Tag Archives: November 9

Health Care Bill DOA in Senate, November 9, 2009, Joseph Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, Harry Reid, Obama socialist bill, Moderate Democrats oppose, Government health insurance unacceptable

From Fox News, November 9, 2009.

“House Health Bill Has Nowhere to Go in Senate

Government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to some Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate . If a government health plan is part of the deal “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn, said.”

“The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate.

Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and “take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people.”

The problem is that the Senate won’t run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

If a government plan is part of the deal, “as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.

“The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively.

Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.

Nonetheless, the House vote provided an important lesson in how to succeed with less-than-perfect party unity, and one that Senate Democrats may be able to adapt. House Democrats overcame their own divisions and broke an impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudgingly accepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortion opponents demanded.

In Senate, the stumbling block is the idea of the government competing with private insurers. Liberals may have to swallow hard and accept a deal without a public plan in order to keep the legislation alive. As in the House, the compromise appears to be to the right of the political spectrum.

Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has given the Democrats a possible way out. She’s proposing to allow a government plan as a last resort, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. This is the “trigger” option.

That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. “If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position,” Landrieu said last week. “It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim.”

Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program. “I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today,” he said.

For now, Reid is trying to find the votes for a different approach: a government plan that states could opt out of.

The Senate is not likely to jump ahead this week on health care. Reid will keep meeting with senators to see if he can work out a political formula that will give him not only the 60 votes needed to begin debate, but the 60 needed to shut off discussion and bring the bill to a final vote.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/09/house-health-senate/

 

 

Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Ellis Washington article, November 9, 2008

The US Constitution must be upheld

         Part 1

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President;”

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

US Constitution, Amendment I

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.”

US Constitution, Amendment XV, Section 1
The US Constitution and Amendments were fought for by the blood of thousands of Americans of all races and religions. Is there anyone reading this that would allow the US Constitution to be ignored or trampled on? Which of the above provisions would you ignore? If one is not adhered to, aren’t the rest subject to not being upheld?

We have a unique situation in US History. Barack Obama has passed the first hurdle of obtaining the US Presidency without being eligible. Philip J
Berg filed a lawsuit in Federal Court on August 21, 2008 that stated Obama
is Indonesian and not eligible to be president. That lawsuit is now before
the US Supreme Court. Here is the latest statement from Mr. Berg:

“For Immediate Release: – 11/07/08

U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO
BERG’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS
(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”

Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.

The Defendants’ response is due by December 1st and Mr. Berg’s reply will be submitted thereafter.”

Mr. Ellis Washington, is a constitutional expert. Here is his background:

“Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.””

Mr. Ellis Washington has written an article for World Net Daily on Mr. Berg’s lawsuit, Judge Surrick’s ruling and the consequences of not addressing this important constitutional issue. Here are some exerpts:

“I was in the delivery room in [Mombosa,] Kenya, when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.
~ Obama’s paternal grandmother

Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution.

~ Philip Berg, petitioner – Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama, et al. (2008)

As President-elect Barack Obama ascends to the presidency of the United States, there still remains a looming cloud above his head like the sword of Damocles. If and when that sword will fall plunging America into a constitutional crisis depends on a number of desperate and remarkable variables.

Before I get into these variables, let’s examine what the Constitution says. What are the requirements to become president? Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that a president must:

be a natural born citizen of the United States;
be at least 35 years old;
have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.
The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.

I know there are those who say Obama has produced an authentic birth certificate and posted it on his website, but experts and amateurs alike quickly found numerous errors in that document and deemed it a forgery (and a bad one at that).

Philip J. Berg, a Democratic operative and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, has assumed the tragic role of Prometheus, ascended Mount Olympus, the abode of Zeus, and has launched a one-man campaign to force Obama to verify his U.S. citizenship by suing the senator, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, to verify that indeed he is worthy to be president of the United States by producing a real birth certificate.”

Read more here (This is a must read):

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

This is the first part of a series of articles that are intended to inform
the American public of the election process and the applicable laws and
responsibilities of those involved. There are built in safeguards in the
election process from the Electoral College votes to the meeting of
Congress to validate the votes. It is hoped that the information provided
will allow you to better understand the process and arm you as you
help keep the Electoral College Electors, state officials and Congress
accountable to uphold the US Constitution.