NEW LOW FOR BACKROOM DEALS?

Is it possible that the health care votes of two congressmen in California could be bought with the promise to turn the water back on for farmers in their state?

This story began in December of 2008, when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service became responsible for imposing water restrictions on farmers in the San Joaquin valley in California. The reason? To prevent harm to an endangered 2" fish known as the Delta Smelt.

Via the Wall Street Journal from September 9th, 2009:

The result has already been devastating for the state's farm economy. In the inland areas affected by the court-ordered water restrictions, the jobless rate has hit 14.3%, with some farming towns like Mendota seeing unemployment numbers near 40%. Statewide, the rate reached 11.6% in July, higher than it has been in 30 years. In August, 50 mayors from the San Joaquin Valley signed a letter asking President Obama to observe the impact of the draconian water rules firsthand.

The article also cites Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to get Obama to label the region a federal disaster area to no avail. Senator Dianne Feinstein didn't or was unable to get the Department of the Interior to turn the water back on either.

I found this excerpt from the Journal particularly disturbing. I fail to see it as anything other than soft genocide.

...the livelihoods of tens of thousands of humans are also at stake. If the Obama Administration wants to help, it can take up Governor Schwarzenegger's request that it revisit the two biological opinions that are hanging farmers and farm workers out to dry.

Ok, now let's bring this up to present day. Believe it or not, there is actually speculation - no doubt fueled by the high number of bribes for health care votes - via an article from Investor Business Daily:

The water spigots are back on, at least temporarily, in California's Central Valley. Turned off to protect a tiny fish, they happen to be in the districts of two congressmen "undecided" on health care reform.

One could chalk it up to good fortune or just good constituent service. But in the middle of a contentious health care debate marked by Cornhusker Kickbacks and Louisiana Purchases, we may be forgiven if we find an announcement by the Department of the Interior regarding California's water supply a tad too coincidental.

That would be the same Department of Interior that Schwarzenegger wouldn't approach and Feinstein promised to? Now we learn that the Dept. of the Interior has decided to move up such an announcement from March 22nd to March 16th, the week of the contentious health care vote? Why? The claim is that it was due to the "urging" of politicians, two of whom are House Democrats that have been listed as "undecided" on the health care vote. The other includes Feinstein, who has allegedly been pushing for this. The timing is very curious.

According to the Interior announcement, "Typically (the Bureau of) Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators (Diane) Feinstein and (Barbara) Boxer, and Congressmen (Jim) Costa and (Dennis) Cardoza."

Blue Dog Democrats Costa, who represents California's 20th Congressional District (Fresno), and Cardoza, who represents the 18th (Stockton to Modesto), are both listed as "undecided" in the upcoming vote on health care reform, whether it be on the Senate bill itself or the "deem and pass" resolution known as the Slaughter rule, after Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter.

Both Costa and Cardoza were "undecided" this past December as well:

To get them out of the "undecided" column in last December's House vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership promised $500 million for a new University of California-Merced Medical School. Costa and Cardoza then voted "aye."

If this is what it appears it could be, the Obama administration has had the power or influence necessary to turn the water back on all along but didn't. It would also mean the Obama administration has been holding the threat of soft genocide over the heads of Americans.

Read it all.

RUSSIANS TO DRILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO?

These kinds of stories are disturbing on a multitude of levels. Ask yourself a simple question. Why would a source of oil much closer to the shores of country A be off limits to country A, which is already in dire economic straits, while country B, a traditional cold war enemy of country A be permitted to access that oil?

Country A is the United States and country B is Russia. Via the Washington Times:

The Obama administration is poised to ban offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf until 2012 or beyond. Meanwhile, Russia is making a bold strategic leap to begin drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. While the United States attempts to shift gears to alternative fuels to battle the purported evils of carbon emissions, Russia will erect oil derricks off the Cuban coast.

Offshore oil production makes economic sense. It creates jobs and helps fulfill America's vast energy needs. It contributes to the gross domestic product and does not increase the trade deficit. Higher oil supply helps keep a lid on rising prices, and greater American production gives the United States more influence over the global market.

The Op-ed goes on to explain how Obama wants the United States to shun oil and go green. As we all know, Obama's claims have been that going green is necessary to save planet earth from man-made climate change. If Obama is so concerned about Al Gore's earth saving mission, why would he not raise a stink about Russia not only refusing to get on board with that mission but slapping Al Gore and the United States in the face by doing it in the Gulf of Mexico?

In fact, the likes of Obama and Gore continue to reserve their anger and derision for their own citizens who disagree with them.

Read the whole thing.

RADIO HOST MARK LEVIN SET TO SUE OVER OBAMA CARE

On Mark Levin's March 18th radio show, he said that if the health care monstrosity passes on Sunday, his federal complaint will be filed the same day. At issue is the use of the Slaughter Solution to pass a major piece of legislation that will take over one sixth of the U.S. economy.

Named in the suit are none other than President Barack Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Health & Human Services Director Kathleen Sebelius.

At the heart of the suit is the Slaughter Solution or "deem and pass", which permitted House members to vote on a rule that allowed them to reconcile the Senate Bill while deeming that Bill as having passed. That Senate Bill would not have passed with an up or down vote for primarily two reasons:

1.) House Democrats opposed to it, like pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak could not take the Senate at its word that it would reconcile the bill after the fact.

2.) The Bill is so unpopular with the American people that many Democrats won't vote "yes" on it but many of those same Democrats would vote "yes" on a rule that deems the bill to have passed. They are trying to hide their vote.

Levin's biggest weapon in the lawsuit appears to be Article I, Section VII, Clause II of the U.S. Constitution:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. 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 key part within that clause is obviously the mandate that each bill must pass both Houses via "yeas" and "nays". That is really the bedrock of Levin's proposed case.

Defendants and Obama administration apologists may mock the suit as something that is inspired by an angry serf with no chance of winning but a few things to remember.

The only reason this process has dragged on as long as it has is that the American people began standing up to Big Government in the form of Tea Parties and Town Halls. Talk radio and internet blogs have been hugely responsible for rallying the American people. They have created virtual communities consisting of people who haven't met but are on the same page. Levin is a very well known talk show host whose book, "Liberty and Tyranny" was a huge best seller and was #1 for 12 consecutive weeks.

If Obama care passes because of the Slaughter Solution, look for that same huge swath of Americans - already outraged and certain to be more outraged as a result of such a scenario - to rally behind Levin. Adding certain fuel to this will also be Levin's talk radio allies. Unlike Michael Savage who - love him or hate him - has seemingly alienated fellow talk show hosts with his style. Savage is incredibly smart, entertaining, and informative, often willing to say what many others won't but has been unable to rally big name talk radio hosts to his cause when he was banned from Britain for his speech. Personally, I don't think that's reason enough for people not to stand with him but it's an inescapable reality.

Unlike Savage, Levin's allies include the #1 and #2 talk show hosts in the country - Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. If this health care bill becomes the law of the land, I expect Levin's lawsuit to take center stage in the Tea Party movement. Look for bloggers and talk radio listeners to rally behind him in a big way.

In addition to being a legal and constitutional scholar, Levin also heads a law firm. For more on why Levin should be taken very seriously, check out this article from Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator.

Read Levin's suit here.