RSample.com

According to the Associated Press, President Obama later today will be signing the executive order that prohibits federal funding for abortion.  Rep. Stupak and other “pro-life” democrats will be invited.  It will be a private signing. (AP)

What a contrast  to the almost college-party atmosphere that surrounded the signing of the health care reform bill.  Festivity surrounds the enactment of a rotten bill that among other things provides for abortion.  Closed doors and no ceremonies accompany an act that saves babies.

Does Rep. Stupak know that he already has been lied to?  He insisted on a public signing of such an order.  In a recent interview with Fox News, Rep. Stupak fully admitted nothing is stopping President Obama from rescinding his order the very next day.  Yet – instead of voting no so that some sort of law could be codified about abortions – he instead put his trust in a president that has no ideological reason to stop abortions, and who has consistently broken campaign promises in order to get things done.

Abortion is not a private matter.  A study done by Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health shows that 93% of all abortions are done for purely social reasons.  These reasons include:

• Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
• Feels she can’t afford baby 23%
• Has all children she wants/other family responsibilities 19%
• Relationship problem/single motherhood 8%
• Feels she isn’t mature enough 7%
• Interference with education/career plans 4%
• Parents/partner wants abortion >1%

Less then 7% are for hard cases like rape, incest, or the health of the mother. (Fact sheet, PDF Download)

What do these numbers say about a society that allows for the routine murder of a baby for such trivial reasons?  What does this say about a President who has done everything to ensure that a woman can kill her baby and has done nothing to protect that baby itself?  What does this say about the foolishness of Rep. Stupak who have now allowed a bill to go into law that does nothing whatsoever to protect the unborn?

Mr. Stupak and others will find that they will have to answer for their foolishness.  And it won’t be done in private.

Pundits and politicians lately have been harping on the growing distrust between the Senate and the House. One blog commenter even said “If the House and the Senate do not trust each other, how can the American people trust the government.” He is correct, and it is one sign that the Founding Fathers really knew what they were doing.

John Feehery

John Feehery has an excellent article over at CNN entitled “Can the House trust the Senate?” His opening two paragraphs just about say it all:

When the Founding Fathers decided to create a bicameral legislative branch, they were trying to make things difficult for the federal government to grab power from the people.

What the Founding Fathers may not have foreseen was how much the House and the Senate would grow to dislike and distrust each other. Why is this important now? Democrats in the House may have to take the political risk of voting to pass the health care bill based on assurances from the Senate that the upper chamber will eventually modify the law to change some things House Democrats don’t want.

The Founding Fathers set up a Congress that had two competing interests – the House that represented the people, and the Senate that represented the states. These two houses of Congress were always meant to be at odds with each other – in order to protect the people it was meant to serve. James Wilson (1791):

…a single legislature is calculated to unite in it all the pernicious qualities of the different extremes of bad government. It produces general weakness, inactivity, and confusion; and these are intermixed with sudden and violent fits of despotism, injustice and cruelty. (Of Government, The Legislative Department, Lectures on Law)

Add to this bicameral house an entire government with branches that share different powers equally. The entire government is meant to be at odds with itself – with a certain amount of distrust and perhaps hostility –in order to protect the Republic which it serves. The Founding Fathers built in this level of distrust within the government, because they had a healthy distrust of government itself. Thomas Jefferson: “That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” They slowed down the government – making it difficult to govern and pass laws – precisely because they wanted a limited government in the first place.

In this insane push towards a Health Care Reform – we can take comfort that the distrust that is going on is entirely healthy.

Yet again, some conservatives are looking at “moderate” Democrats as a good avenue to stopping this monstrous health care bill. And – yet again – conservatives will be disappointed.

Rep. Bart Stupak

According to Fox News, Representative Bart Stupak – the Democrat from Michigan who passed an amendment restricting the expansion of abortion in the new bill – is hopeful that a compromise can be reached.

“I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago,” Stupak told The Associated Press.

“The president says he doesn’t want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I,” Stupak said. “That’s never been our position. So is there some language that we can agree on that hits both points — we don’t restrict, we don’t expand abortion rights? I think we can get there.” (Fox News)

What Stupak and others are asked to do is in essence let the Senate-approved bill pass in the House, then trust the powers-that-be to go back and change things. The bill has to pass basically unchanged in the House in order for the Reconciliation Process to begin. In other words – the bill has to become law before any meaningful changes can be made to it.

Huh?

Congressman, don’t fall for it. According to Politifact.com, President Obama has yet to fulfill the majority of his promises. The ones he has fulfilled are ones that expand government expenditures and influence. Why would he want to change legislation after it has been passed? Given that the President has a 100% approval rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) (OnTheIssues), he has not political nor ideological reason to limit the murdering of babies. Congressman Stupak and other pro-life Democrats have based their careers of bucking their party on this issue. I am astounded that he would endanger his political future by trusting people who should not be trusted.

But then again, Stupak is not a moderate in any sense of the word. His view on healthcare says it all:

Health care is not a privilege it is a basic right that should be afforded to all Americans. In reforming health care, Congress is building on the existing framework by making it easier for employers to provide health insurance through government-sponsored programs. (Stupak’s Website)

No Congressman. Healthcare is not, nor ever has been, a right. It is a benefit, a perk, a way of keeping employees around. It is a hedge against catastrophe. It is nice to have – but I do not see it listed as a basic right. Nor does Congress have the right to take it over – as everything the government gets its hands into explodes into a cacophony of bureaucracy and red tape.

Congressman Stupak will probably cave – since his principles are at best mixed and at worst contrary and cannot be simultaneously held. What will probably stop this bill – if it does indeed get defeated – is not decency, nor honor. What will stop this bill will be – and probably only will be – the desire of some Democrats to stay in office just a little longer. Unlike Speaker Pelosi who is calling for a heroic vote in opposition to public opinion yet knows she risks nothing because of her very liberal voting district – quite a few Democrats know that they will have to face a very angry constituency come November.

And they really do like that job in Washington, DC.

Are we just at the point where “politician” and “corrupt” go hand in hand?

Look at the following examples:

• Chris Dodd – In trouble again over a gift of a house in Ireland that came suspiciously after securing a Presidential pardon. (The Associated Press)
• Senator Burris is not as clean as he made himself out to be. (The Sun Times)
• Speaker Pelosi continues to lie about what she knew about water boarding (Judicial Watch)
• Republican Senators and Congressmen who still do not get it about earmarks (RealClear Politics)

Clearly, these are not men and women who are morally competent to be elected. Yet, statistics show that House members have above a 90% re-election rate since 1974. Senators have a 80-90% chance of retaking their office. (Center for Responsive Politics).

The question then becomes – why do we keep reelecting them? The country clamored for a change in November, yet sent the same people back to Washington. No wonder we are still in a mess, still in gridlock, and still hearing about corruption scandals and unsubstantiated claims of falsehood. These people were corrupt before the elections – by sending them back we have in fact affirmed them in their dishonesty.

The mess that we see in Washington is OUR fault – we keep giving power to those whose irresponsibility has led us to this point. Imagine if we the people decided to always vote against the incumbent for the next 6 elections – that the time of the career politician is over? Imagine the fear that would be struck into the hearts and minds of our representatives. I think a little fear would do them good.

Yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi accused the Central Intelligence Agency of lying to Congress about the use of waterboarding.  In an extraordinarily disjointed press conference, she adamantly denied having any knowledge that the technique was in use, just that the Bush administration was thinking of using it.

Speaker Pelosi is lying.  You can tell – because the liberal press – which has supported her for these last two years – are pouncing on her like sharks on a wounded California seal.   Some excerpts from the “Big Three”:

Pelosi says she was only briefed once about harsh interrogation methods and was not told waterboarding was being used against top al Qaeda detainees. But the the CIA pointed to recently released documents that raise questions about Pelosi’s account, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr. (CBS News)

A report released last week directly contradicted Pelosi’s recollections of the briefing. The Director of National Intelligence’s report indicated that the speaker was in fact briefed about such techniques used on Zubaydah — one of three terrorist suspects subjected to waterboarding, an interrogation tactic that simulates drowning. (ABC News)

The speaker’s discomfort was evident yesterday as she was grilled by reporters for the first time since the CIA issued information suggesting that she and others were told about the use of the techniques, including waterboarding, at a classified briefing on Sept. 4, 2002. Pelosi was then the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee. (NBC News)

So, file the papers.  Either bring the felony case agains the members of the CIA who lied to congress, or file the papers to commit the Speaker to intense psychological counseling.  Hopefully, the citizens of her district will demand the latter.