Bravo, Jennica. Bravo!
And he's laughing at us all, while he's doing it.
Keep it up Mike; millions are with you and most Utahns (two thirds), in that
recent Dan Jones poll, do NOT disapprove of you.
So, if he's saying; jump, jump, who can afford to jump ship and leave the
The train heading for the cliff has Ted Cruz as its engineer and Mike Lee as its
conductor. Neither one is interested in pulling the brake lever.
The real enemy here is the lawyer mentality on both sides. There's no way
you're going to let the other side win. Lee, Reid, Cruz, Obama --
they're all trained advocates, but they do not have the reflex to find
solutions. Their reflex is to win at any cost.
Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384) is a crime under United States law.
It is stated as follows:“ If two or more persons in any State
or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the
United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority
thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of
the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the
United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." And this man
expects to be the elder to save us. Something is askew in that man's mind.
Irony is right... The adversarial relationship in Washington is the problem.Candidate Obama promise he would CHANGE Washington? Promised it
wouldn't be politics-as-usual, more compromise, and less divided.Has done that? Has he even TRIED to do that? Can anyone name
ONE THING that Obama has done to TRY to foster biparisansip and compromise in
Washington?Was his first act (locking all Republicans out of the
room when designing ObamaCare) an effort to increase bipartisanship? If he
thinks THAT's going to make politicians in Washington cooperate MORE... I
have to question his leadership ability. Anybody who would do that and expect
it to DECREASE partisanship or make Washington a more cooperative place... is
not playing with a full deck. But I think Obama knew exactly what he was
doing... and it had NOTHING to do with decreasing partisanship in Washington.He never intended to change Washington OR he didn't know how to do
it. Just look at the results! Washington is MORE divided! Republicans are
half of the problem, but locking Republicans out and ramming legislation down
without a SINGLE republican vote... was not a good start IF he wanted Unity.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America." Mr Lee's actions have done nothing to insure
Tranquility, a point more prominent to the Founders than defense. Is this just
another example of picking the parts he agrees with or is this a delusion that
would have him swoop in to save us after he took it to the brink?
@Irony GuyIf Obama gives anything it'll set a precedent (arguably
2011 did) where threatening default of the nation is a valid bargaining position
when it shouldn't be.
atl134 makes an excellent point. Giving in to the House's demands under
duress of the current shutdown and under threat of the impending debt ceiling
default would be like opening Pandora's Box.Maybe to illustrate
that point to the House, essentially stating, "So, you want to enter the
Brave New World of 'governance by extortion'? Well, two can play at
that game", the Senate should take the whatever the current House funding
bill is (with its odious anti-ACA rider *du jour* attached), attach a Senate
rider requiring universal background checks on ALL firearm sales, pass the
amended bill on the Senate floor, and send it back to the House for conference,
with the message that the final bill HAS to include the background check rider
as written, or it will be defeated in the Senate or vetoed . . .
Since we are talking train wrecks, let see what some of the Democrats who helped
form the ACA have to say about it:In April of this year Senator Max
Baucus was asked about the ACA and what he could see coming. His response was
"I just see a huge train wreck coming down".In May of this
year Senator Harry Reid "said he agreed with Baucus' comment."Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), "echoed these concerns when he noted that
the law would increase premiums for the young.These aren't
problems of poor implementation; they're problems of implementation,
period. The last few weeks have yielded a treasure trove of evidence confirming
criticism (which the Train Wreck Club now shares) that the Affordable Care Act
has (a) not had the results that were promised and (b) that it may in fact have
worsened health care in America."Other Democrat senators have
identified the train wreck that is the ACA. Some of them include Senator Jeanne
Shaheen, Senator Tom Harkin, and Senator Ben Cardin.If they could
see a train wreck coming 6 months ago. The question is why are they allowing
this to happen?
Redshirt, may we see some documentation of those supposed "quotations?"
The ACA is a train wreck with or without Republican opposition.I
read an article today that said that 99% of people trying to sing up have run
into a wall. Republicans didn't do that. Inept government not being able
to setup a decent web site did that.If they can't even setup a
decent web site that's scalable and fault tolerant... why would we trust
them to run our healthcare?I realize they aren't completely
running our healthcare today... but that's what some people want.
I'm just looking ahead to the future. If THIS little change is such a
train wreck... and Medicare and Medicaid are full of fraud and documented
mis-management, and Social Security is a train headed to the cliff of
insolvency... how is the Government doing to run the whole nation's
healthcare without it becoming an even WORSE train wreck than it already is??
He made his place in history infamously.
Oh, but he will save himself, won't he! It is absurd! He said that he would
oppose Obama on everything and that is what he does, no matter what! Now, can
anyone tell me of something he has done to better our country? Why do people
vote for somebody who does such absurd things?
ugottabkidn: Nice definition of sedition and the need for
"tranquility".For those with partisan eyes, they only see
the faults in their opponents (Mike Lee) and none in their guys (Obama, Reid,
Polosi, etc.).You could just as easily say those quotes apply
directly to President Obama. He and his Attorney General have constantly sought
"...to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United
States..." when it comes to immigration laws, voting intimidation laws,
DOMA, etc. I guess the definition only applies to laws you support.I
can't decide who is trying the hardest to divide the nation and eliminate
any tranquility - President Obama or Harry Reid. "My way or the highway"
is not the "hope and change" we wanted in our government leaders.
To "one old man" since you can't just google them yourself.See "Baucus warns of 'huge train wreck' enacting ObamaCare
provisions" in The Hill for the Senator Max Baucus quote.See the
USA Today article "The ObamaCare train wreck: Column" that uses the
Baucus quote and has the Harry Reid quote, along with some interesting
information that other Democrat Senators have offered regarding the ACA.So again, why let the train wreck occur when even the architects of the
bill see it as a failure?
Time for a reality check. All the revenue the federal government takes in now
can't pay the social security, unemployment, and medicare that we pay
today. We have to borrow to even cover that. Then there is national defense and
all the other programs we are borrowing to cover, on top of the entitlement
social programs. If the social programs we have already implemented
are eating up more than the revenue, how can it be sensible to add another
social program like the ACA? It isn't sensible. That is why the
only sensible approach is to oppose it like the country's life depends on
it, because it does.
What our friends who want a truce in Washington don't understand is that
the Obama administration has run rough shot over the Constitution at every turn
in the road. He is not a King. The exceptions that they have given to their
supporters, Donor Corporations, Unions (and Jimmy Hoffa now wants out) and
others are unconstitutional unless all Americans are given the same extra year
to determine what is the best Health Care alternative for them. At some point
you have to say enough on an issue that affects all American equally (Congress
and the Executive Branch obviously is an exception by Presidential Order). Our
debt of $17 trillion is greater than our GDP - can you spend more in your
checking account than your balance will allow? No, so why should the government?
We have three equal branches of government to provide checks and balances,
before, during and after laws are passed to assure ongoing equality. Get with it
people, Mike Lee is doing his job and we should be proud. Where is Hatch and his
clout? He does nothing for the US or Utah. Time for a mid-term change!
But the point should be, what CAN stop the train from wreaking? Or does anyone
Laws can be changed and or canceled after enacted. We frequently ament or change
laws to better support the constitution and/or adapt for economic, environmental
and world conditions that can negatively affect the intended outcome of the law.
The problem with ACA is that no one including our elected officials were given
an opportunity to review the bill as it was being presented so that these
details that are being fought over now could have been worked out in advance or
in reality the bill would have likely not passed due to the infringement of many
of our Constitution protections to privacy and commerce that have been totally
ignored. Keep going Senators Lee, Cruz and Paul. Don't forget what Speaker
Nancy said, 'you have to pass it to see what's in it". Do you buy
a car with our reading the contract? No and this is a much bigger life changing
contract for every single American going forward. It's worth the scrutiny.
Better late than never.
tenx,There's a reason they use a "train" in this analogy.
It's because a train can't turn (like this legislation it's going
to go where it's going to go regardless). Trains and legislation have to
go where the tracks lead whether we like it or not, you can't just see a
problem ahead and turn to miss it. And like a train... it
can't be stopped (at least not wherever or whenever you want it to stop).
In other words... what's going to happen is going to happen (whether
it's terrible or not). if you are stuck in it's way... there's
probably nothing you or the driver (the government) can do to stop the terrible
result that's coming.That's why the illustration uses a
"Train Wreck", not a car wreck (which can be navigated to avoided the
collision ahead if either party sees what's coming in time).
The Heritage Foundation is having a big golf outing in Oregon. Senator Lee can
Caddy for Dement.