CHANGE Phobia Drives Harry Reid over the Top

By John W. Lillpop

For nearly two years, Barack Obama and the left have been relentless in insisting that CHANGE was essential in order to restore the American Dream to this great land.

Without providing substance or elaboration, Obama used the CHANGE mantra as a rallying cry to steal the U.S. presidency along with voter fraud provided by ACORN volunteers, voter intimidation courtesy of the New Black Panther Party, and $750 million dollars extorted from lord knows who or what.

However, now that Obama and fellow Marxists own the White House and both chambers of Congress, the whole notion of CHANGE has somehow lost its magical luster and sex appeal.

In fact, when it comes to health care, moon bats in the U.S. Senate now think that change should be forbidden.

So much for the “Will of the People,” huh, Harry?

As reported at the weeklystandard.com, in part: (1)

“Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

“There's one provision that I found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."
And I quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

“This is not legislation. It's not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

“I'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

“I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”

So now the party that regards the U.S. Constitution as a “living document,” subject to change as needed to conform to contemporary morals and values, wants to lock in a health care reform bill that nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose.

And they have the gall to call themselves “progressive”?