Decorum vs. Outrage
The Patriot Flag I am flying today is the South Carolina State Flag. Here is why …
South Carolina
Today is relatively quiet … lots of talk, discussion, etc. But basically nothing is looming that threatens liberty (today!). After the Joe Wilson flap, maybe we should take a closer look at the “rules.” So lets focus on the “rules” then make our opinions. The rules were not difficult to find, here’s a piece the Politico put up that defines them fairly well.
. . . . . . . . . . . . Their thoughts . . . . . . . . . .
Politico As stated in Cannon’s Precedents, on January 27, 1909, the House adopted a report in response to improper references in debate to the President. That report read in part as follows:
- “It is… the duty of the House to require its Members in speech or debate to preserve that proper restraint which will permit the House to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members or antagonism from those other branches of the Government with which the House is correlated.”
As a guide for debate, it is permissible in debate to challenge the President on matters of policy. The difference is one between political criticism and personally offensive criticism. For example, a Member may assert in debate that an incumbent President is not worthy of re-election, but in doing so should not allude to personal misconduct. By extension, a Member may assert in debate that the House should conduct an inquiry, or that a President should not remain in office. Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”However, the Senate rules on decorum and debate do not prohibit personal references to the President. Senate Rule XIX governing decorum and debate is applied only to fellow Senators and “does not extend to the President, the Vice President, or Administration officials and a Senator cannot be called to order under rule XIX for comments or remarks about them…” (Senate Procedure, p. 741).
. . . . . . . . . . . . My thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ambiguity again? No, valid legislative double talk!
I am pretty sure these people write these rules so, depending on who is doing what, they can point at a rule and “interpret” it any way they like. Rules like these say: “well, sort of, but in this case, or that, you know, maybe”. So I guess it comes down to common sense and courtesy. In the Joe Wilson flap, both sides are easy to understand. The “decorum” must be preserved or there would be legislative chaos. However, a President should not make a statement that is in direct contradiction to a law he is asking to be passed., that would be a LIE being presented to a Joint Session of Congress.
Let’s Look at President Obama’s Lies at the Joint Session of Congress:
- FACTS: The legislation Obama was pushing at the time of the “flap” did not state illegal aliens are not covered, therefore by default they were covered! The CRS (Congressional Research Service) confirms that Illegals are/were covered under the then-present version HR-3200.
- Also a Republican amendment stating that was VOTED DOWN by the Democrat majority, why if the legislation already disallowed it?
- Obama called the legislators liars FIRST. A President can call people in a Joint Session of Congress liars and is not “admonished” but someone calls him a liar after he does that and that breaks the rules? Transcript from his speech:
Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.
Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie plain and simple. Now… Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
(UNKNOWN): That’s a lie. <- (Joe Wilson)
- And another one at the Joint Session: Remember when Obama talked about the poor man with cancer that died because he couldn’t get health care insurance? Well, guess what … that was a LIE … In fact, the man, Otto S. Raddatz, didn’t die because the insurance company rescinded his coverage once he became ill, an act known as recission. Source HERE His sister secured a life-extending stem-cell transplant for him. Raddatz died this year, nearly four years after the insurance showdown. Obama couldn’t even tell a little “heart throbbing story” truthfully.
- Also, on the Friday afternoon “document dump” from the White House, the “language” of the bill was changed to disallow health care for illegal aliens. How much proof do we need, folks?
At what price? So you have to ask, “what price” do we have to pay to get something done? To get illegal aliens out of the health care bill, was the price that Joe Wilson paid too high? And when an ABSOLUTE LIE is stated in a Joint Session from the President’s lips … does “decorum” allow such behavior from a President of the United States … or if he has the “audacity” to do that, should someone who KNOWS it is a like not have the audacity to say “STOP IT!”
- In an earlier post, I mentioned a lady I encountered on the mall during the 9-12 March on DC. Her sign said: “I’m off the Sidelines … A First Time Protester… And I’m Here to STAY!” From looking at that crowd I was in and listening to what they were saying, there were a lot of “first timers” there. I think people are starting to take the risk, pay the price (of annoyance) and start saying “NO! THIS ISN’T RIGHT!” That’s what I saw last Saturday.
This isn’t Democrats, this is Dangerous! What people still don’t “get” is that what is happening is DIFFERENT and DANGEROUS to anything we’ve ever seen in the USA. This isn’t Bill Clinton tring to pass some bill, or George Bush pushing for illegals. This isn’t “politics” … 1/2 of which I’ll disagree with as you disagree with the other 1/2. That’s politics, debate, etc. All healthy for a Democratic Republic. But this is DIFFERENT. We’ve never had an avowed Communist appointed to the high level of the government. We’ve never had a President who wanted to use ACORN (total corruption) brought into Washington to “help him shape” the new administration. These people are not “Democrats” … that are RADICALS and there is one hell of a difference. (Give me Hillary, Bill, Al, even the war hero of Vietnam, John and I’ll breath a sigh of relief… yes relief … that would be “politics” … this is different!)
Make YOUR point!
What’s YOUR point? (Have you even got one?)
This administration, with TRILLIONS in spending (leaving George Bush way behind!) with “redistributing the wealth” ideas, with taking over giant corporations and giving them to the unions … is not a bunch of Democrats having fun. This is you and me losing our country to Socialism. Decorum is not going to mean anything to these people. Decorum got us the bill as it was, shouting out “You Lie” got it changed! We are going to have to get off the comfortable “sidelines” and get in the game. If you are a Republican, shame on you for supporting do-nothing republicans. If you are a Democrat, shame on you for blindly supporting this administration, just because they “say” they are Democrats. If you are an American, you better wake up, see what’s going on, and do something about it. Maybe you’ll see a political button that says, “ACORN helps PEOPLE” … are you going to ignore it or get into somebody’s face? Decorum got us “here” … I’m not going any further. In the struggle of Decorum vs. Outrage … I’ve chosen a side. Have you?
CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
