She's appealing her 37 month sentence with this odd argument. Extorition's Hot, Bribery's Not.

Sometimes I parody quotes with silly exaggerations. So let me assure you: That quote is not exaggerated. That's straight from the lips of this monster.

The most ethical Conyers in history.

Posted by: Ace at 08:17 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 75 words, total size 1 kb.

AP's original reporting on Obama's remarks in Missouri:

Pelosi made her comments as Obama followed his campaign-reminiscent Pennsylvania trip of Monday with an appearance near St. Louis, pushing hard in the home stretch of the marathon battle to pass his signature domestic legislation.

“The time for talk is over. It’s time to vote. It’s time to vote. Tired of talking about it,” he told the crowd.

But that won't help in a sales pitch! Makes him sound peevish and not engaged with the effort, and we can't have that.

So AP's later feed omits it:

In St. Charles, Mo., on Wednesday Obama shouted to a crowd: "The time for talk is over. It's time to vote."

Thanks, AP! You deserve a big box of chocolates for your devotion to your boyfriend.

AP writes:

It will come down to a phenomenal effort by congressional leaders and the White House to win over skittish lawmakers after a year of incendiary debate, even as Obama keeps up campaign-style appearances designed to fire up public support.

CentristNet notes:

It should be noted, as it was not by the AP, that this final dickering and deal making between Democrats done behind closed doors last night was without any transparency, punctuating a process of over a year of such backroom, closed door negotiations between Democrats regarding Obamacare. The AP apparently sees this backroom dealing and efforts to twist arms of reluctant House Democrats as “a phenomenal effort”, essentially playing the role of Obama Administration cheerleader instead of objective news organization.

Phenomenal effort, AP!

Meanwhile, via Allah's Twitter feed, serious nomentum-- 25 or more serious no votes are now tallied, reducing that pool of 38 potential new yes votes down to a small pool of 13 or less. And that doesn't even include Stupak's 12+ abortion nos.

More than two dozen Democrats are expected to vote against the healthcare reform bill that will hit the House floor in the coming weeks.

At least 25 House Democrats will reject the healthcare reform legislation, according to a survey by The Hill, a review of other media reports and interviews with lawmakers, aides and lobbyists. Dozens of House Democrats are undecided or won't comment on their position on the measure.

The 25 opposed include firm no votes and members who are likely no votes. Most Democrats on The Hill's whip list are definitely going to vote no, but others, such as Reps. Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) and Harry Teague (N.M.), could vote yes.

However, The Hill has not yet put Democrats who are insisting on Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) language on abortion in the no category.

It gets a little worse, tool as noted by Drew: Hispanic Representatives are now agitating for the fixes to include a more generous treatment of illegal immigrants, permitting them to buy into the "health care exchanges." And they say now they'll vote against a plan that doesn't include that.

This is over-speculating, but, if a bill is doomed anyway, then each Congressmen is freed up to make maximalist demands that will please his constituents -- it's cost free, after all. The bill is doomed, so there's no real cost as far as hurting its chances of passage; might as well show off for your partisans and special interests.

So the Hispanic caucus making an 11th hour demand might indicate they're all pretty convinced this is going to fail.

Correction: I wrote sloppily that they were saying this "now" and it's an "11th hour demand." That's not quite right -- they've always opposed the Senate's language.

What's new here is that the caucus has been quiet about this, until now.

Corrected Again: I forgot I saw the Hispanic thing right here on AoSHQ. I changed the post a little to refer to Drew's post and omit the duplicative quotes.

Posted by: Ace at 08:04 AM | Comments (103)
Post contains 651 words, total size 4 kb.

Let's start with the bottom line...NY State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz (he of the no holding a cellphone while driving ban) is a putz.

Now Mr. Genius wants to ban the inclusion of salt in all food prepared by restaurants.

Ortiz admits that prior to introducing the bill he did not research saltÂ’s role in food chemistry, its effect on flavor or his billÂ’s ramifications for the restaurant industry. He tells me he was prompted to introduce the bill because his father used salt excessively for many years, developed high blood pressure and had a heart attack.

“I think salt should be banned in restaurants. I ask if a dish has salt in it, and if I does, I get something else that doesn’t have salt,” Ortiz tells me, before going on to say that he has eaten, and expects he will continue to eat, among other things, ham, cheese and bread in restaurants, all of which contain salt.

...Regardless of the intent, and accepting its sponsor’s claim that it is part of his campaign to improve the public’s health, the bill exhibits profound ignorance not only of matters of taste — literally — but also of the chemistry of cooking.

“It’s a preposterous notion,” says baker extraordinaire Michael London, whose Mrs. London’s Bakery has been a Saratoga Springs institution for more than three decades. “Not using salt would make breads insipid and anemic,” London says. Besides lacking flavor, saltless bread would also have different texture, density and other characteristics as a result of its altered chemistry, London tells me.

In food scientist Shirley O. Corriher’s “CookWise: The Hows and Whys of Successful Cooking,” she writes that even the minimal salt used in baking — as little as one-third of a teaspoon per cup of flour — plays four crucial roles in the development of dough: It enhances flavor, controls bacteria, slows yeast activity and strengthens dough by tightening gluten.

“The small amounts we are dealing with … are not enough to add significantly to dietary salt intake,” Corriher writes.

And on and on and on. In short, it's simply impossible to cook without salt. This jackass doesn't know anything about the subject but thinks he knows everything he needs to because he's...an elected official and he cares.

You can say this is crazy and it will never pass (and you'll probably be right) but look at all the other insanity these people do pass (smoking bans, tans-fat bans, etc). Sure the exceptionally crazy one may get thrown out, or not, but it makes the next limitation on freedom and choice look moderately sane by comparison and a bit easier to pass.

It's time we kick these nosy bastards out of office and fire at least half of their bureaucratic enforcers.

Life is a dangerous thing and it will end in death. No amount of government intrusion into our lives is going to change that, we should stop pretending otherwise.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:10 AM | Comments (606)
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

The timing couldn't be better:

A group of Hispanic lawmakers on Thursday will tell President Barack Obama that they may not vote for healthcare reform unless changes are made to the billÂ’s immigration provisions.

The scheduled meeting comes as Democratic leaders and the White House are struggling to craft a final bill that will attract 216 votes in the lower chamber.

Since last fall, Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) members have kept quiet, at least publicly, about their objections to the immigration provisions in the Senate bill.

The Senate language would prohibit illegal immigrants’ buying healthcare coverage from the proposed health exchanges. The House-passed bill isn’t as restrictive, but it does — like the Senate bill — bar illegal immigrants from receiving federal subsidies to buy health insurance.

Hispanic Democrats say they havenÂ’t moved from their stance that they will not vote for a healthcare bill containing the SenateÂ’s prohibitions.

Damn those Republicans for their intransigence!

More: It will be interesting to see what comes of this. These folks have to know that this only hurts the odds of a bill passing, which means the optimal response from Pelosi and Obama is: "You'll get nothing and you'll like it. Maybe we'll let the Comprehensive Immigration Piece of Shit out of committee this year if you pipe down for the next six months or so."

And now that the Hispanic Caucus has it's hand out and Stupak's Dozen have their hands out, what's restraining unions from demanding another concession on the excise tax? Or other groups from realizing that if the bill is going to collapse anyway, why not make a symbolic gesture for their personal interest group?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:26 AM | Comments (185)
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:18 AM | Comments (78)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Good evening and happy Hump Day all.

The World's Worst Drivers
Because sometimes driving in a straight line is hard. And sadly I doubt alcohol was involved with any of these accidents. For extra points try and find the subliminal message in the video.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:31 PM | Comments (892)
Post contains 428 words, total size 4 kb.

I think that's what it is.

Or it's something about the press covering Massa's "snorkle" sessions rather than Kucinich's bid to bug out of Afghanistan in 30 days.

Posted by: Ace at 02:55 PM | Comments (322)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Leon H. Wolf at RedState writes:

Having determined that they lack the votes in the House to pass the Senate bills as-is, House Democrats are attempting one of the most breathtakingly unconstitutional power grabs ever witnessed - a maneuver to deem the Senate bill ALREADY PASSED by the House by rule, despite the fact that it clearly has not. Now, as we have constantly reminded our ahistorical liberal friends who have already forgotten all of 2002-2006, the filibuster is constitutional because it is a Senate rule of debate, which is expressly authorized by Article I’s delegation of power to each house of Congress to set its own rules of debate. Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all [] Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.

And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, thereÂ’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by CongressÂ’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the lawÂ’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact.

Posted by: Ace at 12:30 PM | Comments (398)
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

"I felt the changes as dramatic as the Clinton health care package, which would affect every man, woman, and child in the United States, should be subject to scrutiny.

"I said Mr. President, I cannot in good conscience turn my face the other way.

"...

"Reconciliation was never, never, never intended to be a shield for controversial legislation."

Via Naked Emperor News.

Thanks to MS.

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (41)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

For bribery.

The judge agreed to exclude evidence that would have given her a sentencing range of 46 to 57 months, leaving him at 30 to 37. He gave her the 37.

At some point (trying to figure this out) started trying to withdraw her guilty plea.

You have to read this woman's rap sheet (at the link).

And she's senile John Conyers' "trophy" wife. Good Lord. Some trophy.

Posted by: Ace at 11:29 AM | Comments (138)
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.