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, February 24, 2010

DEMOCRATS ON USING RECONCILIATION

RAMPANT HYPOCRISY

In case this gets pulled before you can see the video, it includes Obama, Hillary, Schumer, Biden, Dodd all freaking out about Republicans' threat to use Reconciliation. They point out that such misuse of the option will destroy the Senate and make it just a pale copy of the House of Representatives. The founders of our country carefully crafted two houses, one to represent the passions of the people, and the other to cool down those passions.

Every one in the country needs to see this video which is running on Breitbart and on Drudge.

Also, everyone needs to hear Senator Byrd's explanation of why he developed Reconciliation in the beginning and why this present threat to use it is a dastardly corruption of his work.Byrd's Letter((Contributed by Guy Faulkes)

17 comments:

Honest Debate said...

I'm a little worried that reconciliation it starting to loose it's edge in terms of outrage. Harry Reid is now accusing objectors of reconciliation of whining. Democrats in congress are slowly warming to the idea. The press is dutifully playing along. The hypocrisy is alarming but nothing new. The video is devastating in that regard.

Rush went on a rant the other day on the word "reconcile". I'll see if I can find it later, it was good.

guy faulkes said...

I do not think they can pass the bill using reconciliation. to many Democrats are afraid that the same thing will happen to them as happened in Massachusetts. If they do pass it, then I believe the people will respond accordingly and we will have both the House and the senate in 2010. The outrage is not over the reconciliation process, but over the powers that be telling the citizens to sit down and shut up because we are to stupid to know what is good for us.

Sarkazein said...

Question: Did the Republican's use it?

Honest Debate said...

Sark,

I don't think they did, the "gang of 14" prevented it.

It should have been used then for the same reason it should not be used now, to protect the constitution. I'm sure that's too nuanced for liberals too understand. It's true nonetheless.

guy faulkes said...

Question: Did the Republican's use it?

Yes. They used it several times. To the best of my knowledge, it was designed for budget considerations in ordet to keep the government running during times of gird lock. It then evolved into a means to secure approval of appointees by adding some kind of budgetary issue.

One reason that this will be an intersting route for th Democrats to take is that the
Republicans can challenge on a line item basis as to the connection with the budget.

HD, were Byrd's comments on your link? I missed them if they were. I will take the liberty ofliking his letter.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/04/byrd-i-support-the-byrd-rule.php?page=1

Sarkazein said...

The video is like the videos showing the Democrat leaders calling for the over-through of Sadaam because of his WMDs.

Sarkazein said...

should reead: Over- throw

Honest Debate said...

Guy,

Thanks for the link.

It was our old friend Blogger (nice to see you blogger!)who posted this, he's showing up now and then lately but I don't think many have noticed even though many have asked about him. I sure have but it's obviously easier for me to recognize something I didn't post.

As Mr. Byrd points out, reconciliation is intended for budgets not judicial nominees or massive legislation against the will of the people. All of the examples in the video were in reference to filibustering judges.

Sarkazein said...

should reead should read: should read

Sarkazein said...

New home sales are the lowest on record! AND Obama obsesses on government health-care. This countries economy is going in the exact wrong direction, and Obama is still meeting with pop singers and other entertainers and starting new employer mandates as Rome burns. This has to be on purpose.

Blogger said...

guy faulkes said...

Question: Did the Republican's use it?

Yes. They used it several times. To the best of my knowledge, it was designed for budget considerations in ordet to keep the government running during times of gird lock. It then evolved into a means to secure approval of appointees by adding some kind of budgetary issue.

One reason that this will be an intersting route for th Democrats to take is that the
Republicans can challenge on a line item basis as to the connection with the budget.

HD, were Byrd's comments on your link? I missed them if they were. I will take the liberty ofliking his letter.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/04/byrd-i-support-the-byrd-rule.php?page=1

February 24, 2010 11:41 AM
Byrd

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV,

I would like to use Reconciliation on you if you don't mind. I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that Billary, Reid and the other Democrats spoke out against Reconciliation, yet want to use that very same process to ram socialism and coresponding higher taxes down our throats! Well, I am still waiting for an inferior answer? Well?

LOL

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Betsy

PS POVVVVVVV, time to come out and pllaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!

Sarkazein said...

This is what happens when you get a bunch of lawyers together (debate over reconciliation). One sentence can be interpreted 100 different ways. Then they can turn on a dime and give the same sentence a different interpretation even though the sentence was originally written by lawyers and approved by the same lawyers.
Forget term limits, ban lawyers from serving in Congress due to conflict of interest and core values deprivation. They've screwed up health-care, with ambulance chaser John Edwards in the lead, now they are screwing up the entire country.
Approval rating of Congress is 10%, and they, the congressman lawyers, will tell you why this is good or bad... either way.

Reader said...

Sark, what's the answer? Are people going to rise up or how long will we continue to let a minority, tell us what to do? They'll use it if they can. This "Me Generation" in the White House is running our nation in the ground. They have a credit card and we're paying for it.

HD, I'd never heard of this.

Sarkazein said...

Reader- People say some things have to reach bottom before they can be changed. Obama is taking the country to the bottom as per Saul Alinsky's play book.
But, Obama is going to be real surprised with what's on the bottom, and as with all of liberalism, he will be proven wrong and a more free America will rise from Obama's ruins.

guy faulkes said...

Sark, this is not the first time your idea of banning lawyers from Congress has been presented. The Charter for the Lost State of Franklin (which would have been comprised of Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina) supposedly contained a ban on lawyers, doctors, or preachers holding public office. Even if it's not true, it's an interesting idea. I would certainly support it as to lawyers.

Sarkazein said...

Guy Faulkes-

Byrd ESQ wrote the reconciliation rules, Reid ESQ interprets them one way five years ago, and another way now. A lawyers job is to make what's black and white, gray. The same color as ashes.