The first part of Rock the Vote’s pledge is to a “government for the people.” However, a new poll out today indicates that the people clearly don’t support Obamacare. According to Quinnipiac University, only 38% of Americans support current health care reform efforts, with 56% opposed. Still, Rock the Vote wants young people to sexually manipulate the vast majority of America, even if it contradicts their pledge. Rock the Vote is essentially saying they don’t care what the American People want, they’ll do anything to get their way… much like Senate Democrats.

Over the past week, several Democratic Senators who were “on the fence” regarding health care reform, have sold their votes in exchange for millions in special interest dollars. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, by her own admission received $300 million in a Medicaid deal that benefits only her state. Bill Nelson of Florida got an exemption for 800,000 Sunshine State seniors, who would have seen cuts to their Medicare Advantage. Democrats promised their bill would save money through those cuts… which clearly won’t happen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut wrote-in a $100 million grant to an unnamed medical facility, in an unnamed state. Dodd reportedly admitted writing-in the provision, in hopes that his state would be the recipient.

While absolutely none of this will come as a surprise to YSP readers, many have joked that prostitution is now legal in the U.S. Senate, as countless Senators are whoring-out their vote. Now, Rock the Vote is taking that idea one step further in proposing the use of sex to sway the debate.

This organization claims to be non-partisan, yet their stated mission is to “engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country.” They claim to seek a government for the people, yet they don’t care what the people want. Worst of all, they claim to be on the side of young people, while simultaneously asserting that young people are a bunch of sex-crazed morons with no character or resolve. They’re basically saying “young people care more about sex and celebrities than personal convictions; therefore, it’s easy to trick them into supporting Obamacare.” Sorry Rock the Vote, but the young people I know, especially YSP readers, won’t be swayed by cheap sex with some bimbo in Birkenstocks and an Obama t-shirt, who would probably scream “Oh Barack!” anyway. Believe it or not, young people care about more than sex and TV stars.

It’s incredibly sad that young voters are increasingly represented by groups that openly regard them as stupid. YSP is for young people. Rock the Vote, P. Diddy, and most of Hollywood are not.

It’s no secret that Democrats are doing all they can to ram their health care bill through the Senate. The Obama administration has invested a ton of political capital, in a promise to reform health care by year’s end. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the pressure is on for members of the President’s party. Harry Reid has repeatedly stated his plan to vote on health care by Christmas. The Associated Press reported yesterday that the Majority Leader will likely meet his deadline, as the Senate is set for a final vote on Christmas Eve. Perhaps that’s why Senate Democrats seem so pressed for time…

Many Junior Senators within the majority party are asked to spend time in the seat of the President of the Senate. The reason for this is so that they learn the parliamentary procedure by “directing traffic” for a little while. Yesterday, as Junior Senators, Al Franken of Minnesota and Mark Begich of Alaska were asked to preside over a health care debate on the Senate floor. If you’ve never watched this sort of thing before, it’s quite interesting. Basically, different Senators speak to their colleagues about a bill. They stand before their peers and present a case for or against it. However, they are only allotted a certain amount of time. If they accidentally wrote a speech that is too long or have a few more things to say, they must request more time from whoever is in the seat of the President, i.e. Franken and Begich.

The first incident took place when John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, went over his time allotted by Senate rules. When his time was up, Cornyn requested an additional two minutes, for a few more remarks. Begich denied his request by saying “In my capacity as a Senator from Alaska, I object.” So respectfully, Cornyn stepped down from the podium. However, a few seconds later, Cornyn upped the ante by approaching the podium again, this time requesting an additional five minutes. Begich again said “no,” which greatly upset Cornyn. Cornyn then accused Begich of trying to hamper debate on an “important bill.” Cornyn then pointed out the obvious by stating that no other Senator was waiting to speak. At that point, Begich conceded and gave him the additional five minutes. Here is the video:

The second incident occurred when Joseph Lieberman, the Independent Democrat from Connecticut, went over his time allotted. Senator Lieberman proceeded to request an additional minute from Al Franken. That’s all! 60 seconds! Senator Franken responded with a page from the Begich playbook by saying “In my capacity as a Senator from Minnesota, I object.” Lieberman looked absolutely astonished and said “Really?” Here is the video:

This may sound boring to YSP readers who don’t typically watch C-SPAN, let alone C-SPAN 2. However, this is incredibly rare. When was the last time you saw a politician who wasn’t long-winded? The truth is: these guys love to hear themselves talk. Out of mutual respect, they usually let each other blather on and on, regardless of party affiliation.

My guess is that yesterday, Begich and Franken were under strict orders from Harry Reid not to let anyone go over on time. If the Democrats are going to ram their P.O.S. health care bill through the Senate by Christmas, they have to contain the debate and be VERY mindful of time. For putting their political ambitions above the American People, by rushing through the legislative process with little debate, The American Democratic Senator is the D-Bag of the Week! That includes all of them. From Reid, all the way down to freshmen like Franken and Begich.

Back in July, I wrote a piece on the perks of holding public office. In that post, I discussed the jet-setting ways of Speaker Pelosi and others in Congress. It’s not uncommon for elected officials to take lavish trips on the taxpayers’ dime. Just yesterday, the Wall Street Journal posted another story about the abuse of power in Washington.

According to the WSJ, 12 lawmakers, led by Rep. John Tanner, took a trip to Edinburgh for five days last month. The trip seemed include more pleasure than business. The Journal reports that in addition to rooms for sleeping, the 12 House members rented their hotel’s presidential suite and two adjoining rooms. The hotel cleared all the beds from those rooms, to accommodate a bar and snacking area. The three extra rooms were reportedly stocked with lots of liquor, beer, chips, salsa, cookies, and candy, at a cost of $1,500 per day. That’s over $7,000 on snacks and booze in less than a week! When was the last time you partied in Europle like that? Unless you’re a cast member of The Real World: Paris, I’m guessing it’s been awhile.

While in Scotland, the Legislators also spent a large portion of their time shopping, taking historical tours, and visiting the hotel spa. While shopping for Scotch and being pampered must have been fun and all, eleven of the 12 House members left the “conference” two days early. However, not before they ended their trip with a bit of fine dining, at one of Edinburgh’s nicest restaurants.

Not only did these people get to enjoy Scotland, in the lap of luxury, with your money… but they actually skipped-out of their duties early! That would be like getting a bonus for skipping work. Oh wait, that’s exactly what it is! I don’t know if I’m happy that they cut the spending spree short, or pissed at the fact that little was accomplished. Either way, this kid of behavior from our leaders is unacceptable… I thought Obama agreed.

This largely began in 2005, with a scandal surrounding a lobbyist named Jack Abramoff. Basically, this guy was flying politicians like Tom DeLay and Bob Ney around the world, sending them on golf outings, to concerts, etc. in exchange for political favors. The whole situation reeked of corruption and understandably, Congress adopted new restrictions on privately funded travel. Now, instead of some rich lobbyist spending corporate cash to wine and dine politicians, we as taxpayers pick up the tab. You would think, in the wake of such controversy, members of Congress would reign in their appetite for luxury. Instead, they simply found another way to pay for it.

These are the same people who shit their pants when AIG paid out millions in bonuses, after receiving bailout money. AIG was essentially using taxpayer money, instead of actual profits, to reward “successful” employees. I understand the negative sentiment towards corporate America that ensued. However, why is there not a matched degree of anger towards Congress? This week on 60 Minutes, the President railed against “fat-cats” on Wall Street. What about his fat-cat colleagues?

The life of a civil servant is not supposed to be sexy, as the title implies. These people do nothing to create wealth or turn a profit. Yet, they feel they deserve the life of a rock star! They travel to exotic places, with luxury accommodations, in the middle of a recession. It’s beyond insane. Lawmakers shouldn’t be living like this with public OR private money. If they want a more lavish lifestyle, they should go to the private sector, where money actually comes from. If they refuse to go quietly, just vote their ass out of office. It’s that simple.

According to a New York Times article posted on Saturday, state and federal agencies are increasingly monitoring social networking sites. The piece in the New York Times recounts a story in the Wall Street Journal this summer, about state revenue agents trolling Facebook and Myspace for tax cheats. It also mentions a piece in the Boston Globe, which quotes a Massachusetts district attorney as saying some local police officers had gone undercover on social networking sites, as part of ongoing investigations. I dug up a story from Monday on AuburnPub.com, about a New York man arrested in Florida, for crimes committed in several states, after the FBI subpoenaed the man’s profile information from Facebook.

The larger implications of government presence on social networking sites surfaced a few moths ago, in an article on Wired.com. According to the tech site, In-Q-Tel (the CIA’s investment arm) has been working with a company called Visible Technologies. Aptly named after its stated purpose, Visible Technologies specializes in mining “open source intelligence,” by monitoring a broad scope of social media. “Open source intelligence” could be described as information that is readily available to the public, yet slips under the radar due the sheer quantity of media we’re all subjected to. This includes message boards, blogs, etc. Visible Technologies has developed software capable of crawling over half a million of these websites a day, in search of information that could be useful to In-Q-Tel and ultimately, the CIA.

Donald Tighe, In-Q-Tel’s spokesman, told Wired.com that his company only solicits data from Visible on foreign social media. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a lawsuit against a half-dozen government agencies, including the CIA, in early December. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the EFF has requested information on the government’s use of social networking in investigations, data collection, and domestic surveillance.

When the Wired.com article was posted, Visible Technologies’ software did not have access to Facebook, as it was a closed network of users. But just last week, Facebook rolled-out their new privacy settings, which essentially make user profile information public, even indexed and searchable on Google and Bing. Users must take action by deliberately changing their privacy settings, to avoid much of their life from becoming “open source intelligence.”

While it may seem as though entities like Visible Technologies and the CIA just recently gained access to the Facebook community, the truth is that many of them may have been data mining for some time. In a totally separate piece, the New York Times reported on Sunday that several Facebook users have become victims of malicious viruses and programs from within the community. We’ve all seen them… you know, messages that appear to be from a friend, but are really just a bunch of guerilla spam from a resourceful marketing team.

I myself experienced this when I got a surprising message from a long lost friend a few months ago. The subject line read: “You weree caughht on our hiidden caamera!” The message was sent to 19 other people and contained a suspicious looking URL. Out of curiosity, I clicked the link (stupid I know) and was sent to an adult personals website. According to the New York Times, my friend and countless others have had their Facebook accounts hijacked, for the purpose of spamming all their friends. My question is: If seedy websites pushing casual sex have long since figured out how to manipulate Facebook, how could large government agencies like the CIA and FBI, with all their resources, have failed to do the same much sooner?

Aside from how easy it is to “follow” someone, Twitter feeds have been searchable on Google and Bing since the birth of the tweet. In October, the FBI raided the home of a New York man suspected of organizing a G20 protest via Twitter. My guess is that in addition to monitoring Twitter, the government has had a hand on the pulse of the Facebook community for some time as well.

Contrast that with the fact that during the Watergate Hearings, President Nixon, in collaboration with J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, was found guilty of a federal crime in harvesting information on private citizens. Nixon’s two clandestine and unconstitutional operations, COINTELPRO and The Huston Plan, targeted “political dissidents,” by using covert operatives, private informants, and wiretaps to observe targets in public and in private. Nixon endured a firestorm for collecting data on political protestors, with whom his beliefs did not coincide. Now, the Obama Administration has the ability to stop protests before they even start! How far we have come… or should I say “slid backwards?”

I would be remiss in not mentioning that the Bush Administration, through the USA PATRIOT Act, laid the foundation and set a precedent for the expansion of domestic surveillance under the Obama Administration. We’ve already seen this come to fruition in the healthcare debate. Back in August, the White House asked private citizens to forward any “fishy” emails about healthcare reform to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Reform of privacy law is long overdue. We live in the digital age. The American People shouldn’t have to choose between joining the rest of the world in the 21st century, and having some sense of privacy with regard to the federal government. Until Congress takes action on this and other issues that actually matter to the American People, I propose a market based, private sector solution: limit your exposure on Facebook and similar social media. Unless like me, you’re prepared to deal with the Orwellian state of things.

The families we fed were all wonderful people and were very grateful that others were willing to help them in a time of need. We decided not to take pictures of them (even though we said we would) because we didn’t want to embarrass anyone. However, I will share the first names of each person and tell you a little bit about their situation.

Liliana - This woman was the sweetest thing in the world. She was so humbled and thankful that someone was willing to help her struggling family. Her husband got laid off four months ago and she only works part time. They are currently struggling to save their home and just wanted to provide a nice Thanksgiving dinner for their three children.

Sharon - This woman and her family are having a really tough time. Her husband was laid off in July and has only been able to find part-time work. They live with their two daughters, two son in-laws, and Sharon’s 62 year-old brother who has emphysema. Sharon’s mother passed away ten years ago on Thanksgiving Day. This is the first Thanksgiving since her mother’s death that all her family has been together.

Tabitha - I don’t think anyone was worse off than this woman. She was in an abusive marriage that left her in a coma for three months! After leaving the hospital, she divorced her husband. As a result, Tabitha was left homeless and her children were sent to foster care. She remained homeless until a month ago. She was able to get an apartment and her children were coming to visit on Thanksgiving. More than anything, this woman just wanted to provide a nice meal for the children she misses so much.

Talisha - This woman recently lost her job due to a car accident in October. She was left injured and unable to work. She lives with her husband and three children. Providing a Thanksgiving dinner was so important to her because it also happened to be her husband’s birthday. Despite the trials in her life, she wanted to enjoy a nice holiday meal with her family.

Jen - This woman was a trooper. There’s no other way to say it. She just recently went back to work, after recovering from cancer. She is still undergoing chemo in the final stages of her treatment. Because of this, her medical bills have continued to accumulate. She has two children, both teenagers. She barely had time to meet us because she is working as much as possible to support her family. Luckily, we were able to provide her with a meal to afford her some breathing room.

Like I said, we were able to feed these families for about $28 a piece. That’s why Eatin’ Good in the ‘Hood is so important! Imagine not being able to come up with an extra $28 to celebrate Thanksgiving. Most of us don’t know what that is like. These people are going through a lot and it doesn’t take much to help them out and make their holiday special.

In the spirit of transparency, here are the financial records for all donations through the YSP website. Minus PayPal fees, we were able to raise close to $50. In addition to the $49.59 we raised online, we raised an additional $91.27 through other donations. So total, we brought in $140.86. You can view the receipts from our trips to the grocery store here and here.

YSP thanks everyone who helped with this effort. We hope you will help us feed more families in the future!

Abort73.com is a right to life website that sells clever, pro-life merchandise. Many of their t-shirts cast abortion in a different light, challenging people to re-evaluate their position. One of my favorite Abort73 shirts poses a very interesting question: “Would it bother us more if they used guns?” The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command will soon answer that question.

Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hasan, was charged with 13 counts of murder last Thursday, as he lay in a hospital bed. The problem is: Hasan actually killed 14 people during his deadly rampage two weeks ago. One of the victims, Francheska Velez, was pregnant with her unborn child as she was gunned down by Hasan. Army officials said the Criminal Investigation Command has not yet decided whether to charge Hasan with a 14^th count of murder.

This is especially troubling because the Unborn Victims of Violence Act explicitly protects the children of federal employees and members of the military. The law, nicknamed “Laci and Conner’s Law,” was passed in 2004, after the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son. Scott Peterson was subsequently convicted on two counts of murder and sentenced to death.

While the act was still in committee, a very disturbing photo was displayed outside both houses of Congress. The photo is of Tracy Marciniak and her unborn son, Zachariah. He was killed in the womb, during an assault on Tracy by her own husband in 1992. Zachariah died just days before he was set to arrive. Tracy testified before congress, in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. You can read the full transcript of her testimony here.

Many government officials work tirelessly to protect the lives of the unborn, and rightly so. The U.S. Declaration of Independence clearly states that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, there are plenty of other government officials who work tirelessly in pursuit of an agenda reminiscent of Nazi eugenics.

John Holdren, President Obama’s “science czar,” co-authored a textbook with Paul and Anne Ehrlich in 1973, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. In the book, Holdren states that a newborn baby will “ultimately develop into a human being,” if it is properly fed and socialized. Here is the full quote for context (not that it makes a difference):

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

Clearly, Holdren doesn’t view Francheska Velez, Laci Peterson, or Tracy Marciniak’s unborn children as humans. Hell, he doesn’t even view newborns as humans! However, Holdren’s radical views go far beyond the definition of a human.

In 1977, Holdren co-authored another book with the Ehrlichs, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. The book talks about forced abortions and “compulsory sterilization,” as methods of population control, to save the environment! The book also discusses accomplishing such radical change, through a global government called the “Planetary Regime,” which sounds like a bunch of Star Trek villains.

Here’s how the “textbook trio” describe their guiding principle: “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.” Holdren and his cohorts hold very elitist worldview. A worldview that was shared by none other than Adolf Hitler. The difference is that Hitler only cared about a high quality of life for Aryans.

Holdren attempted to redefine a human in 1973 and advocated forced abortion in 1977. Now, if Army officials fail to recognize Hasan’s 14th victim, they will effectively agree with Holdren and answer Abort73’s question with a resounding “no!” This would redefine murder and unconstitutionally nullify the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

This has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with freedom. When a government has the power to redefine very clear and specific legal terms, not to mention full-blown law on a whim, it’s only a matter of time before it systematically redefines our existence. The federal government is already growing at an unprecedented rate. With massive health care and climate change legislation on the horizon, we can’t afford a monumental redefinition of murder, and the dismantling of federal law. The momentum shift would be catastrophic to the American People.

I hope I’m wrong. I don’t want to one day live under the “Planetary Regime.”

Editor’s Notes: This is my first post for Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com. It has to do with all things young and sexy, i.e. booze and fun. As always, a government agency proves to be the antithesis of such things. Enjoy!

Many remember a creation, or rather concoction of The Drew Carey Show, Buzz Beer. The delightfully titled beverage was a mix of coffee and a presumably dark beer… stout perhaps. Buzz Beer almost became a character of its own, as it evolved into an ongoing enterprise, run out of Drew’s garage. If the show were still on the air, writers would be charged with the task of writing-in new federal regulations, regarding Drew’s side-business. Why? Because although fictional, Buzz Beer will soon be outlawed. While this would provide an interesting plot development for a sitcom, it will inevitably cause a slew of problems in real life. Go figure.

On Friday, the Food and Drug Administration notified 27 manufacturers of so-called “alcoholic energy drinks (AEDs),” that they have 30 days to prove the safety of such drinks. If the listed manufacturers fail to comply, or fail to prove the safety of their products, they will be forced to discontinue them. Many companies, such as Anheuser-Busch, MillerCoors, and Diageo have already stopped the sale and production of similar products, in anticipation of the FDA crackdown. Needless to say, in the midst of a recession this is not ideal.

Probes into the safety of AEDs were conducted by a task force, comprised of 18 State Attorneys General and one city attorney. The task force is called the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Youth Access to Alcohol Committee… doesn’t that have a nice bureaucratic ring to it? Continue reading at BigGovernment.com…

Because Speaker Pelosi left me no choice, I spent my now very depressing Saturday night watching C-SPAN, in lieu of Florida’s 7^th conference win over Vandy. From what I can gather, I didn’t miss much. However, I could’ve caught the USC game and the wildest Arizona State interception ever, if it weren’t for late-night legislation on a Saturday! For those of you that had a decent evening, I’ll recap…

Last week, I wrote an update piece on The Affordable Health Care for America Act, which passed by a narrow margin last night in the House, 220-215. The bill garnered a lot of negative attention last week, because it contained a provision to provide federal funding for abortion. Needless to say, that didn’t sit well with ANY Republicans and MANY Democrats. In fact, Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan drafted an amendment to the bill, to block federal funding for abortions. The “Stupak Amendment” was first on the House’s to-do list. It handily passed, 240-194 with the help of many so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats, from more conservative districts. This would prove to be the Republicans undoing.

While many saw this as a huge win for pro-lifers from both parties, it was nothing more than a moral victory. The passage of this amendment only freed up several Blue Dogs, to vote for Obamacare with a clear conscience. As I’ve said time and again, a politician’s biggest fear is losing an election. So, had the amendment failed, and the abortion provisions stayed in the health care bill, many pro-life Democrats would’ve been forced to vote against it. The problem is: Republicans are also dirty politicians…

They too are most afraid of losing an election. So afraid, that every single Republican, with the exception of Rep. John Shadegg from Arizona, voted in favor of the “Stupak Amendment.” I know what you’re thinking: “So what? They didn’t want to risk losing votes among their conservative base in 2010.” That’s precisely the problem. These people were too afraid of losing their jobs, to get serious about defeating the largest government power grab of the twenty-first century! Had they voted against the “Stupak Amendment,” they would have effectively called the bluff of several pro-life Democrats. They would have sent a clear message to the Blue Dogs: “If you want government-run health care, you have to vote for federally funded abortion as well.” That would’ve been a tough pill to swallow for quasi-conservative Democrats. Republicans would have been able to divide and conquer.

The magic number to pass a bill through the House is 218 votes. The Affordable Health Care for America Act only received 220 votes. It BARELY passed, with several Democrats voting against it, and only one Republican voting for it. Had the Republicans been more tactically savvy, they could’ve swung AT LEAST three votes to kill the bill.

There’s a time to play it safe, and a time to go all in. That time was last night. I know that sounds like playing dirty but to quote Season 2 of “Always Sunny…” “That’s politics bitch!” Clearly, many Republicans plan to be career… make that lifetime politicians. They just couldn’t bear to have a vote for abortion on their legislative record (as if they don’t have any blemishes already). Republicans totally shit the bed last night. They got played by a senile, 69 year old House Speaker.

John Boehner and other GOP leaders deserve to keep loosing ground in Congress, until they stop acting like politicians and start acting like men.

This week’s d-bag is the king of x-rated radio. He is undeniably one of America’s sleaziest. However, it’s not his pornographic content that has earned him a “baggy.” YSP unequivocally stands for free speech, no matter how smut-laden it may be. Howard Stern’s crime is much worse than saying “tits” or “fuck” on the air. Howard Stern has gone from lewd, to just plain reckless.

We’ve all seen the Howard Stern guerilla marketing campaign: prank calls on live television. It’s annoying as all hell but yesterday, it crossed the line. During the tragic shooting at Downtown Orlando’s Gateway Center, someone associated with Stern’s show duped a local NBC station, WESH. The news station, obviously trying to inform the public of a dangerous situation, believed they were speaking with a “Joe Brown” from a local hospital. He purported to have first-hand knowledge of the situation and body count. Unfortunately, he was actually either part of Stern’s staff, or someone obsessed with the show.

Whether or not this person is associated with Stern’s show, is of no consequence. Stern should publicly condemn these tactics and call for an end to compromising public safety. Keep in mind, this prank took place BEFORE the shooter was apprehended. Had this caller not wasted WESH’s time, the station could have perhaps obtained some real, worthwhile information, which could have potentially saved a life. In my mind, Stern has a responsibility to his fans and the public. That responsibility is to either keep his fans/staff under control, or at the very least condemn their actions!

Howard: I don’t care what you say on the air. Quite honestly, your proverbial middle finger to the FCC is good for YSP. However, because you, your staff, and/or your fans compromised the safety of Orlando, you sir are the D-Bag of the Week!

Here’s the video… it speaks for itself:

House Democrats don’t seem too concerned with public perception or negative momentum, with regard to their massive health care overhaul. According to the Washington Post, the House will take a vote on the now 2,032 page health care bill, in a rare Saturday evening session, while we’re all watching Florida pummel Vanderbilt… how convenient.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act was unveiled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, just one week ago. At its inception, it was 973 pages longer than its predecessor, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. Then on Tuesday, the new bill grew by an additional 42 pages, due to a manager’s amendment from Democratic leadership, which to my knowledge has not been made available to the public (Congress can’t work computers). It took the American People all summer to sort through a 1,017-page bill. Now, we’ve been given less than a week to process twice the legislation!

Tuesday’s 42-page amendment did not come as a surprise, as Speaker Pelosi has recently made a habit of adding last minute legislation. At almost 70 years old, I don’t know if her age causes her to forget certain provisions the first time, but she did the exact same thing back in June. Speaker Pelosi, along with other Democratic leaders, added a 316-page amendment to a climate change bill, just 16 hours before it went to the House floor for a vote! Something tells me her age is not to blame…

With over 1,000 pages of new legislation, hiding legal nuances to advance an agenda is easy. Take for example, abortion. US law has prohibited federal funding for abortion since Roe v. Wade. However, Speaker Pelosi’s new bill would change all that. Line 17, p. 110, sec. 222 grants authority to Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, allowing her to decide when abortion will be covered under the government-run “public option.” That’s right, the same lady who used Elmo to teach a reporter (Chuck Todd) how to sneeze. I wonder if she’ll refer to Sesame Street on this one.       

Not only would the new House bill allow federal funding for abortion, it would also charge an “abortion premium” through the public option (line 16, p. 96, sec. 213). That means people insured by the government would pay for a procedure they may not only disagree with, but will likely never use. That would be like charging a special prosthetic premium, when only a small percentage of people ever lose a limb. If we don’t do it for amputations, why would we do it for something as controversial as abortion?

Tuesday’s elections provided a huge momentum shift in the debate over health care reform. Both New Jersey and Virginia elected Republican Governors, in what was viewed by many as a referendum on President Obama’s policies. White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, downplayed the significance of Republicans winning in two states, where Obama handily won by double-digits just a year ago. Hmm… that seems like a huge swing to me. Nonetheless, Gibbs stated that President Obama didn’t even watch the election results come in… probably because he was busy that night, helping Pelosi add 42-pages to the new health care bill.

Yesterday, in response to the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial results, Speaker Pelosi simply said “We won last night.” Don’t worry, she’s not that senile… yet. The Speaker was instead referring to Democratic House seats, picked up in both New York and the San Francisco bay area. While the results of the Congressional Elections didn’t surprise anyone, they could potentially provide two more votes for her bill on Saturday.

Unfortunately for Republicans, they may not be able to capitalize on their recent success, as their alternative health care bill was just unveiled on Tuesday… the same day Democrats finalized their bill. The GOP bill is considerably shorter, at just 219 pages. While it does virtually nothing to address the uninsured, it would lower insurance premiums by 10% according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO has also found that the Republican bill would lower the deficit by $68 billion, in stark contrast to the Democrats’ bill, which would cost over $1 trillion.

The health care debate is far from over, yet Pelosi and company want it to be. Democrats and Republicans haven’t come to any kind of consensus that’s good for the American People, yet the House is set to vote on Saturday. Why? My guess is that House majority leaders want to ram this new bill through, before we can smell the stench that undoubtedly permeates all 2,032 pages. Don’t let Congress fool you with their contrived sense of urgency. Call these people up and tell them to vote “nay,” until they can draft a bill their proud of… A bill that doesn’t need to be passed in the dead of night, while everyone’s looking the other way, à la Tim Tebow.