Obama 2012

if by popular you mean 'there will be blood' (and probably not just figuratively) then yeah, you're right.

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/18/mark-levin-readies-lawsuit-on/
Mark Levin Readies Lawsuit on Slaughter Rule
Not so fast.
Democrats poised to use the so-called "deem and pass" strategy to force through a health care bill will have to deal with Mark Levin first.
Levin, known to his fans as one of the most popular talk show hosts in the country, is also both a legal scholar and longtime president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, public interest law firm A former chief of staff to Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese III, Levin is the author of two New York Times bestselling books on the Constitution and the judiciary, the last, Liberty and Tyranny, at number one for a dozen weeks.
The lawsuit will name President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and "other relevant cabinet members" as defendants. Those cabinet members are Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
Levin's goal? To stop the government from "instituting this unconstitutional contrivance."
Said Levin:
Landmark has already prepared a lawsuit that will be filed in federal court the moment the House acts. Such a brazen violation of the core functions of Congress simply cannot be ignored. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution is clear respecting the manner in which a bill becomes law. Members are required to vote on this bill, not claim they did when they didn't. The Speaker of the House and her lieutenants are temporary custodians of congressional authority. They are not empowered to do permanent violence to our Constitution.
The "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" begins by noting that "Landmark's employees receive healthcare through an employer healthcare plan sponsored and contributed to by Landmark."
In a move that would be hilarious if in fact it weren't so serious, Levin lists the specific section of the U.S. Constitution ("The Bicameralism and Presentment Clause of the Constitution of the United States") and cites the fact that it "mandates that 'Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.…'"
The suit cites the source precisely as "U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2." Which is to say, Levin is compelled to point out to the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States what every American school child learns in those little pamphlets with catchy titles like "How a Bill Becomes a Law." To wit: Both the House and the Senate must pass the bill before it can be signed into law by the president.
Levin goes go with this cite: "Article I, section 7, clause 2 further provides: 'But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.'"
The lawsuit goes on, saying:
In or about March 2010, the Rules Committee of the House proposed a rule to the full House establishing the terms and conditions pursuant to which certain legislation would be considered by the House (the "Rule" or "Slaughter Rule"). The Rule provided that, upon adoption by the House on a vote of the yeas and nays of one bill (the "Reconciliation Bill"), an entirely different bill, H.R. 3590 (the "Senate Bill") would be "deemed approved" by the House.
If Nancy Pelosi twists enough arms to get this "passed" the lawsuit, in decidedly legal language as dry as it is un-Levin-like, says:
In or about March 2010, the House approved the Reconciliation Bill. The House has never voted on the Senate Bill. The President has stated his intention to sign into law the Senate Bill upon presentment to him.
Don't let the dryness of this language fool you. Plainly stated, Levin is saying bluntly that a piece of major legislation, legislation that could reduce a huge chunk of the American economy to economic chaos, is being "passed" into law with only one House of Congress, the U.S. Senate, approving. And that the President of the United States intends to affix his signature, in a deliberate violation of the Constitution, to this "Senate Bill upon presentment to him."
Levin accuses Obama and Holder of intending to deprive Americans of their Fifth Amendment guarantee to "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." He adds that, "Under color of law, the Defendants intend to collect taxes, remove and replace insurance benefits, and re-write health insurance contracts affecting Plaintiffs and Landmark's employees."
In addition, the suit says things that used to come out of old political novels with titles like Seven Days in May, a 1960s potboiler about a proposed military coup to take over the U.S. government. But this is no novel, and Levin is precise: "Two branches of the United States Government have and are presently intending to transgress the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, rendering the liberty of United States citizens at stake."
Say that again: "Rendering the liberty of United States citizens at stake."
"Under color of law," it continues, "the Defendants intend to collect taxes, remove and replace insurance benefits, and re-write health insurance contracts affecting Plaintiffs and Landmark's employees."
This is a stunning document, all the more so because Levin is both seriously credible on matters constitutional -- and there is a dawning recognition on the part of the American people just how serious the assault on their liberties is in fact.
Says the suit: "The Constitutionally protected liberty interests of the American public are at risk."
In short, this lawsuit means that Mark Levin has just opened round two in the furious struggle the American people are making to hold onto to their constitutional rights.
Will the suit be filed? Will the bill make it through on this "deem and pass" charade? (Or is that "demon pass"?)
Still too soon to say.
But if it does, Mark Levin is ready.
And it is safe to say, he will without doubt find a lot of Americans cheering him on.

Sperm - Me
Vessel - Wife

Sometimes you just need to provide more beer.
If you could have beer in your threads, people would definitely like you more no matter what off-the-mark thing you might say!

Sometimes you just need to provide more beer.
If you could have beer in your threads, people would definitely like you more no matter what off-the-mark thing you might say!

Depend on them? Are you kidding me... Especially in the economy of today, Americans would gladly take those jobs that you THINK they won't do... Don't be foolish to think that Americans aren't willing to work the tough jobs.
Because frankly, they shouldn't give a damn about the 'hispanic' voters and should give a damn about the country and the rule of law.
Not as easy as you think. Many law enforcement officials have laws in cities/states that prohibit them from looking into someone's legality or even detaining them if known to be illegal.

See, I look at this as an excellent opportunity to round 'em up and ship 'em out.
I mean, what better way to find a bunch of illegals than them walking right up to your front door.
The fact that they'll do this and not even be touched is infuriating in itself....
------------
http://www.wfaa.com/news/national/88444407.html
NEW YORK (AP) — Tens of thousands of immigrants are making their way across the country to the nation's capital to rally Sunday on immigration reform.
Organizers hope to see as many as 100,000 people. Mostly Hispanic, they include day laborers walking from Hempstead, N.Y., and Californians who sold tamales and fruit to pay for their trip. At least 700 buses are expected from 28 states.
They will likely have to share attention on the same day as a possible vote in Congress on health care reform.
That's one of the issues that has sidelined President Obama's campaign promise of reform and possible legalization for the estimated 12 million people in the U.S. illegally.
Reform advocates met with Obama last week. He also met with lawmakers who are drafting legislation. It's not clear if Congress will get him a bill this year.

See, I look at this as an excellent opportunity to round 'em up and ship 'em out.
I mean, what better way to find a bunch of illegals than them walking right up to your front door.
The fact that they'll do this and not even be touched is infuriating in itself....
------------
http://www.wfaa.com/news/national/88444407.html
NEW YORK (AP) — Tens of thousands of immigrants are making their way across the country to the nation's capital to rally Sunday on immigration reform.
Organizers hope to see as many as 100,000 people. Mostly Hispanic, they include day laborers walking from Hempstead, N.Y., and Californians who sold tamales and fruit to pay for their trip. At least 700 buses are expected from 28 states.
They will likely have to share attention on the same day as a possible vote in Congress on health care reform.
That's one of the issues that has sidelined President Obama's campaign promise of reform and possible legalization for the estimated 12 million people in the U.S. illegally.
Reform advocates met with Obama last week. He also met with lawmakers who are drafting legislation. It's not clear if Congress will get him a bill this year.

See, I look at this as an excellent opportunity to round 'em up and ship 'em out.
I mean, what better way to find a bunch of illegals than them walking right up to your front door.
The fact that they'll do this and not even be touched is infuriating in itself....
------------
http://www.wfaa.com/news/national/88444407.html
NEW YORK (AP) — Tens of thousands of immigrants are making their way across the country to the nation's capital to rally Sunday on immigration reform.
Organizers hope to see as many as 100,000 people. Mostly Hispanic, they include day laborers walking from Hempstead, N.Y., and Californians who sold tamales and fruit to pay for their trip. At least 700 buses are expected from 28 states.
They will likely have to share attention on the same day as a possible vote in Congress on health care reform.
That's one of the issues that has sidelined President Obama's campaign promise of reform and possible legalization for the estimated 12 million people in the U.S. illegally.
Reform advocates met with Obama last week. He also met with lawmakers who are drafting legislation. It's not clear if Congress will get him a bill this year.

Washington (CNN) -- Can the House of Representatives pass a health care bill without actually voting on it?
That question -- bizarre to most casual political observers -- took center stage Tuesday as top House Democrats struggled to find enough support to push President Obama's top legislative priority over the finish line.
The House is expected to vote this week on the roughly $875 billion bill passed by the Senate in December. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, needs 216 votes from her 253-member caucus to pass the measure. No Republicans are expected to back it.
Pelosi's problem: A lot of House Democrats don't like the Senate bill. Among other things, some House members have expressed concern the Senate bill does not include an adequate level of subsidies to help middle- and lower-income families purchase coverage. They also object to the Senate's proposed tax on high-end insurance plans. The House passed its more-expansive health care bill in November.
Pelosi's solution: Have the House pass the Senate bill, but then immediately follow up with another vote in both chambers of Congress on a package of changes designed in part to make the overall legislation more acceptable to House Democrats.
Now, Pelosi also may try to help unhappy House Democrats by allowing them to avoid a direct up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. The speaker may call for a vote on a rule that would simply "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. The House then would proceed to a separate vote on the more popular changes to the Senate bill.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that Republicans will try to block the procedure. They will try to force a vote on a resolution requiring the Senate health care bill to be brought to an up-or-down vote.
The Democratic plan is "the ultimate in Washington power grabs, a legislative ploy that lets Democrats defy the will of the American people while attempting to eliminate any trace of actually doing so," Boehner said.
Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, referred to the maneuver as Pelosi's "scheme and deem" plan Tuesday morning. He called it "jaw-dropping in its audacity."
The "process has been tainted," he said on the Senate floor. This "will go down as one of the most extraordinary legislative sleight of hand in history. ... Make no mistake: This will be a career-defining and a Congress-defining vote."
He said the "entire effort has been a travesty."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, sought to brush aside the GOP complaints, telling reporters that Republicans have used the maneuver -- also known as a "self-executing rule" -- more often than Democrats in the past.
"Process is interesting," Hoyer said. "But in the final analysis what is [more] interesting [to] the American public is what this bill will do for them and their families to make their lives ... more secure."
Hoyer said House Democratic leaders haven't made any final decisions regarding the process that will be used to try to pass the Senate bill. But he defended the self-executing rule as a legitimate tactic and promised the House will vote on the Senate bill "in one form or another."
Congress first used the self-executing rule in 1933, according to a memo that Morris sent to reporters Tuesday. Morris noted the rule is typically used on votes to increase the debt limit. He also argued it has been used "far more often by Republicans than by Democrats."
The spat over the rule is the second major procedural argument to erupt between Democrats and Republicans in the health care debate in recent weeks.
GOP leaders also are fuming over Democrats' decision to use a legislative maneuver called reconciliation, which will allow changes to the health care bill to clear the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.
Senate Democrats lost their filibuster-proof, 60-seat supermajority in January with the election of GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
Republicans contend that reconciliation, which is limited to provisions pertaining to the budget, was never meant to facilitate passage of a sweeping reform measure such as the health care bill. Democrats point out that reconciliation was used to pass several major bills in recent years, including George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Democratic leaders also have indicated they need to do whatever is necessary to bring closure to what has become an acrimonious yearlong debate. Obama has pushed for a final congressional vote in recent weeks.
"I think people have come to the realization that this is the moment," senior White House adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."
If enacted, the Democratic reform proposal would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. The plan is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.
The Senate bill would reduce federal deficits by about $118 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Congressional Republicans contend the plan amounts to an ill-conceived government takeover of the country's health care system. They have said it will do little to slow spiraling medical costs. They also argue it will lead to higher premiums and taxes for middle-class families while resulting in deep Medicare cuts.
Public opinion polls indicate a majority of Americans have turned against the administration's health care reform plan, though individual elements of the proposal remain widely popular.

Washington (CNN) -- Can the House of Representatives pass a health care bill without actually voting on it?
That question -- bizarre to most casual political observers -- took center stage Tuesday as top House Democrats struggled to find enough support to push President Obama's top legislative priority over the finish line.
The House is expected to vote this week on the roughly $875 billion bill passed by the Senate in December. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, needs 216 votes from her 253-member caucus to pass the measure. No Republicans are expected to back it.
Pelosi's problem: A lot of House Democrats don't like the Senate bill. Among other things, some House members have expressed concern the Senate bill does not include an adequate level of subsidies to help middle- and lower-income families purchase coverage. They also object to the Senate's proposed tax on high-end insurance plans. The House passed its more-expansive health care bill in November.
Pelosi's solution: Have the House pass the Senate bill, but then immediately follow up with another vote in both chambers of Congress on a package of changes designed in part to make the overall legislation more acceptable to House Democrats.
Now, Pelosi also may try to help unhappy House Democrats by allowing them to avoid a direct up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. The speaker may call for a vote on a rule that would simply "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. The House then would proceed to a separate vote on the more popular changes to the Senate bill.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that Republicans will try to block the procedure. They will try to force a vote on a resolution requiring the Senate health care bill to be brought to an up-or-down vote.
The Democratic plan is "the ultimate in Washington power grabs, a legislative ploy that lets Democrats defy the will of the American people while attempting to eliminate any trace of actually doing so," Boehner said.
Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, referred to the maneuver as Pelosi's "scheme and deem" plan Tuesday morning. He called it "jaw-dropping in its audacity."
The "process has been tainted," he said on the Senate floor. This "will go down as one of the most extraordinary legislative sleight of hand in history. ... Make no mistake: This will be a career-defining and a Congress-defining vote."
He said the "entire effort has been a travesty."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, sought to brush aside the GOP complaints, telling reporters that Republicans have used the maneuver -- also known as a "self-executing rule" -- more often than Democrats in the past.
"Process is interesting," Hoyer said. "But in the final analysis what is [more] interesting [to] the American public is what this bill will do for them and their families to make their lives ... more secure."
Hoyer said House Democratic leaders haven't made any final decisions regarding the process that will be used to try to pass the Senate bill. But he defended the self-executing rule as a legitimate tactic and promised the House will vote on the Senate bill "in one form or another."
Congress first used the self-executing rule in 1933, according to a memo that Morris sent to reporters Tuesday. Morris noted the rule is typically used on votes to increase the debt limit. He also argued it has been used "far more often by Republicans than by Democrats."
The spat over the rule is the second major procedural argument to erupt between Democrats and Republicans in the health care debate in recent weeks.
GOP leaders also are fuming over Democrats' decision to use a legislative maneuver called reconciliation, which will allow changes to the health care bill to clear the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes.
Senate Democrats lost their filibuster-proof, 60-seat supermajority in January with the election of GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
Republicans contend that reconciliation, which is limited to provisions pertaining to the budget, was never meant to facilitate passage of a sweeping reform measure such as the health care bill. Democrats point out that reconciliation was used to pass several major bills in recent years, including George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Democratic leaders also have indicated they need to do whatever is necessary to bring closure to what has become an acrimonious yearlong debate. Obama has pushed for a final congressional vote in recent weeks.
"I think people have come to the realization that this is the moment," senior White House adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."
If enacted, the Democratic reform proposal would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. The plan is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.
The Senate bill would reduce federal deficits by about $118 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Congressional Republicans contend the plan amounts to an ill-conceived government takeover of the country's health care system. They have said it will do little to slow spiraling medical costs. They also argue it will lead to higher premiums and taxes for middle-class families while resulting in deep Medicare cuts.
Public opinion polls indicate a majority of Americans have turned against the administration's health care reform plan, though individual elements of the proposal remain widely popular.

Isn't this how government in the US is done?
It doesn't make sense for foreigners like me, but isn't this what the bush administration and the GOP majority were up to in 2004?
Be outraged by all of it or none of it, stop trying to score petty points on a message board. Anyone who is genuinely concerned can find a better and more productive outlet for their outrage.

From the article:
""The law says students who are not U.S. citizens and want to seek the assistance must have attended school in the state for at least three years before they graduate from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to seek permanent residency.""
So yeah, it's jacked up and they don't even have to be a PR to get the assisstance. Just be here illegally attend high school, and then 'say' they'll get their PR status eventually. It's BS.

From the article:
""The law says students who are not U.S. citizens and want to seek the assistance must have attended school in the state for at least three years before they graduate from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to seek permanent residency.""
So yeah, it's jacked up and they don't even have to be a PR to get the assisstance. Just be here illegally attend high school, and then 'say' they'll get their PR status eventually. It's BS.

http://cbs11tv.com/business/education/Illegal.Immigrants.Tuition.2.1562336.html
DALLAS (AP) ― More than 12,000 illegal immigrants, non-permanent residents or non-U.S. citizens paid in-state tuition or received other such financial aid at public colleges and universities across Texas during late 2009, the Dallas Morning News reported Monday.
The figures from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board show about 1 percent of all Texas college students, in the fall semester, benefited from a 2001 law granting such in-state tuition.
The law says students who are not U.S. citizens and want to seek the assistance must have attended school in the state for at least three years before they graduate from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to seek permanent residency.
During the fall semester, 12,138 students benefited from the law. Texas awarded about $33.6 million in state and institutional financial aid to those students between fall 2004 and summer 2008, according to the newspaper.
Gov. Rick Perry, who earlier this month won the GOP primary, supports the law aiding illegal immigrant students. Perry, in a recent debate, said the students are on the path to citizenship.
The Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas filed a challenge to the law in December.
"It's not like we're swimming in budget surpluses," said coalition attorney David Rogers, who maintains that taxpayers suffer because of the law. "It's the responsibility of the government of Mexico to educate Mexican citizens."
University of Houston law professor Michael A. Olivas said federal law allows states to draft their own policies. "It is a matter for states to determine," said Olivas. "In-state status is a state issue."
Former legislator Rick Noriega, who sponsored the in-state tuition law, said that educating the students is an economic development issue.
"This is about access to higher education," said Noriega, now the president of Avance, a nonprofit organization that educates Hispanic parents on preparing children for school.
"The alternative is to slam the door on any hopes and dreams. How are they going to perform in high school if they don't even have a chance at higher education?" he said.

From the article:
""The law says students who are not U.S. citizens and want to seek the assistance must have attended school in the state for at least three years before they graduate from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to seek permanent residency.""
So yeah, it's jacked up and they don't even have to be a PR to get the assisstance. Just be here illegally attend high school, and then 'say' they'll get their PR status eventually. It's BS.

http://cbs11tv.com/business/education/Illegal.Immigrants.Tuition.2.1562336.html
DALLAS (AP) ― More than 12,000 illegal immigrants, non-permanent residents or non-U.S. citizens paid in-state tuition or received other such financial aid at public colleges and universities across Texas during late 2009, the Dallas Morning News reported Monday.
The figures from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board show about 1 percent of all Texas college students, in the fall semester, benefited from a 2001 law granting such in-state tuition.
The law says students who are not U.S. citizens and want to seek the assistance must have attended school in the state for at least three years before they graduate from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to seek permanent residency.
During the fall semester, 12,138 students benefited from the law. Texas awarded about $33.6 million in state and institutional financial aid to those students between fall 2004 and summer 2008, according to the newspaper.
Gov. Rick Perry, who earlier this month won the GOP primary, supports the law aiding illegal immigrant students. Perry, in a recent debate, said the students are on the path to citizenship.
The Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas filed a challenge to the law in December.
"It's not like we're swimming in budget surpluses," said coalition attorney David Rogers, who maintains that taxpayers suffer because of the law. "It's the responsibility of the government of Mexico to educate Mexican citizens."
University of Houston law professor Michael A. Olivas said federal law allows states to draft their own policies. "It is a matter for states to determine," said Olivas. "In-state status is a state issue."
Former legislator Rick Noriega, who sponsored the in-state tuition law, said that educating the students is an economic development issue.
"This is about access to higher education," said Noriega, now the president of Avance, a nonprofit organization that educates Hispanic parents on preparing children for school.
"The alternative is to slam the door on any hopes and dreams. How are they going to perform in high school if they don't even have a chance at higher education?" he said.

Well, the Tea Party is legitimate BUT 'special interests' have added their 2 cents into the mix,just as they will with the Coffee Party as well. It's almost near impossible to keep them out in this day and age...
The sad part is, because of how 'special interests' have gotten a bad wrap, that no one takes them seriously even if they are legitimate in their nature.
Pelosi is a dumb ###### who was calling them 'atroturf' just because they opposed her and before any special interests had really pushed into the Tea Party. Pelosi calls anyone who opposes her 'astroturf' and think you're an imbecile for not seeing her ways.

#######?
One minute we're supposed to return messages and dress up and the next minute you tell us to be ourselves??????????
No wonder men, once they acquire a certain level of emotional maturity (it takes us time, I know), no longer pay any mind to what women say.
After all, whatever you say today you will contradict tomorrow, right?

Well, the Tea Party is legitimate BUT 'special interests' have added their 2 cents into the mix,just as they will with the Coffee Party as well. It's almost near impossible to keep them out in this day and age...
The sad part is, because of how 'special interests' have gotten a bad wrap, that no one takes them seriously even if they are legitimate in their nature.
Pelosi is a dumb ###### who was calling them 'atroturf' just because they opposed her and before any special interests had really pushed into the Tea Party. Pelosi calls anyone who opposes her 'astroturf' and think you're an imbecile for not seeing her ways.

From the article:
""The law says students who are not U.S. citizens and want to seek the assistance must have attended school in the state for at least three years before they graduate from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to seek permanent residency.""
So yeah, it's jacked up and they don't even have to be a PR to get the assisstance. Just be here illegally attend high school, and then 'say' they'll get their PR status eventually. It's BS.

I doesn't look bad, BUT it is kind of not really easy to read... It seems like everything got smaller or something. *shrug*
Also the topic images aren't there yet and the little folder icons that represent topic are confusing/slightly annoying.
In all honest I do think some would like this new theme though, while others won't.
Can you possibly make the old theme 'selectable' down at the bottom? Make the new one the 'default' theme and just have the option to pick the old one

He can champion/like whatever he wants.
He's still wrong.
Everyone wants health care reform. It's just the current bill will put us into a bigger mess than we are already in...... Granted, some seem to think that's the point though.

He can champion/like whatever he wants.
He's still wrong.
Everyone wants health care reform. It's just the current bill will put us into a bigger mess than we are already in...... Granted, some seem to think that's the point though.