This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Another Campaign Promise Broken

President Obama said eight times, on the record, that negotiations for the health care bill would be broadcast live on C-SPAN. The CEO of C-SPAN, Brian Lam, has written a letter urging Obama to keep his promise. Nancy Pelosi has no intention of negotiating with the Senate publically.

30 comments:

Sarkazein said...

This is liberalism at it's best, lies, secrecy, denials, and
diversions. It's been going on for decades, but through incrementalism not this radicalism we are witnessing today.

oatz said...

Obama’s promises were intended to induce people to vote for him. Obama knew his promises to provide an honest, transparent and bipartisan governance were false when he made them. He has committed a fraud upon the American public and should be held accountable. This sort of fraud seems to qualify as high crimes or misdemeanors within the meaning of Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution that define the grounds for impeachment.

Honest Debate said...

Oatz you wrote: "Obama knew his promises to provide an honest, transparent and bipartisan governance were false when he made them."

I absolutely believe that. To be fair it's very hard to ascertain what somebody knows and when they know it but if it quacks like a duck... So, if one knows what they're saying isn't true then that makes it a lie. That's where libs get it wrong when they say Bush lied about WMD. It's impossible to tell a lie and not know you are doing so. I still believe there were WMD.

Technically, I can't see a flaw in your argument for impeachment but politically, not so much. For that matter the recall process is probably in order for many in Congress. I could embrace that strategery.

Sarkazein said...

What is more, is the core Obama supporters will not hold his lies against him. He will sign in to law whatever health-care bill they send him. It won't be the single payer plan, it won't have a public option, it won't pay for abortions, it will cost the working poor more than anyone, yet he will lie and say he succeeded and the hard-cores will declare Obama the winner.

guy faulkes said...

Of course the fundamental Obama supporter will not hold his lies against him. They cannot. Their leftist politics is their religion and he is the man child Messiah. To expect these people to hold Obama accountable for his misdeeds is on the same order as expecting the Pope to spit in the face of Jesus Christ.

Sark's point on the health care bill is right on target and is as many on this blog predicted from the start.

Honest Debate said...

Hey guys, don't ya think we should give the libs a chance to condemn the lie? A lie's a lie, isn't it? Surely the libs won't defend this. Besides, it's Bush's fault anyway.

Sarkazein said...

Obama can't spin it by saying he has no control over the Legislative Branch's actions, and Pelosi can't say that those were Obama's promises and she has no control over what Obama says, because they will be throwing each-other under the bus.
I guess this is another example of Obama's great uniting skills. He can't even unite like-minded people... how bad is that?

guy faulkes said...

http://www.breitbart.tv/how-dare-they-cnns-cafferty-rips-obama-for-failed-openness-pledge/

http://www.breitbart.tv/c-span-ceo-white-house-has-allowed-only-one-hour-of-health-care-coverage/

http://www.breitbart.tv/the-c-span-lie-did-obama-really-promise-televised-healthcare-negotiations/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/06/eveningnews/main6064298.shtml

oatz said...

Cnn Jack Caferty rips Obama....“What a far cry from the election, when then-candidate Obama pledged to- quote, ‘broadcast health care negotiations on C-SPAN, so that the American people can see what the choices are,’ unquote. President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.“

guy faulkes said...

I promise I will quit after this one. I could probably post hundreds of links and I am so damn mad I want to do it. I know you guys can and do find them for yourself. I just needed to vent.

htthttp://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/01/06/obama_and_the_vampire_congress?page=1

oatz said...

OK, I really didn't vote for Obama! But America Rising made this video about buyers remorse its a good 3 minutes of great stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiyqvuTxaEs

BikerBard said...

"It won't be the single payer plan, it won't have a public option,"- Sark

So, the Rethugs wanted single payer plan, and they wanted a public option? Of course not. They only pretended to be partners in Congress so they could weaken the bill and then holds hands together and vote NO. The Dems'only fault was believing the lying Rethugs.

And Rethugs vote against what would be a good thing for their constituents.

"You lie!" - anyone to Repubs

guy faulkes said...

Since when is voting no on a bad bill not the correct thing to do?

BB ignores the point of the thread in that the Democrats are trying to hide their dealings in the compromise of the two versions of the bill because they fear the voters response. The majority of the public does not like the bill and our liberal politicians are afraid of reprisals in the voting booths, especially if there is transparency in covering the debate as promised.

Sarkazein said...

No BB, the Republicans NEVER wanted a single payer plan, Obama did. The point is the liberals will call it a success no matter how little it represents anything Obama promised. Chumps in other-words.
I am just guessing that is what you meant with the feeble attempt at humor with the "Rethugs" thing.
When all the bribing and secrecy is over, Obama will tell you what you are happy with.

Sarkazein said...

BB- What ever the bill ends up, it will all be a lie.

We have a government that can't even stop a terrorist that was turned in by his father after 8 years of practicing connecting the dots. What ever the bill says it will do, it won't. The big lie... liberalism.

Johnny Rico said...

Tricycle Lard,

Excellant. You have made another brief appearance until you are sent back to the sallow hole from whence you originated. Good. Were you born stupid or did you just get that way? LOL!!! Tell me, does Cheerleading for the troglydyte liberal socialists ever wear thin? Do you wish you could ever at least hold your own in an arguement? Do you get tire of being a secondary figure on any blog you post on? Do you realize you will never be taken seriously by either side? Sad to say, but possibly others may learn from your abject failures. LOL!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Annie

Honest Debate said...

So BikerBard, are you okay with a back-room deal being cut despite Obama's promises?

guy faulkes said...

No wonder they want to keep this hidden. Here is a copy of a letter from a constitutional attorny about the health care bill. Ihad to post it in two parts.

The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Michael Connelly, Retired Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

guy faulkes said...

part 2


If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-
Thanks for posting the letter.
It's time for all who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution to do their duty.
Any Hondurans out there that can show us how it's done.

Honest Debate said...

Guy, bingo. Thanks.

BikerBard said...

Sark:
"The point is the liberals will call it a success no matter how little it represents anything Obama promised. Chumps in other-words." Sark

Just substitute the word "Democrats" for "Rethugs", and "conservative" for "liberal," and you have aptly described the Bush debacle.

Johnny Rico said...

Tricycle Lard,

Boy that was a heck of a post. In depth, accurate, and meaningful as usual. Great job on continuing to be an honest to goodness Cheerleading idiot of a liberal. Who got tortured? Why do illegal aliens get more rights (and jobs) than Americans, and what did you do when your mom ran out of Spaghetti Os during the snowstorm?

LOL

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS I won

Randy

guy faulkes said...

Sark has just repeated what many on this blog have said from the start. This bill was something that would be passed in some form in both Democratically controlled houses. It would be bad for the country in both versions. It would not have a large part of what Obama and his disciples wanted but would still further their socialist agenda. Finally, Obama has to claim credit, no matter what is in the bill (if it gets through the conformation process between the two versions) because he has no political victories to his credit. He is willing to sacrifice his entire party by defying the will of the people to further socialism and his reputation.

It will be interesting to see how the constitutional challenges are decided if it does pass reconciliation.

Sarkazein said...

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abe Lincoln (R)

BikerBard said...

Sark:
So your saying we should have overthrown Bush/Cheney/Rove for perverting the constitution?

Why so late with the suggestion?

guy faulkes said...

BB, many on this blog did not like things such as the Patriot Act's invasions of privacy. We now do not like the "watch passengers naked" scanners at airports. You will never realize that most of use do not care if you are Democrat or Republican. We care about whether you support the Constitution. The Bush administration took many hits on this blog.

However, we are smart enough to realize Bush is no longer President. Hopefully your side will catch up an realize this by the time Obama is impeached or is voted out of office in 2012.

Sarkazein said...

I might add, what most Leftists called un-Constitutional actions by President Bush, had to do with defending our country against an evil enemy out to destroy us. Obama's actions are out to destroy or remake America's economy and the Constitution.

GrammarCopBusted said...

"So your saying we should have overthrown Bush/Cheney/Rove for perverting the constitution?" -BikerBard

Rico said...

Tricyle Lard (Cheerleader),

Given up so soon. Not surprising.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico