Kill ObamaCare using this excerpt

najmp ^ | October 28, 2010 | Henry J. Aaron, Ph.D./upchuck

[JSteff]

Supreme court members can also be removed from the bench. It has happened, and it can be done.

That would require the Senate which we do NOT have. See me tag line.

[grumpygresh]

The de-fund (not appropriating funding) approach can be done in conjunction with the symbolic repeal approach. In fact, it is the constitutional responsibility of each house member to not appropriate funds for an unconstitutional law.

The de-fund approach must be accompanied by vigorous oversight hearings of all important aspects of 0bamacare. We must examine privacy concerns with electronic medical records, rationing boards, physician penalties for non-compliance with rationing, IRS enforcement rules with detailed information on fines and penalties for non-compliance of mandates, cost analysis of subsidies for exchanges and ramifications of people taking the penalty (instead of buying insurance) as they do in MA right now.

Get Berwick and Sebelius up there ASAP and ask TOUGH really TOUGH questions! (if they don’t go, even more reason to de-fund) The Kagan SCOTUS hearings were way too soft, and I expect and demand that the House members will be sharp and incisive in their questioning. We will also need some good experts on our side to critique 0bamacare when the Marxists have their turn at questioning (someone like Dr. Janda?).

Once we have some good videos of these hearings, they will go viral (that will be our job). The MSM will no longer be able to write the narrative of government shutdown like they did in 1995 with Newt vs Clinton.

[ModelBreaker]

“That could be a complex business. But if any of the current departments or agencies use any of THEIR funding to implement it in any way, then they should be defunded, too, as much as necessary. The prospect of losing their funding should make any agency hesitate to act on implementation.”

Agreed. But our pitch can be: “Defunding just postpones the Obamacare decision, which was done precipitously and with strange procedural trickery. The American people should take a breath and just wait for two years. Maybe their congressmen will have read the bill by 2012. The American people should be able to decide in 2012 whether to repeal it or not. In the meantime, defunding just puts things on hold so the American people can decide in two years.”

That’s a softer line that’s harder to attack than defunding. And, it makes the rats run on Obamacare AGAIN in 2012. That’s the last thing they want to do.

[nolongerademocrat]

So far during this administration the FBI has proven themselves to be virtually useless in matters that involve Obama.

[skr]

I understand that, but where’s the check and balance on Congress when it comes to them paying themselves? When my business slowed down, I had to take a pay cut; the same should happen to them when the economy fares badly.

[RobinOfKingston]

Thus Congress (specifically, the House) can just sit on its hands and watch ObamaCare wither on the vine. What could be easier?

The down side to just "sitting on its hands" is that the bilthy fastards on the other side might get back into control. At the earliest opportunity this piece of trash needs to be eliminated.

[JimWayne]

The down side to just "sitting on its hands" is that the bilthy fastards on the other side might get back into control. At the earliest opportunity this piece of trash needs to be eliminated.

Exactly! The RINOs in Congress will argue against killing it by giving excuses. Repeal it. Get the Senators who oppose the repeal on record. Let Obama veto it. Use it against the Dims in 2012.