAC, “2010 is going to be a phenomenal year for the Conservative cause.”  If I were a Democrat, I’d be careful about making promises I couldn’t keep.  Then again, maybe that’s why they’re only promising to win an election in Massachusetts.

Of course, to Krugman, this couldn’t be about enforcing Senate rules and revealing the “PayGo” sham.  No, Jim Bunning is amoral, and hates the unemployed.  That’s the message in his editorial.  Krugman then cites the “Bunning Blockade” as evidence that: Democrats are reasonable, moral, and care about the underdogs; Republicans have become extremist right-wingers and that is why there is no more bipartisanship in Washington; and the GOP only cares about the “affluent victims of the ‘death-tax.’”  He uses these conclusions as a justification for passing ObamaCare through reconciliation.

Earth to Krugman, I don’t know what universe you’re living in, but it’s the Democrats who don’t give a damn what the American people think.  It’s the Democrats who had a majority in the House and 60-vote super-majority in the Senate, and chose to shut Republicans out of the debate for an entire year.  It is the Democrats who refused to hear or debate Republican ideas.  It is the Democrats that ignored the polls, and only allowed the Republicans to speak when they lost “the Kennedy Seat.”  It is the Democrats that are violating their own budget rules.  And it is the Democrats, and only the Democrats, that are so power-drunk and out of touch that they are doing everything they can to circumvent the legislative process in order to seize control of the greatest Health Care system in the world with a bill that achieves none of its stated goals, and, according to the CBO, will bend the cost curve up, not down.

Krugman, the Republicans cannot effectively do anything right now.  They simply don’t have the votes.  They couldn’t even obstruct anything until Scott Brown was elected.  Krugman, like many other liberals, implies the Democrat Party alone cares about the people.  That notion doesn’t mesh with reality.  If the Democrats care about the people, why don’t they listen to them, and address their concerns?  It takes a lot of gall to not only ignore the requests of your employer, the sovereign people, but to willfully and forcefully work against them in order to score a political victory and erect a legislative monument for a narcissistic ideologue.

Senator Jim Bunning did the right thing.  It’s a shame he’s retiring.  We could use more Senators who are willing to stand up for their values and the American people by forcing Congress and our government to operate within the law.

Video Provided by The Onion, a Satirical News Organization.

Video Provided by Pajamas Media.

At this point, it’s out of our hands.  Although concerned citizens should still voice their opinion, Congress has made up its mind.  I’m not sure whether or not Pelosi has the votes to pass the Senate bill.  And while I surely hope she does not as it would spell the destruction of the greatest Health Care system in the world—how often do you see American Presidents flying to Canada for heart surgery?—there are now very few legislators who have yet to decide whether they are beholden to the people, or to the Liberal party leadership.  The more pertinent question is whether or not the GOP has a plan if Pelosi does manage to force “the dog food” down our national throat.

If this bill passes, the key to its repeal will be swift action.  If the Democrats force this bill through, they will lose big in November.  Then, the GOP will have only four years before the so-called benefits spring into action.  If they can’t stop this new entitlement before it is established in the very fabric of society, then it will be nearly impossible to repeal.  Three of those years will be under Obama.  Even if he were removed from office, the line of succession would provide an equally liberal Commander-in-Chief.  Though the next Congress may have the votes for a repeal, Obama would never allow Congress to steal away his monument.

If the Democrats go Nuclear and succeed, there will be a single, one year window during which the GOP can save the American medical system.  There will be one opportunity to pull our nation back from the brink of Western European Socialism.  Now is the time when the Republican Party needs decisive, Conservative leaders, not “squishy moderates.”  The era of McCain is over.  In 2010, and 2012, we will need leaders who aren’t afraid to criticize the failings of Liberalism.  We will need leaders who aren’t afraid to point out that Stimulus I, and Stimulus II were complete failures.  We will need leaders who are willing to acknowledge that ObamaCare, if passed, will succeed only in increasing costs, limiting access, and ensuring Health Care equality by reducing standards to the lowest common denominator.  We will need Republican leaders who acknowledge that Government is the problem, not the solution to our problems.

Can we find them?

Video provided by Reason.TV.

The last time Democrats sought to take over the American Health Care system, Bill Clinton proposed the Senate use Reconciliation to force the measure through in the same manner as his FY-1994 budget.  In a rare demonstration of legislative integrity, Senator Byrd insisted HillaryCare did not qualify for the procedure.  The legislation was sidelined, and the failed attempt to hijack our Health Care system contributed to the massive Congressional power swing during 1994’s midterm elections.

Under the 1985 (amended 1990) Byrd rule, the Senate established 6 cases which disqualify a bill from being considered under Reconciliation.  ObamaCare violates at least two, listed below:

• if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
• if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit;

On the first: ObamaCare changes federal spending, but not because it is a “spending bill.”  The legislation increases spending because of the “non-budgetary components” that establish the nationalized Health Care system.  On the second: despite claims to the contrary, ObamaCare will likely increase the deficit every year, and will definitely increase the deficit after the 10th year in violation of this provision.  There is an escape hatch if the Democrats add a “sunset-provision” and allow the legislation to expire after 10 years, but it is unlikely Democrats would put ObamaCare’s fate in the hands of a future Congress that may simply refuse a vote, and by doing so allow an unpopular program to expire.

As many times as the Democrats claim Reconciliation has been used before, as many times as they point out that Republicans have used it more frequently, the amendments to ObamaCare will not constitute a budget bill.  This is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the democratic process and force through what is arguably the single largest power-grab in American history.  The Democrat party, which feigns anger at the hyper-politicization of Washington, is willing to ignore the will of the American people and force through bad legislation just to secure a political victory by constructing a monument to Obama in clear violation of Senate rules and legislative tradition.

Video provided by Reason.TV.

Video courtesy of Naked Emperor News

Talking points are one thing, and Americans have every right to be skeptical of rhetoric. But as we gear up for the political season, I think its important to note that Renee Ellmers actually believes what she’s telling North Carolina, and she doesn’t need a teleprompter to share those beliefs. She’s passionate. She was driven to action because of Health Care, but she understands defeating ObamaCare is just the tip of the iceberg as America shifts back towards the ideals of our founding. Now, on to the issues:

On the Budget:

Under Obama, the United States has seen it’s highest deficits, both actual and projected. I’ve often asked myself when deficits became something our government “planned for.” No, Mr. Obama, that’s not “how budgeting works.” Renee understands our current spending binge is unsustainable, but she also recognizes that there is no spending without Congress. As she noted, the root of the problem lies with representatives like Etheridge, the Democrat incumbent, who has used his position on the House Budget and Ways & Means committees to enable the fiscal nightmare we are currently living through. Cutting the budget starts with Congress.

On Illegal Immigration:

“Amnesty is off the table,” but we can’t afford to just start rounding people up without a plan. Renee understands before we can decide what to do about the illegal immigrants already in our country, we have to stop the inflow. She’s a strong supporter of providing additional border security and actually enforcing the laws we already have. She supports policies that prevent businesses from hiring undocumented workers.

On the role of Government:

Renee supports limited government. Like many Americans she’s watched as the government attempts to reach its hand deeper and deeper into our lives. She uses ObamaCare as the perfect example. It’s a bill that the American people don’t want; it won’t fix the problems it was supposedly designed to solve, and the bill will grant immense power over our personal, medical decisions to bloated, inefficient bureaucracies that turn every patient into a statistic—just ask the Brits about QALYs. Renee Ellmers respects the Constitution. She understands there are some areas where government doesn’t belong.

On the Second Amendment:

Renee Ellmers acknowledges the Second Amendment as an individual right “to keep and bear arms,” and she opposes gun-bans which never apply to criminals. That said, she adds the cautionary note that this right endows gun owners with a tremendous responsibility to ensure their weapons never become instruments of crime.

If you’re not acutely familiar with modern academic bias, then it might surprise you to find out that despite promising to listen to student input, Allen’s report hasn’t been read by the Board of Governors.  As their spokesperson was so kind to explain “’The board respects the differing views, and understand that those views will not go away,’ … ‘Their mind is set.’”  So much for student opinion.

It should be extremely disturbing that a group of administrators could ignore a well-documented refutation of the IACLEA’s policy statement—a report that cites no sources for it’s dire predictions—all in order to justify their preconceived disdain for student rights.  The board never intended to listen to students.  They’ve plowed on relentlessly despite a CSU student government resolution requesting the school maintain its current policy which passed by 21-3, and despite the repeated discrediting of the IACLEA report by multiple organizations and individuals.

Even more ridiculous is the glaring double standard about to be imposed.  Reports indicate, and the Board of Governors acknowledged, exceptions could be made in the ban for law enforcement and armed protection of high profile visitors.  As usual, the administrators and their guests get to keep their protection while the students are rendered sitting ducks in the event of a tragedy.  This is very similar to the heinous decision to evacuate VA Tech administrators over an hour before the Norris Hall shooting without even attempting to sound the alarm for the rest of the campus population.

A gun ban didn’t work at Virginia Tech.  It didn’t work at Northern Illinois University.  It didn’t work at Fort Hood where our own military isn’t allowed to carry weapons through their day-to-day routine.  It didn’t work at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, and it failed at NIU again just days ago.  If these administrators truly want to protect students, then why would they push through a discredited policy that has failed time and time again?

Granted, they’ve stopped short of actually claiming he attended Tea Party events, but it doesn’t take much mental prowess to catch on to the media’s implication.  As an example, take this gem from Johnathan Capehart at the Washington Post:

“But after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we’re hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement.”

The observation might seem plausible if you’ve only read the selective quotations Capehart provided, but even a cursory reading of the actual document reveals this observation is merely an attempt to co-opt this tragedy for political gain.  For starters, Capehart conveniently leaves out the line right before Stack’s signature where he praises Communism and bashes Capitalism.  Who knew the Tea Party crowd was full of closet Marxists?

I won’t delve into the far more baseless accusations floating around that Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity are responsible because they ostensibly created the atmosphere that led to this atrocity.  Instead, I’ll address the second story line which claims that Stack was essentially apolitical.  This group acknowledges that Stack was upset with government, but avoids classifying him as right or left-wing.  This is essentially the same crowd that tries to normalize Islamic terrorism by claiming that Christianity has its extremists too. Unfortunately, this is as false as Capehart’s jarring conclusion.

How many “right-wingers” do you know who rail against “the joke we call the American medical system … murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple?”  How many complain about tax exemptions “that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy?”  How many Tea Parties were out protesting “corporate profits.”  The answer to all three of these questions is, of course, zero.  If Joe Stack was at a Tea Party, he wasn’t there as a participant.

The reality here is: Joe Stack was probably a Marxist, and he was definitely a leftist, just like Amy Bishop, the Obama fanatic who shot and killed three UAH colleagues.  Sure, the right has churned out some wackos too, but far less frequently, and for some reason, the media tends to be honest about their political affiliations.  But let loose a bunch of profit hating G-20 rioters to vandalize a city, and suddenly nobody knows what their ideology is.  And it’s not like that’s only happened once.  I am continually amazed at our “objective” media’s ability to keep a straight face calling anti-capitalist Marxists apolitical while the Tea Party is derided as a racist group of extremist bigots?

ABC’s The Deep End got it right in a recent episode about school administrators in our country who seem more concerned with punishing innocent behavior based on minute, obsessive regulations than addressing the real problems in American schools.  Need an example?  Here’s a 2007 story from the Washington Post about Kilmer Middle School in Virginia.  The school has a zero-tolerance policy for touching.  No high-fives, kids.  That’s the start of a slippery slope to .. well, you get the picture.

Video by Steve Crowder and Alfonzo Rachel of Pajamas Media’s PJTV.com.  Click Here to view more of Crowder’s work, and here to see more from Alfonzo’s Zonation.