I'd heard some info about this in the last few days, but Matthew Breitbart's Big Peace site and the Washington Times have a pretty good roundup of what's going on.
Short version, the government got told they have to make sure deployed troops can vote. the Obama administration, knowing that troops will vote against democrats, has seen fit to pass on actually enforcing the rules that will make it so troops are guaranteed their rights to vote even when deployed.
Instead, as is noted in the story, the Obama administration is more interested in restoring voting rights for felons - as he expects them to vote for him.
Transparent pandering to whoever will vote him and his leftist cronies into power in perpetuety.
It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.
"...always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." - George Orwell, 1984
Let's say you want to pass a bill in the US Senate.
To start, a bill requires a majority to pass. It gets proposed and talked about in committees, then it goes to the floor.
In the senate, before they pass a bill, they have to talk about it. If someone wants to delay the vote, they can filibuster. A filibuster is the procedure by which the senate can talk as long as they like (resulting in hours of CSPAN programming of senators reading the newspaper) unless 2/3 votes for cloture. Except the democrats changed it to 3/5 of senators "duly chosen and sworn" in the 1970s. So you only need 60 votes to stop anyone from talking about a bill and push the bill to a vote. Those 60 votes are what's referred to as a "supermajority", because those 60 can override any filibuster and thus put any bill up for a vote and pass anything they wish.
The democrats, up until the election of Scott Brown, had a 60 vote supermajority. They could push any bill to a vote, overriding any filibusters or objections, and then simply pass them. The democrats, up until Scott Brown's election in Massachussetts, could've passed anything they wanted in the senate. Nothing procedurally stood in their way.
The American people, by the tens if not hundreds of millions, opposed the democrats' attempts at forcing government-run health care.
Just a few.
This resulted in a few democrats being unwilling to commit to a vote for health care, because they doubted they'd be reelected in their home districts. Thus there were specific payoffs included in the "health care" bill to provide money for the senators' home districts. Specifically the "Louisiana Purchase" to secure Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's (D) vote and the"Cornhusker Kickback" to secure Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's (D) vote. The purpose of this pork was to help the senators counter their constituents' complaints by saying "look what I got for you".
Even then, the democrats couldn't get it together. Enough democrats were afraid for their own seats. They also may have been afraid of falling out of favor with the administration. Those who would be in favor with the administration might get some cushy job as a department secretary or an ambassador - something they could maintain their personal quality of life and status with.
So what's a democrat set on passing a bill whether the people want it or not to do? Reconciliation.
So what exactly is reconciliation? The short version is that you can pass a bill with 50 votes and ignore the filibuster. It's supposed to be primarily for tax bills.
It seems like it can lead to a tyranny of the majority, by simply overruling the minority. A lot of people oppose it.
Especially racist bigot hatemonger extremist right-wingnut rethuglican teabaggers who hate Obama like these racist bigot extremist right-wingnut rethuglican teabaggers:
Oh, wait.
I guess abuse of power only matters when it's republicans trying to confirm a judge using a rule the democrats created, rather than democrats trying to control 1/6th of the US economy, using the rule they created in the 1970s.
There seems to be a lot of "Mao" in the air recently in Washington D.C. Between Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director and the "Manufacturing Czar," Ron Bloom, one would almost think the Obama administration would celebrate the 60th Anniversary of Communist China(oh wait, they did).
Anita Dunn's proclamation came in a speech to a group of high school seniors, "...two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa. See for yourself below:
She goes on to say that he is one of the two people she turns to most. She uses both Mao and Mother Teresea both being advocates of being able to make choices for one's self. Mao Zedong was a demagogue who enforced his views at the barrel of a gun (more on that later) and didn't give a whole lot of choice to his opponents politically. So, to use him as a proponent of having individual choice doesn't make a lot of sense.
It gets better....
Ron Bloom, the "Manufacturing Czar" is on the record for saying things like:
"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense."
and things like:
"We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog."
So, for our beloved manufacturing czar (where's the jobs by the way) political power is enforced by the barrel of a gun, just like Chairman Mao used to do. If you think you can't believe what your seeing watch here:
It would see to me and to most others that there is a "Mao" infatuation at the White House. Well what have they shown us so far? They have shown us it is alright to get involved in the private sector by nationalizing banks, General Motors, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, by attacking dissent by attempting to alienate Fox news. Here is what makes it OK to do all of these things, its their choice, just like it was Mao's choice. Its their choice to politically strong arm corporations, news services and the citizens of the United States, and if necessary, according to the manufacturing czar they will use the barrel of a gun to do it just like their hero, Mao Zedong did. They don't believe in the individualism and personal freedom that was set into the Constitution written by Founding Fathers, they believe it is the supremacy and power of the federal government to regulate and provide for the citizenry that matters. To them government "choice" is the imperative, not your individual freedoms.
If the thought, "What would Mao do?" is the mindset at the White House it is going to be a rough 3 more years. Mao style politics have the FCC working on regulating the Internet and reimposing a newer, stricter version of the fairness doctrine or even raising the possibility of bringing the news media under federal control (see Czar Wars Episode 2, they sure wish that would happen).
Mao style politics have Fox News under the gun politically because they air news stories that are not commensurate with the agenda of the Maoist-in-Chief. Mao style politics have tremendous amounts of political pressure falling on other news services to not disseminate news stories that originate with Fox News. Mao style politics are responsible for grass roots, pro-constitution organizations being labeled as racist, astorturf, birthers, and tenthers.
As a nation and free people we need to ask, "What would the Founding Fathers do?" We need to do those things, we need to get back to the basics of the constitution, return the federal government back to its constitutional limits, elect people of integrity and honor to office, and rediscover our moral compass. Only then can we can America back on its feet and reestablish ourselves and the leader of the world.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">