March 18, 2010

Breaking: Driehaus and Others Shred Remaining Credibility, Vote to ‘Slaughter’ the Constitution

Filed under: Health Care,Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:57 pm

Michelle Malkin has the list of Dems who voted “no,” and Driehaus’s name isn’t on it. Nor is Zack Space’s, Charlie Wilson’s, or John Boccieri’s, or Mollohan’s from West Virginia.

Here’s the official roll call.

Nothing Driehaus or his office says about any other related upcoming vote can be believed. For what it’s worth (i.e., nothing), a person at Driehaus’s Cincinnati office told me today that the congressman is a “no” vote on ObamaCare (whatever the heck that is at this point).

The gentlemen noted above and all others who voted “yes” gave us a twofer: They substantively supported ObamaCare, regardless of their final vote (if there ever is to be one), and they showed their utter lack of respect for the oath of office they declared when they were sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution.

Consider this the “See that wasn’t so bad, you can do it again” vote.

_________________________________________________________

UPDATE: I would suggest that the prospects for stopping the madness are not at all good.

All 222 who voted as they did today have already told voters they don’t care about the consequences to the country of short-circuiting the constitutional process. At least three dozen of them would appear to be in line to pay dearly for having done so, no matter how they vote on whatever health care legislation (if any) comes up for a vote in the next several days.

I would not rule out the idea that a few of those whose constituents are intractably mad may even go so far as to resign and say “Nyah, nyah” shortly after their damning vote.

Is it a coincidence that Obama is way behind in filling Homeland Security posts (and likely many others)?

UPDATE 2, March 19, 1:00 a.m.: At Ace’s place, an explanation of the true nature of the vote —

Technically Speaking: Drew notes that this wasn’t a vote on the Slaughter House Rule itself, but on a GOP motion to compel the House to not employ the Slaughter House Rule.

The Slaughter Rule is not yet actually implemented. But the motion to halt it was rejected.

Technically, they could still reject the rule itself.

That’s some (but not much) comfort.

This Isn’t ‘Puzzling’; It’s Freaking …. (Insert Your Own Adjective)

Filed under: Health Care,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:44 pm

Andrew Breitbart and/or his peeps must be in an oddly generous mood:

BreitbardHeadlineOnOandHawaii031710

Here’s the vid:

Gateway Pundit, who has been all over the Fox News Baier-Obama interview and breaking developments in general, had this reax:

What earthquake in Hawaii? In 1868 there was a major earthquake in Hawaii that killed 77 people. In 1975 an earthquake in Hawaii killed 2 people.

Rush helpfully pointed out today that the Senate health care plan’s “Louisiana Purchase” language was written in such a way as to ensure that Mississippi, which had many areas that were hit almost as economically hard by Katrina as New Orleans was, got no extra money.

Passages of the Day, From the WSJ on Health Care, The War On Terror, and Scam Lawsuits

Filed under: Health Care,Scams,Taxes & Government,US & Allied Military — Tom @ 12:16 pm

From Fred Barnes:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes ObamaCare would have a more congenial fate—that it will become as popular as Social Security and Medicare with voters. She’s kidding herself. Social Security and Medicare were popular from the start and passed with bipartisan support. ObamaCare is unpopular and partisan. It’s extremely controversial. Its passage is far more likely to spark a political explosion than a wave of acceptance.

That’s because the American people won’t take kindly to micromanaged de facto tyranny over their daily lives.

Daniel Henninger, in his weekly “Wonderland” column (“Liz Cheney’s Big Question — Is the Obama administration on the right side of national security?”), has a strong analogy of the current War on Terror to the decades-earlier war on crime:

Whether the wolf at the door is a common criminal or a foreign-trained terrorist, the legal issue at the level of the voting booth is simple: Where along the spectrum of personal safety do I and my family feel comfortable? On this score, the incoherence of the Obama administration’s policies on domestic terrorism, detainees and military tribunals unsettles people. When they felt this way about personal safety in the 1970s and ’80s, their votes for “law and order” candidates were an attempt to restore balance. It worked. The Supreme Court narrowed the 1960s’ most expansive interpretations of defendants’ rights.

Barack Obama’s handling of terror is a voting issue. Republican candidates should put it before voters this November and in 2012. Looking at the failed Christmas airliner bombing, the aggressive recruitment of home-grown jihadis and the aborted Najibullah Zazi bombings in New York City, I’d say establishing a policy of coherence and constancy in meeting this threat is more urgent than the health-care odyssey Mr. Obama has forced on us for a year.

I’d say “as important.”

And, as is so often the case, here’s the opening of a “Review and Outlook” editorial that reports news carried almost nowhere else:

Most asbestos trials feature tort lawyers mauling defendant companies. But last week a federal jury in Mississippi turned the tables on a pair of plaintiffs attorneys accused of filing corrupt cases. Let’s hope it’s a trend.

The jury found that William Guy and Thomas Brock committed fraud as part of an asbestos lawsuit they filed in 2001 against Illinois Central Railroad Co. The jurors concluded that the lawyers knew their clients had lied about taking part in an earlier asbestos suit. And they ordered the lawyers to pay $210,000 in actual damages and—turnabout is fair play—a further $210,000 in punitive damages to Illinois Central.

This is the first time to our knowledge that lawyers have been punished for filing fraudulent asbestos lawsuits. The lack of any such penalty is one reason that U.S. courts are still clogged with frivolous suits decades after the asbestos legal explosion began. Illinois Central deserves credit for persevering in this risky suit and providing other defendants with a roadmap for fighting back.

The bolded paragraph makes the event news. Look at how thin the coverage has been.

Positivity: Babysitter, 16, called a hero for saving infant

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 7:32 am

From Vancouver:

MARCH 6, 2010

Kasey Girdlestone removed Lego piece that was choking nine-month-old baby

A Duncan mother is counting her blessings and a babysitter is being hailed as a hero after the latter saved her infant charge from choking last Saturday night.

Brandee Peart said she would be forever grateful for the quick reaction of 16-year-old babysitter Kasey Girdlestone.

“She saved my daughter’s life,” said Peart.

Words can’t express how grateful the mother of five is to know she’s got a caregiver she can trust.

“I felt like any other babysitter could have been sitting on the computer or ignoring the kids and my baby would have been gone.

“But Kasey was right there on top of it and saved her life.”

Saturday was a joyous day around the Peart household: the day Brandee graduated from nursing school.

To celebrate, she and her husband Philip went for dinner.

As was often the case, Girdlestone was called to mind the kids.

“I babysit regularly for this family,” said the Cowichan Secondary student. “I love their five kids. I have lots of fun when I babysit them.”

Saturday night began like any other, but ended much differently.

While Girdlestone was preparing to give the children dinner, nine-month-old Emily popped a small grey piece of Lego into her mouth.

“I had already found a piece [and picked it up] but she’d found another in the dining room,” Girdlestone explained. “I noticed she was choking when I turned around to give the kids their dinner.”

Girdlestone said she’s taken a babysitting course but never really thought she would have to use the life-saving skills she’d learned.

“It was a very scary situation as it was happening,” she admitted. “I didn’t want to freak out because the other kids were in the same room, so I didn’t want to freak them out.”

Girdlestone leaped into action and attempted the baby version of the Heimlich manoeuvre to no avail.

“I picked her up and held her over my hand and tried patting her back but she kept gagging.”

The piece didn’t budge. “I thought that it was going

to go farther down so I put my finger in her mouth and felt it, so I just grabbed it.”

The move paid off and Emily could again breathe. …

Go here for the rest of the story.