That’s right. Student loans and health care. They go together like chocolate chip cookies and a tall glass of Pine-Sol. The changes state that “savings” from removing the Federal Family Education Loan Program will go to increase the per student Federal Pell Grant. (You do know that a community college student with a Pell Grant can walk away with a refund check that’s derived solely from Pell Grant proceeds, right? Just a little something for you to mull over, as if this health care debacle isn’t bad enough.)

Those “savings” from eliminating FFELP will also off-set health care costs, too. Yeah, um, okay. (By the way, the elimination of the FFEL Program means choice in student lending is over and the only option students will have is the Department of Education. In case you aren’t aware, the US Department of Education has been telling schools for a year they need to begin setting up their processes to handle this switch as it was inevitable with Obama as President.)

Back to the Slaughter Rule. If the House votes for those proposed changes, then they will “deem” the Senate bill as having been passed, although no votes were actually cast for or against the Senate bill.

Then, the Senate bill that the Senate passed and the House “deemed to have passed” is sent to the President to sign, the “Cornhusker Kickback” and “Louisiana Purchase” included.

The Slaughter Rule seems underhanded, doesn’t it? That’s BECAUSE IT IS.

What about the “fix” that includes the elimination of FFELP? That reconciliation bill will be sent to the Senate for their vote. Since it’s a reconciliation bill, the Senate only needs 51 votes to pass it. The original Senate bill didn’t have pro-life language in it so it’s not a given the Senate will pass the reconciliation bill. If they make any changes to the reconciliation bill, it has to go back to the House. The question is, will pro-life Democrats in the House, like Bart Stupak of Michigan, trust the Senate to pass the changes? Are there more procedural tricks up Nancy Pelosi’s sleeve to somehow assuage Stupak’s concern, maintain the large pro-abortion coalition in the House and get the bill passed? (By passed I mean, deemed-and-by-default-passed.) [UPDATE: According to HotAir, there is a possible hand to play between Pelosi and Stupak to do just that. Will it ever end??]

So much for Scott Brown being central to defeating health care, right? Wrong. The election of Scott Brown has brought to light all the dirty tactics the left is willing to use, like the Slaughter Rule, to cram government-controlled health care down the throats of the American people.

Perhaps Representative Stephen Lynch (D-MA) is a little nervous that his home state elected a Republican. Although he voted for the initial House version of the bill, he is saying he will vote against the Senate version. Ah, but what about the Slaughter Rule? He was quoted in a Boston Globe article saying the Slaughter Rule “may be unconstitutional” and using it would damage their credibility.

Lynch also criticized the procedure Democrats are considering using to pass the legislation – by “deeming” the Senate bill approved, instead of voting directly on the Senate bill itself. Repeating a comment reported by the Boston Herald today, he called the procedure “disingenuous.” Echoing Republican complaints, he also said it “may be unconstitutional” because it wouldn’t involve an up-or-down vote on legislation.

“It’s a stretch,” he said. “I think it hurts our credibility to try to pull a prank like that. We should stand up and tell voters where we stand.”

Nonetheless, Lynch predicted it would pass.

“I think the president and speaker Pelosi are fairly persuasive,” he said. “They wouldn’t call on a vote unless they had the votes.”

He predicted it would pass? Well, what do you know? Stephen Lynch voted FOR the Slaughter Rule the same day the article appeared! Imagine that.

Are you still confused over the Slaughter Rule? Here’s all you need to know: In voting to use the Slaughter Rule to bypass actually voting for the health care bill, the House has slaughtered the oath they each took to uphold and defend the Constitution. As Article 1, Section 7 states, “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.” A bill that has not passed the House but has been “deemed” as passed through a procedural Slaughter Rule and is signed into law by the President will find itself headed to court.

Are you still confused? I don’t blame you. This 90 second video pieced together by the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) will quickly explain, not how a bill becomes a law, but how a bill gets “demon passed” in a House run by Nancy Pelosi.

For those of you wondering, “demonpass” may not have entered the nation’s vernacular so readily were it not for a Carly Fiorina campaign ad, known as the “demon sheep” ad. If you haven’t seen it yet, or need a dose of laughter after all this Slaughterhouse activity, here it is for your viewing pleasure.

Theory #1: She takes the low road and equates all criticism to violent rhetoric.

Theory #2: She needs you to think criticisms of her inability to lead or build consensus are waged solely by discredited crazy people.

Theory #3: Choking up worked for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.

Let’s take a look at what she said:

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw — I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco, this kind of — of rhetoric was very frightening and it gave — it created a climate in which we — violence took place.

And so I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that — that some of the people — the ears it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.

But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

Let’s look at that final section a little closer:
“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe…” Yes, Nancy, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Ah, but then there’s the but. A big but.
“… but I also think…”

Try explaining “but” to a young person. It’s a fun exercise. I remember my nephew remarking to my niece about her Mario Kart skills on the Nintendo Wii last Christmas, “You’re a good driver, but you run in to everything.” My husband explained to him that when you use the word “but” it negates everything you’ve said before it. He asked, “What does ‘negate’ mean?” “Cancels out.” “Oh!” He then proceeded to put to use what he learned … all night. “That’s a cool character but he sure is ugly.” “That’s a fast car but not as fast as mine!” “You’re funny but your jokes are pretty lame.” We told him it didn’t always have to be a negative thing. Then he said, “I don’t like vegetables but this is good broccoli!” (Disclaimer: He does like vegetables.) He said he’d never look at the word “but” the same again. It was a proud moment for me — so long as he uses it to understand English grammar and not for put downs with his classmates, teammates or sisters! I’m afraid my ten year old nephew knows more about sentence structure than Nancy Pelosi but she is a politician and politicians love to use the word “but” to reroute their message towards what they really think.

So what does Nancy Pelosi really think?
“… but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

I remember when attendees to the health care town hall meetings became even more frustrated. It was shortly after August 5, 2009, when Nancy Pelosi was asked if she thought town hall meetings consisted of a genuine grassroots opposition. Not only did she say they were astroturf, she said they were carrying swastikas and symbols like that. Excuse me? Town halls were flooded by local constituents wearing swastikas? Really? Where are those pictures? That’s quite a charge. I’d like to see proof of town hall meetings where people are carrying swastikas and symbols like that. I’d like to see the people around them tolerating it. The LaRouche people are known for adding Hitler’s mustache to U.S. Presidents, including President Obama. I don’t remember Speaker Pelosi’s concern when LaRouche had pictures of President Bush as Hitler. As a US citizen, I don’t want any US President, current or former, being depicted as Hitler. I’m consistent like that. No, those aren’t “public option” opponents, Nancy. You might know that if the New York Times did a little investigative journalism. Heck, access to Wikipedia can take you pretty far. A phone call to their offices would seal the deal. Perhaps you’re just in denial that the founder of LaRouche ran for President 8 times: once with the Labor Party and 7 times with the Democratic Party.

A mere two days after she accused health care opponents of carrying swastikas, she penned an op-ed with House Majority Leader, Stenny Hoyer, where she called health care protesters un-American. In an earlier post entitled “Health Care: The Fight’s Not Over” I said:

Why do Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer call opponents of the current Health Care bill “un-American” when Pelosi told the anti-war protesters of Code Pink who interrupted one of her meetings in 2006 that “there is nothing more articulate, more eloquent, to a member of Congress than the voice of his or her constituent.” She goes on to say she likes dissenters. Listen to it here. Did Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer think they could quiet the American people by referring to us as un-American? If their goal was to douse the enthusiasm against the bill or to assuage the doubts we the people have towards our government’s ability to run anything well, it’s obvious they have only managed to add fuel to the fire.

Is Nancy Pelosi inciting people by equating them to Nazis and then calling them un-American? Before you answer that question, you have to ask another: Inciting them to what? Inciting them to anger? Yes. Inciting them to violence? No. The American people can handle your slander, Nancy Pelosi. They can handle your lies. They can even handle the “deer in the headlights” look on your face from all the botox. They do see what you are doing, though, and that is an attempt to distract from your poor record in the House, from your hyper-partisan antics, your disdain for the American people and your inability to hold accountable people like Charlie Rangel. You’re third in line to the Presidency but you are hardly capable of running a country when you can’t keep your own House in order.

Now let’s watch her delivery (no actual tears):

Would Pelosi have fared better if she had taken a cue from Hillary Clinton and let her voice waver a little longer?

Pete Sessions (R-TX) cuts to the chase when responding to Nancy Pelosi: (bold emphasis, mine)

“Speaker Pelosi is right that the American people are upset, but it is her own words that continue to fuel voter frustration in America,” said Sessions, R-Texas. “No longer content with criticizing concerned citizens for being ‘un-American,’ the Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination. Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda. During one of the most important policy debates of our time, the American people have been completely abandoned by those elected representatives under her control. Voters are justifiably frustrated with Washington, and the Speaker’s verbal assault on voters accomplishes nothing other than furthering her reputation for being wildly out of touch with the American people.“

Nancy Pelosi should concentrate on bringing more decorum to the House of Representatives by:

As a nation, we expect more from our leaders. Step it up, Speaker Pelosi, or step down.