It’s Not A Mandate – It’s A Tax!

It’s not a mandate – it’s a tax! We’re not the ones saying it. It’s the Obama defense. It’s a tax.

Obama promised his version of “Read My Lips – No New Taxes” during the primary and general election campaign. Obama attacked his opponents and said he would never raise taxes for those making less than $250,000. But now “It’s a Tax!” is the Obama defense.

* * * * * *

Yesterday, while Obama and his Dimocrats were celebrating on board the Titanic, a bipartisan group of 13 Attorneys General from across the nation filed legal challenges to the Obama health scam. [Read the legal complaint in a PDF file HERE]

The bipartisan group of 13 Attorneys General filed their opposition on behalf of Americans who reject the Obamination health scam. A brand new poll, published today, states:

“Americans remain skeptical about the health-care overhaul even after the U.S. House passed landmark legislation that promises to provide access to medical coverage for tens of millions of the uninsured.”

The poll is a batch of bad news for Obama Dimocrats who think they will get a “bump” in the polls they can then exploit with hoop -te-do publicity stunts and turn the “bump” into a permanent “bump” that will forestall electoral disaster in November. It was not so long ago that these same Dimocrats promised and swore that the 2010 and 2012 elections would expand Obama Dimocratic dominance for generations to come. Now it is just “avoid disaster” in the iceberg electoral sea.

Americans applaud the lawsuit again the Obama health scam. The bipartisan groups of 13 Attorneys General filed suit in Pensacola, Florida. Yale’s Jack Balkin anticipated some of the arguments the Attorneys General would pursue. Here is Balkin’s defense of the Obama health scam, from a legal perspective:

“Second, it is not actually a mandate. It is a tax, which people would not have to pay if they purchased health insurance. The House bill imposes a tax of 2.5% on adjusted gross income if a taxpayer is not part of a qualified health insurance program. The Senate bill imposes what is called an “excise tax” — a tax on transactions or events — or a “penalty tax” — a tax for failing to do something (e.g., filing your tax return promptly). The tax is levied for each month that an individual fails to pay premiums into a qualified health plan.”

It’s a tax. “Read my lips” Obama style:

The IRS will be the enforcer. It’s a tax.

Barack Obama attacked Hillary Clinton and John McCain and Sarah Palin by declaring one or all of them were too divisive whereas he would be “a uniter not a divider”, he would pass health care with a ton of bipartisan votes, they were for taxes and he would not raise taxes for those making less than $250,000, they were for mandates whereas he was against mandates, they were for taxing health insurance plans whereas he was against raising taxes on health insurance plans, they would penalize those who did not buy health insurance he would not…. Lies all.

This all goes to show:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

* * * * * *

Without getting into the weeds of the legal argument, anyone who says they know what will happen in the Attorneys General lawsuit does not know that they are talking about. Indeed, courts are loathe to interfere into the political sphere. However, as Linda Greenhouse has noted, the Supreme Court during the Rehnquist years targeted congressional overreach. Does this sound familiar?:

But the Americans With Disabilities Act, the most important civil rights law of the last quarter-century, was the highly visible product of a bipartisan legislative process, so much so that some people assumed the law might stand as a firewall against the court’s further expansion of state immunity. [snip]

A revolution once begun is not so easy to stop.

The legal issues are only tangentially related, but the question is will the Roberts Supreme Court, have the gumption of the Rehnquist Court and/or is Federalism at the high court dead or is the “revolution” still on? ADA was a bipartisan product where the health scam is not. Will the courts issue an injunction and provide restraint until the American people resolve the issue in November?

In a 90s era gun possession case, United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court began its assault on the expansive use of the Commerce Clause:

“The Government’s essential contention, in fine, is that we may determine here that §922(q) is valid because possession of a firearm in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce. Brief for United States 17. The Government argues that possession of a firearm in a school zone may result in violent crime and that violent crime can be expected to affect the functioning of the national economy in two ways. First, the costs of violent crime are substantial, and, through the mechanism of insurance, those costs are spread throughout the population. [snip]

The Government also argues that the presence of guns in schools poses a substantial threat to the educational process by threatening the learning environment. A handicapped educational process, in turn, will result in a less productive citizenry. That, in turn, would have an adverse effect on the Nation’s economic well being. As a result, the Government argues that Congress could rationally have concluded that §922(q) substantially affects interstate commerce.

We pause to consider the implications of the Government’s arguments. The Government admits, under its “costs of crime” reasoning, that Congress could regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9. Similarly, under the Government’s “national productivity” reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens: family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody), for example. Under the theories that the Government presents in support of §922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government’s arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”

The Court struck at the Congressional overreach via the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The Rehnquist court rejected the argument that “any activity can be looked upon as commercial.” Will the Robert’s Court follow the Rehnquist Court circa 1995?

Others argue that the Attorneys General invoked language in their complaint to tickle the fancy of Justice Scalia in another gun possession case, Printz v. United States. In Printz, Justice Scalia wrote:

“From the description set forth above, it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme. [snip]

The petitioners here object to being pressed into federal service, and contend that congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional. [snip]

These early laws establish, at most, that the Constitution was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions, insofar as those prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power.

For these reasons, we do not think the early statutes imposing obligations on state courts imply a power of Congress to impress the state executive into its service. Indeed, it can be argued that the numerousness of these statutes, contrasted with the utter lack of statutes imposing obligations on the States’ executive (notwithstanding the attractiveness of that course to Congress), suggests an assumed absence of such power. [snip]

Not only do the enactments of the early Congresses, as far as we are aware, contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States’ executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization, they contain some indication of precisely the opposite assumption.”

Scalia lunges for the jugular:

“When a “La[w] . . . for carrying into Execution” the Commerce Clause violates the principle of state sovereignty reflected in the various constitutional provisions we mentioned earlier, supra, at 19-20, it is not a “La[w] . . . proper for carrying into Execution the Commerce Clause,” and is thus, in the words of The Federalist, “merely [an] ac[t] of usurpation” which “deserve[s] to be treated as such.” The Federalist No. 33, at 204 (A. Hamilton). See Lawson & Granger, The “Proper” Scope of Federal Power: A Jurisdictional Interpretation of the Sweeping Clause, 43 Duke L. J. 267, 297-326, 330-333 (1993). We in fact answered the dissent’s Necessary and Proper Clause argument in New York: “[E]ven where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. . . . [T]he Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments’ regulation of interstate commerce.” 505 U. S., at 166. [snip]

Finally, and most conclusively in the present litigation, we turn to the prior jurisprudence of this Court. Federal commandeering of state governments is such a novel phenomenon that this Court’s first experience with it did not occur until the 1970’s, when the Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations requiring States to prescribe auto emissions testing, monitoring and retrofit programs, and to designate preferential bus and carpool lanes. The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits invalidated the regulations on statutory grounds in order to avoid what they perceived to be grave constitutional issues, see Maryland v. EPA, 530 F. 2d 215, 226 (CA4 1975); Brown v. EPA, 521 F. 2d 827, 838-842 (CA9 1975); and the District of Columbia Circuit invalidated the regulations on both constitutional and statutory grounds, see District of Columbia v. Train, 521 F. 2d 971, 994 (CADC 1975). After we granted certiorari to review the statutory and constitutional validity of the regulations, the Government declined even to defend them, and instead rescinded some and conceded the invalidity of those that remained, leading us to vacate the opinions below and remand for consideration of mootness. EPA v. Brown, 431 U.S. 99 (1977).[snip]

“Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear ‘formalistic’ in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era’s perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” Id., at 187.

We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: “The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” Id., at 188.”


“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

The Attorneys General in their complaint do their best to almost quote Scalia:

“55. Plaintiffs cannot afford the exorbitant and unfunded costs of participating under the Act, but have no choice other than to participate.

56. The Act exceeds Congress’s powers under Article I of the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause, Const. art. I, §8; the Taxing and Spending Clause, id.; or any other provision of the Constitution.

57. By effectively co-opting the Plaintiffs’ control over their budgetary processes and legislative agendas through compelling them to assume costs they cannot afford, and by requiring them to establish health insurance exchanges, the Act deprives them of their sovereignty and their right to a republican form of government, in violation of Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

58. The Act violates the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and runs afoul of the Constitution’s principle of federalism, by commandeering the Plaintiffs and their employees as agents of the federal government’s regulatory scheme at the states’ own cost.”

Before dismissing the very idea of Supreme Court action, let’s recall that Obama Dimocrats were forced to run away from Demon Pass after a legal assault on the concept in the Op-Ed pages of the Washington Post by former federal Judge Michael McConnell.

Randy E. Barnett who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University is assisting the Attorneys General in their lawsuit and has also taken to the Washington Post to address some of the issues in the Attorneys General complaint.

“Can Congress really require that every person purchase health insurance from a private company or face a penalty? The answer lies in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power “to regulate commerce . . . among the several states.” [snip]

But the individual mandate extends the commerce clause’s power beyond economic activity, to economic inactivity. That is unprecedented. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company. Regulating the auto industry or paying “cash for clunkers” is one thing; making everyone buy a Chevy is quite another. Even during World War II, the federal government did not mandate that individual citizens purchase war bonds.

If you choose to drive a car, then maybe you can be made to buy insurance against the possibility of inflicting harm on others. But making you buy insurance merely because you are alive is a claim of power from which many Americans instinctively shrink. [snip]

Several states are considering measures attempting to exempt their residents from an individual health insurance mandate. While such provisions may have a political impact, none is likely to have any effect on the legislation’s constitutionality. Under the 10th Amendment, if Congress enacts a law pursuant to one of the “powers . . . delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” then that law is supreme, and nothing a state can do changes this. Any state power to “nullify” unconstitutional federal laws has long been rejected.[snip]

Of course, there is one additional way for states to win a fight about the constitutionality of health-care legislation: Make it unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to require Congress to convene a convention to propose an amendment to the Constitution. If two-thirds of state legislatures demand an amendment barring the federal regulation of health insurance or an individual mandate, Congress would be constitutionally bound to hold a convention. Something like this happened in 1933 when Congress proposed and two-thirds of the states ratified the 21st Amendment, removing from the Constitution the federal power to prohibit the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol. But the very threat of an amendment convention would probably induce Congress to repeal the bill.

Here is the Big Question: Will the Supreme Court dare? Barnett:

“But what if five justices think the legislation was carried bleeding across the finish line on a party-line vote over widespread bipartisan opposition? What if control of one or both houses of Congress flips parties while lawsuits are pending? Then there might just be five votes against regulating inactivity by compelling citizens to enter into a contract with a private company. This legislation won’t go into effect tomorrow. In the interim, it is far more vulnerable than if some citizens had already started to rely upon its benefits.”

Will the Supreme Court dare? In Bush v. Gore, absent the very tough Alioto and Roberts, the Court dared.

* * * * * *

Americans have only just begun to resist the Obama health scam. Attempts to slime the resistance as “racist” are in full gear by Big Media but those smears will fail to break the opposition. John Dingell says it will take time to “control the people” but he clearly does not know the answer to that question at the end of the Star Spangled Banner.

Americans don’t want to transfer their wealth to Big Insurance companies and have the IRS enforce payments to Big Insurance companies. Barack Obama will have to break more arms to enforce his scam. Meanwhile, some time today, protected by cameras, acting in shame, Obama will sign what he said he would repeal – and yet another broken promise which Big Media will ignore.

Republicans will fight in the U.S. Senate starting today to block modifications to the hated Obama health scam legislation. Viagra will be one weapon.

Senate Republicans and the Courts have a role to play. But what will stop the Obama scam and madness is Democrats, Republicans, and Independents united against Obama and his Dimocrats – in November 2010.


125 thoughts on “It’s Not A Mandate – It’s A Tax!

  1. reposting…

    March 24th, 2010 at 4:50 am
    Attributed to NBC. Comments?

    • If you make $30,000 or less, Medicaid will cover you as of 2014.

    • If you make between $30,000 and $88,000, you will get government subsidies to help pay for your insurance.

    • If you make between $88,000 and $100,000, there are no penalties for not having insurance, but you don’t get government subsidies.

    • If you make over $100,000 and don’t have insurance, then you get a fine of up to $2250.

    So that’s supposed to make “everyone” participate????

    1. For those making less than 30k, you’re going to get Medicaid-Minus (the pols promised the bill would “pay for itself” by finding “cost efficiencies” in Medicaid; in other words, cuts).

    2. For seniors complaining about the “doughnut hole” (for Medicare prescription drugs $896 – $4,350 true out-of-pocket expenses), they’ll throw $250 at you. More info on this at

    3. For those in the 30-88K bracket, you’ll get a subsidy. After looking at your subsidy, and how much it will cost to buy insurance, you may say “Fuggedabout your steenking subsidy”. And as the prices rise (as they will, because Congress made this health *insurance* bill a gift to private insurers), even more will be disincentivized to participate.

    4. Without subsidies, and no penalty, healthy $88 – 100K folks will have no reason to join the insurance pools.

    5. 100K + folks who don’t want to spend $12,000 – 15,000 for a single person will gladly pay just the $2,250 fine.

    So the problem with getting healthy people (who are currently uninsured) into the insurance pool remains, leaving only the sicker folks. This leads to a “death spiral” where rates then have to go up for those who remain, driving more people out of the pool, causing the rate to ratchet up further…And this would be happening in private plans and Medicaid.

    This is what happens when you pass “the concept” of healthcare without the substance…

    When legistlators vote on a 2,400 page tome of a bill that was changing it as they were changing their votes…

    When legistlators prime reason for voting for a bill is political calculus (”Save our weakened president”)…

    Where the insurance, big Pharma, and Big Med write the bills.

  2. repost #2


    Guess who doesn’t want in on the new health care system? That’s right…

    No Obamacare for Obama

    Democrats exempt themselves from socialist medicine


    President Obama declared that the new health care law “is going to be affecting every American family.” Except his own, of course.

    The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of “staff” includes only the members’ personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect “ordinary Americans,” according to Vice President Joe Biden (who – being a heartbeat away from the presidency – also is not covered), not Washington insiders.

    Mr. Obama frequently tossed around the talking point that the new law gave people the same type of coverage as Congress enjoyed. In his March 20 health care pep talk to wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill, the president said one of the advantages of the health care legislation was that “people will have choice and competition just like members of Congress have choice and competition.” At yesterday’s signing ceremony, Mr. Obama said Americans will be “part of a big pool, just like federal employees are part of a big pool. They’ll have the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves.” But the American people will have a public pool; the executive branch and congressional staffers kept their country-club pool private.

    Last year, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, spearheaded efforts to have all Americans included in the plan, but he ran into heavy opposition from unions representing federal workers – the same unions that were pro-Obamacare stalwarts. In September, the Senate approved a scaled-down amendment that covered members of Congress and their staff. When this provision later emerged from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, the leadership and committee staff loophole had appeared. A move in December by Mr. Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to close this loophole and to extend the law to senior members of the executive branch – including the president, vice president and Cabinet members – was blocked by Senate Democratic leaders.

    Mr. Grassley has introduced an amendment to the Senate health care reconciliation bill that also will apply the law to the upper tier of the executive branch and all Capitol Hill staffers, but it remains to be seen whether Democrats will let this measure move forward.

    The special exemptions slipped into the health care law are another example of how those statists who rule consider themselves a privileged class, imposing burdens on the country that they will not accept themselves. Candidates for office in 2010 should pledge to close these and other loopholes in the law that impose unequal burdens and create exclusive privileged classes in America. Meanwhile, we await Mr. Obama’s explanation why if his “historic” health care law is so great for America, it’s not good enough for him and his family.

  3. repost #3:

    The lack of humility exposed. The true aim of the politicals revealed.
    O’s ego booster shot
    Michael Goodwin
    Posted: 4:07 AM, March 24, 2010

    Truth delayed is truth denied. Or at least truth was denied until yesterday, when the fig leaf of “health-care reform” was shredded. Finally exposed was the Holy Grail of the ruthless quest.

    It was so our Narcissist-In-Chief could claim another notch on history’s belt.

    Don’t think for a second the whole last year was about reducing the deficit or bending the cost curve. Nor was it ever really about helping Americans who need better medical care. A handful of those poor souls were there again yesterday, human props for his show.
    As he smugly read the roster of predecessors who tried and failed, from T.R. to Bill and Hillary, there was no pretense of modesty. This was about him.

    The imperial trappings of coronation — of all things, a rock-star introduction of the president at a signing ceremony! The giddy celebration of self and party, the hailing of bureaucrats and congressional hacks as heroes and more odes to the Kennedy clan were as welcome as fingernails on a blackboard.
    Yet it was also predictable. A presidency dedicated to the pursuit of glory is a presidency squandered on ceremony.

    “You’re the reason we’re here,” Vice President Joe Biden said obsequiously to his boss. Never has a phrase been more pregnant with double meaning.

    Yes, Obama is the reason the Democrats were celebrating — and the reason not a single Republican was with them. Not all Democrats were there, for at least opponents were bipartisan.

    Obama is also the reason more than half the country could feel uninvited to the party in the people’s house. They made clear every chance they had — from elections to polls to demonstrations — that they were voting no.

    For their trouble, they were ignored and often demonized. Their government does not represent them.

    It represents itself and its advocate acolytes. The party-in-a-hot house is what the Dems have become under Obama.

    Their disconnect from the people who pay for their imperial courts is now complete. They acted like children at a birthday party, oblivious to the pain in a nation where perhaps 15 million are out of work.
    bama’s the reason they are unbothered. He has reduced the jobless to a statistical annoyance.

    A president is elected to lead, and Obama is leading America into a dead end. He could have gone for honest reform by agreeing to important changes that enjoy broad public support.

    The chief aim should have been to arrest rising costs. The savings could have been used to expand coverage and ensure health care and the economy were on a stable course.

    Instead, he opted for a misguided takeover of 17 percent of the nation’s product on the backs of a rented slice of Congress. The new entitlement will create a gusher of red ink and there is a very good chance the world’s finest health system will be diminished by longer waits, shoddy care and higher costs.

    This is Obamaism. It is sold with claims so false they are odious.

    Glib lies repeated daily are means to the end in which the state assumes more power, more money, more control. When he says “we,” he means “we the party, we the government.”
    Sunday night, after the House acted, he crowed that “this is what change looks like.”

    Indeed it does, at least the change he brings. Washington is now a one-party town, determined to work its will on a nation increasingly united against it.

    It is not the change Americans want.
    If we are smart and brave, the good change, the change that will rescue the nation, comes in November. Oh, hurry.

  4. This is what I found out yesterday about insurance companies.

    I am currently trying to buy insurance. I have been getting quotes which happen to be fairly good with fairly good policies. My doctor is even on the plans. So yesterday I had to give them permission to look at my medical record to see if I had any conditions that would keep me from getting on their insurance, these conditions are, multiple sclerosis, heart condition, diabetes, stokes, cancer and auto-immune disorders.
    So the salesman told me my doctor had a very high rating, and I just happened to guess that they got the high rating by NOT ordering tests. I knew my doctor did not order tests because I also worked with him, he would always come in and cancel all tests the er doctors would order the night before.
    So all this limiting healthcare was already a common practice in medicine before healthcare bill was even on the horizon…the insurance companies themselves are into dealth panels, not giving care and all that…on the “best healthcare in the world” ROTFLMAO!! This is so freaking ridiculous!

  5. I don’t get all this talk of mandates being tax increases…sounds like a play on words to me…but I don’t like the fact that those making 88,000 to 100,000 don’t get a fine..they are the worst offenders of using the emergency rooms.

  6. “Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

  7. Excellent post Admin.

    This is not an issue which the Court can avoid.

    The common doctrines which a court uses to avoid a hot potato are the notion that the case is not a case or controversy within the meaning of the law, it is moot thus there is no compelling reason to decide, or it raises a political question.
    None of those are controlling or dispositive in this instance.

    Nevertheless, the political question doctrine is the defense which the administration is most likely to rely upon to argue that the case is non-justiciable. They will argue that Obamacare is lawful and binding because it passed by both houses of congress, and therefore the separation of powers precludes judicial review.

    The problem with that argument is it was passed without bi-partisan support, against the expressed will of the people, and through means fraught with unlawful coercion and bribery, beyond the pale of the normal legislative process.

    The Administration will also argue that the case is non-justicable because this law represents the fulfillment of an election promise, and to overrule Obamacare would be to overrule the will of the people. That is an anticipatory argument which the Administration is starting to advance only now.

    The answer to that argument is it ambiguous at best. When Obama ran for office, he made many promises–that the process would be transparent, that lobbyists would not be a part of the process, and the interests of the American People would be protected. This legislation violates each and every one of those promises. So how can they possibly argue that the election settled this question?

    However, if the Administration really wants to go down that track then they should focus on the election which occurred when the legislation was not merely a campaign promise, but as it took form and people had a chance to see what the word change actually meant. That was not the Obama election nearly two years ago, but the Scott Brown election two months ago. That election focused squarely on this health care bill and the people of the bluest of blue states rejected it by electing Brown

    Nor can the Supreme Court avoid the issue on the merits. Why not? Because it involves a fundamental clash between two provisions of the Constitution which go to the core of representative democracy, and federalism itself. Our system of representative democracy involves a balance between the power of government and the rights of the individual. This legislation lays waste to that balance.

    It does so through a novel interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which until now has never been used to regulate economic inactivity between individuals across state lines. If that interpretation is accepted then it will open the door to the imposition of other affirmative duties by government upon citizens where today there is no corresponding duty to act. This is foreign to the American experience, and is reminiscent of the Constitutions seen in dictatorships like the old USSR.

    Finally, this bill undermines the concept of federalism by usurping powers reserved to states under the provisions of the Tenth Amendment. Mindful of the potential for abuse, and the nature of men, the Founding Fathers enacted this Amendment to guard against the imposition of tyranny by central government against sovereign states and their citizens. This perverse legislation is a direct attack upon the rights of states and the entire edifice of federalism. Again, it is the path to tyranny, and the road to serfdom for the American People.

    Accordingly, it must be stuck down as unconstitutional. It should be remanded to congress for actions not inconsistent with this opinion. This is not a piece of civil rights legislation. It is an direct assault on our system, and should be accorded a Carthaginian Peace.

  8. OT…call me crazy but…why are we providing viagra and other ED coverage to sex offenders? WTH? ED lobbyists give money to who to manage this one?

    …so we will deny women coverage for their health needs but we will supply ‘ammunition’ to sex offenders to faciliate their predatory instincts…

  9. When big media tries to pass off public opposition to this bill with the throw away line the American People are skeptical we need to tell them they are full of shit. They are. Skepticism implies mere doubt, and a certain degree of detachment. They are not skeptical they are openly hostile. Hostility is not a matter of calm philosophical semi divine remove. It is fire in the belly hopping mad looking into the hot red eyes of a cave man white lighting sort of skepticism. That is different.

  10. I think the American Voter is getting tired of the Dims telling them what is good for them, like they are children.

  11. So our Presidetn bows to Saudis, Chines, and has a photo opt with Chavez, but will not be seen with the Prime Minister of Israel, our only true ally and democracy in the middle east. It is a shameful and hurtful behavior, and I am disavowing my affiliation with any mainstream Jewish group whom endorsed Obama. Also ending friendships with fellow Jews who voted for him. I have had it!!!


    The Obama administration shifted this week from red hot anger at Benjamin Netanyahu to an icier suspicion toward the Israeli Prime Minister, who made clear in a marathon of meetings with U.S. officials that he would give ground only grudgingly on their goal of stopping the continued construction of new Israeli housing units on disputed territory.

    Netanyahu met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office Tuesday evening for an unexpectedly-long 89-minutes until about 7:00, then stayed to consult with his own staff in the Roosevelt Room, according to a source briefed on the meeting. The two then met again for 35 minutes at 8:20 at Netanyahu’s request, the source said. But the meetings were shrouded in unusual secrecy, in part because U.S. officials, who just ten days earlier called the surprise announcement of new housing in East Jerusalem an “insult” and an “affront,” made sure to reward Netanyahu with a series of small snubs: There were no photographs released from the meeting, and no briefing for the press.

    And as of late Tuesday evening, neither side had released the usual “readout” of the meetings’ content – a likely indicator of the distance between the sides.

    But any impression that Netanyahu’s trip would mark a renewal of the troubled relationship between U.S. and Israeli leaders had faded by the time the men met. Netanyahu had spent the previous 24 hours of a U.S. visit lobbying allies in Congress to push back against public American criticism and to turn the focus to Iran, congressional sources said, and delivered a defiant speech to the pro-Israel group AIPAC, insisting on Israel’s right to build in Jerusalem.

  13. You know, at this point, the thing is the American public really doesn’t support more building in those territories. That’s just the truth, so I find it hard to see Obama’s position as a loss for him.

  14. There is a huge difference between building settlements and building in our eternal capital of Jerusalem. Israel has made concession after concession, while the Arabs have done shit…we will never allow Jerudalem to be an Arab capital under any circumstances. They can have they state, a de-militarized one, and keep the shit hole that is Gazza, but never will arabs control Jerusalem. They let cows, pigs, horses, and goats use our holiest site, the western wall, as stables before we captured in back in 67.
    As for the American public, they elected Obama, so who cares. Israel will not allow a pro-muslim President to take away our god given land.

  15. So what about a family? Is the fine for each person?

    Attributed to NBC. Comments?

    • If you make $30,000 or less, Medicaid will cover you as of 2014.

    • If you make between $30,000 and $88,000, you will get government subsidies to help pay for your insurance.

    • If you make between $88,000 and $100,000, there are no penalties for not having insurance, but you don’t get government subsidies.

    • If you make over $100,000 and don’t have insurance, then you get a fine of up to $2250.

  16. Take your pick of what kind of -ism that is Obummer and his minions. But one thing can not be denied….he is tyrannical and is dead set on changing us into a totalitarian country, then when the economies of the nations collapse he can annoint himself King of the globe. I wondre if Biden will still be up his a$$ at that point?

    Admin, my continued thanks for keeping it real.

    Also, there is no video that the purported racial slur to Lewis happened. I listened to the video over and over and only heard two chants, KILL THE BILL being one of them. Lewis never hesitated and there was no audio of any racial slur. Can you not envision that Pelousy would have used that big old gavel on anyone who offended one of her friends? lol And the congressmen will not talk on air to anyone about the alleged incidences. IMHO, at least the racial slur never happened.

  17. Shorttermer,

    Obama is lazy. He’s not a tyrant and has no interest in turning us into a totalitarian country. The only thing Obama is interested in is creating a situation where he leaves office, and gets invited to sit on lots of boards for lots of moolah, and is invited to all the best parties around the world. That’s what all of this is about.

    Obama is not, in any way, shape or form, the metaphysical villain necessary for what you describe. How do we know? He doesn’t have the history. Obama doesn’t get things done. Look at the health insurance reform – he didn’t even get that done. Other people did.

    Obama has had his entire career handed to him. He doesn’t like working. He’s already complaining about how hard the job is. He’s lazy. He’s not terribly bright. And he probably hates being surrounded by all those people who are smarter than him and expect him to work. DC is filled with absolutely brilliant people obsessed with their particular field and they are up at 5am going to work. And like Bill Clinton, they work until they can’t see straight. That isn’t Obama.

    Tyrants are ambitious and willing to do the work. Obama is not willing to do the work or wouldn’t have had to cheat to win. He wants short cuts. He wants the easy way out. Being a tyrant in a tyranny would cut into his enjoyment of himself.

  18. LOSE / LOSE:

    We mentioned on Saturday that for Obama, it was lose-lose. We now see which “lose” it is. From admin’s link above:

    “The truth is that Democrats have a tough road ahead with this bill. Most of its benefits don’t kick in for years, but the taxes and fees start almost immediately. Those will start impacting job creation and investment in an economy already failing to produce much of either. The longer it takes for jobs to start getting created again, the more voters will link this to ObamaCare and the Democrats who insisted on passing it during a deep recession.”

    “It also presents another problem for Democrats, which is that they will own every failure within the American health-care system from this point forward. Had Republicans successfully blocked ObamaCare, they would have owned them, but now it all falls on the Democrats. Every sob story now becomes either the fault of legislation that went too far or didn’t go far enough — and don’t think Democrats won’t use the latter to push ObamaCare into single-payer territory.”

  19. I hope the anger will last until November but I fear that it will not.
    I turn on the tv and I hear a New York chef talking about how there is a bill being considered which will forbid adding salt? The city already ruled about trans fats. Smoking.
    Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are both considering adding a 2 cent per ounce on sugar sweetened beverages. A guy in CA wants to eliminate kiddie toys in fast food packages.
    Go into a building in any major city and you now go through a silly amount of security measures to get in to the place. None of which would stop someone who wanted to do damage. All it does is subliminally teach you to obey.
    I would love to know the statistics on how much the security industry has grown since 9/11. In the name of defense it has simply made people sheeple.

    In Pittsburgh a few years back there was a county referendum on whether or not to build two new stadiums. The voters said no. The county went ahead and built them anyhow. Today the city is near bankrupt and businesses like UPMC(healthcare), universities non profits such as gateway highmark and countless others pay zero tax and yet the city will add a 2% tax to soda claiming it will better the children’s health. Also Highmark is looking into transfering jobs to india so we will have to buy insurance from a company which will then send jobs to another country.

    Sorry for rambling. I am just very upset.

  20. Why are we providing ED to anyone…when they don’t even want to cover mammograms….I tell you why because this country is ran by MEN…they want to cut services to women and make sure men can have Viagra…it just makes me mad. These guys needs to just forget about it.

  21. Prescription plans which cover ED meds are a result of negotiations with the unions and providers before a contract is signed. Screaming about insurance companies covering ed is counter-productive as it is simply the result of bargaining.

  22. Here is my profound thought for the day:

    God bless Bibi–the true leader of the free world.


    God dam Barack Obama—traitor to everything our country stands for.

  23. I am with basement angel. Obama is lazy and he is not particularly bright — I have said that too many times before. He has exploited his half black status all his life and has let others exploit it to their own use as well. He is a man devoid of convictions, self-respect, and pride. That is why he can sink to any level and lie and lie about anything.

  24. Did Bush wipe his hands off on Bill? Could be, or it could be a prolonged touch of appreciation? We report… you decide:

  25. Ok, I got off the republican news network and went to CNN, all it has is racist crap on there with Roland calling everyone a racist…No way I am going to MSN.

  26. I hope the anger will last until November but I fear that it will not.
    Henry, your concern is well founded–all other things being equal. The American People like the the people of other countries in the sense that they have short memories and are susceptible to manipulation through all the artifices and devices of the propaganda mill.

    But here however all things are not equal. To begin with this is an election year so there is no time to forget about the betrayal which occurred. As Charlie Cook and others have accurately opined the Administration lost the public debate on this issue and when that is the case people do not change their minds. This is an election year so there is no time to bury the problem. People are apprehensive about their future, and feel the Obama administration is laying seige to it. The campaign environment plus the legal challenges plus the withering attacks which will be brought against Pelosi will keep the issue alive and burning in the minds of people. Granted, big media will do their Joseph Goebbels schtict to portray Obamacarew as a civil rights victory, thinking people will see this headline for the farce it truly is. And FOX NEWS, Krauthammer et al will pour more salt into the dimocratic wound. This is like the build-up to World War II. The American People before Pearl Harbor were indifferent to the currents and edies of politics, but Pearl Harbor changed all that. Cook calls this Obama’s Iraq. A more apt metaphor might be that Barack has bombed Pearl Harbor.

  27. wbboei
    alas, the mainstream media is not painting that picture
    rather they are celebrating the myth that o got it done. Perhaps nothing makes me more irate than the children to 26 being covered. Why haven’t I heard anyone say what a fucking joke. If I am not mistaken that is the safest group to insure for both physical and mental health. Revolutionary and in my opinion what would have been the right thing to do would be to require insurance companies to stick with the kids who as minors suffered from a malady. The truth is very very few people encounter life threatening illnesses -psychological or physical during that time frame.

  28. correction
    meant to say that very few have the first manifistation of life or psychological illnesses during the 22 to 26 year period. In fact it probably the best time to go without insurance. And as many probably post college do not opt for insurance the players are going to make even more money.

  29. wbboei
    alas, the mainstream media is not painting that picture
    If you have been a party to litigation you know it is painful to listen the the other side lie about you and what you have done. But you also know your time will come when those lies are refuted and the author of those lies will be impeached. And so it is here. These people are bitter partisans, they backed the wrong candidate, and they are trying to convince themselves that this toxic legislation is a victory. Let them talk Henry. Never interrupt an enemy in the middle of a mistake.

  30. I like that Wbboei!!!!
    (and Henry, I too, am depressed as hell)…yelling at my staff, family, etc as the stress of this weekend’s Health Care scam and anti-Israeli administration has deeply effected me).

  31. The power of Big Media is fading. Once upon a time they controlled public opinion. Today they have become a voice in the wilderness. No one I know listens to them. They get their information through creditable sources.

  32. ShortTermer
    March 24th, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    Also, there is no video that the purported racial slur to Lewis happened.

    Well despite lack of any real proof, the NY Times’ Modo and Bob Herbert are spreading the “urban legend” about how vile the Tea Party protestors are and how abhorrently they acted. Meanwhile, the immigration protestors were a picture of decorum…


    “Some base members of the Republican base showed themselves as the racist Neanderthals they are.”

    “Protesters outside the Capitol on Saturday called two black congressmen, the civil rights hero John Lewis of Georgia and Andre Carson of Indiana, a racial epithet as they walked by. Another, Representative Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, was called that epithet and got spit on. Barney Frank of Massachusetts was called an anti-gay slur. The anti-abortion Democrat Bart Stupak was called a “baby killer” by Texas Republican Representative Randy Neugebauer, who says he’s had a “tremendous outpouring” of support for his outburst.”

    BOB HERBERT appears to want to “do something” to make protestors stop (WITH WHOM HE DISAGREES). “We just can’t have this…”:

    “In Washington on Saturday, opponents of the health care legislation spit on a black congressman and shouted racial slurs at two others, including John Lewis, one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was taunted because he is gay.

    At some point, we have to decide as a country that we just can’t have this: We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here.”

  33. wbboei
    but when will the mistake be realized?
    In 2014?
    I had to get a money order yesterday and to save steps I opted to pay a dollar more and go into a check cashing place to get it. A room with four bullet proof windows with three or four people in each line waiting to cash their paychecks for a fee but what threw me was in the middle of it was a Jackson hewitt tax service desk. Individuals sitting there filing their taxes with check cashing customers at either side. Several times I heard people cheering about o.
    I was saddened.

  34. admin, you must have caught this in the news today. The bill leaves out children with preconditions getting covered right away. Instead it says 2014. Goes to show nobody least of all Obama knows what is in the bill.

  35. wbboei
    I pray you are right.
    I attempted to read the fiasco and thanks to the nuns of my juvenescence I can read relatively fast and comprehend and I struggled through a couple of hundred pages. How many of the talking heads do you think have done what I have. And where are their questions? Why in the law was the subject of huver rounds considered? Seems like a very obscure topic to be discussed. Yet electronic mobility devices ar explicitely dealt with, why?

  36. Does anyone know what the total gross income of all American workers is?
    I just wonder if a flat .05 tax on everyone without any deductions would be more palatable and effective for all.
    I know I am niave, but i’d still love to know the numbers.

  37. Here are my two cents about anger subsiding or not. Obama is a thin skinned nincompoop. This HCR thing happened because of Scot Brown’s election and everybody said that was end of HCR. The think skinned fool wanted to disprove that. There will be other things that will injure Obama’s ego and he will react irrationally and the cycle will go on.

  38. Are you aware that when a judge sentences someone to a rehab or to an on going out patient rehabilitation those persons are thrown onto the medicare/medicaid system? I for one believe it is far better and far cheaper to attempt to salvage those lives but it should not come out of the already strained medical budgets. Even the cheapest rehabs bill 600 a day per client.

  39. henry
    March 24th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    but when will the mistake be realized?
    In 2014?
    I had to … go into a check cashing place to get it.
    Several times I heard people cheering about o.
    I was saddened.

    Anyone in a check cashing place cheering for O is obviously not uninformed about the particulars of the bill. In other words, they believed, yet again, Obama’s hype.

    They are probably just happy that the historic president finally won a round.

    They don’t know that they just lost.

  40. I think this is Squat’s “Mission Accomplished” moment.

    It’s all downhill from here.

    Hopefully he’ll crash and burn before he can do anymore harm to the country.

  41. rgb44hrc
    are they going to know something different in seven/eight months
    every social service agency is now required by law to provide individuals with the opportunity to register to vote, in fact they do it there. The organizations are supposed to be a political but they are generally state employees or acorn type agencies and they give a bias.

  42. Good call, basil9.

    The high-fives, the “we’re giddy”, that would have been justified if the House and the Senate passed a solid bill that passes the smell test and got cross-aisle support, the way FDR and LBJ’s Great Society programs were.

    The passage instead was reminiscent of the 5/31/2008 Rules and By-Laws Committee meeting, a DAY THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY.

  43. Henry, I think the willfully self-disillusioned will remain in their “historic” bliss. All they can about is the color of one’s skin vis-a-vis occupying the White House, rather than the content of their character.

    I am sure many people are truly, finally, PROUD OF THIS COUNTRY.


  44. Admin @3:44, OMG, LOL!! He most certainly did, I guess he doesn’t have the love of Haitian’s that Bill does, he is simply there because they have found a huge oil reserve there, LOL!!

  45. When Obama shills produce testimonials in favor of certain parts of this health care monster the following analogy will be germane:

    Four thousand years ago, the Chinese made a remarkable discovery: cooked meat tastes better than uncooked meat. The way they discovered this was a house burned down and the uncooked meat inside got cooked–along with everything else. They were so delighted with the result that they burned down more houses with meat inside to achieve the desired result. Then someone made the impertinent observation that they could cook the meat without burning down the house, and the culinary world has never been the same.

    The proper rebuttal to these piece meal testimonials should be if you want cooked meat, you do not need to burn down the house to get it. All you have to do is put the meat in the oven. Likewise here if you want this particular problem taken care of you do not need omnibus legislation. All you need is a narrow targeted bill. We could have covered the uninsured in precisely that manner.

  46. I just think we are going to get hit everywhere from all directions with taxes.
    Today it is a 2% sugary tax because a city wants to balance an irresponsible budget then that won’t be enough because the localities didn’t pay anything off with a stimulas but rather expanded unfunded programs. The economey won’t grow because even something as tiny as 2% on beverages causes thousands of job losses and then the city coffers are even less so even more taxes are added and so on and so on.
    My parents who both worked for 100 years together and saved and borrowed within their means, I predict will not be able to afford their above ground swimming pool in five years. I am not sure if it was MEchelle or bambi but one of them said on the campaign trail that Americans would no longer be able to keep their homes at 72 degrees. I f anyone has a link to that I would be most appreciative as I think it might fuel a little fire at bingo and AARP meetings.

  47. When I canvassed day of primary for Clinton we had vans available to enable those unable to get to the polling stations I wonder if the same actions will be taken by the fascists?


    You know those games in the Sunday funnies, “Find 10 things wrong with this picture”?

    Well, find 20 facts wrong in this opinion piece. At least you can email him:

    Scot Lehigh can be reached at

    Now, a war for public opinion

    By Scot Lehigh
    March 24, 2010

    DEMOCRATS WERE euphoric as President Obama signed the nation’s new health care law yesterday, and with good reason. As Vice President Joe Biden was caught whispering to his boss, “This is a big f***ing deal.’’

    Yes indeed. The United States is finally on its way to near universal health coverage. And a president whom conservative talking heads deride as in over his head and sinking fast has just secured a historic accomplishment.

    When Massachusetts shocked the nation by sending Scott Brown to the US Senate, Republicans thought they had thwarted Obama’s health care hopes. Certainly it wasn’t just their 60th Senate vote that Democrats had lost. They had also surrendered control of the narrative, with unseemly legislative sausage-making obscuring the larger health-care issues.

    After Brown’s victory, however, Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and congressional Democrats doubled down and found a way to move forward despite the setback. But though Democrats have won the immediate legislative struggle, they haven’t yet prevailed in the larger war for national opinion. With the Tea Partiers fuming with anti-government fury, conservative state officials thumping hoary states’ rights tubs, Republican congressfolk and presidential hopefuls vowing repeal, and former GOP standard-bearer John McCain threatening an extended senatorial sulk, the public battle promises to rage on.

    To win the broader victory needed to secure the law, Democrats need to wage a full-scale persuasion campaign. That means repeatedly reminding people of the protections and benefits the new law will bring them. It also means defending the law against hyperbolic attacks from those who see super-heated opposition as their path back to political power.

    As Obama showed in the last few weeks, and particularly with his masterful performance at the bipartisan health-care summit, he is eminently capable of that.

    His task should be made easier by the way opponents have approached health-care reform. From the start, they have thrown any stone within reach at the legislation. The sillier of the conservative TV and radio types have denounced it as a headlong plunge into socialism. Elected Republicans, meanwhile, have regularly decried it as a government takeover of health care, an unaffordable, deficit-swelling boondoggle that will propel the country down the path to ruin.

    The bill isn’t any of those things. It’s liberalism, to be sure. But socialism? Only if one doesn’t know what the word signifies. The charge of a government takeover of health care would be true if the law established a single-payer system. It doesn’t. Why, it doesn’t even include the robust public option liberals had wanted.

    As for cost, the Congressional Budget Office found the law will actually help reduce the 10-year deficit. And though opponents insist that’s only because costs are backloaded, the CBO says the measure would also cut the deficit significantly in its second decade, thereby giving the lie to that charge.

    “Overall, for a bill that expands coverage to more than 30 million people, it is a remarkably fiscally responsible bill,’’ said James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive thinktank.

    Don’t expect inconvenient facts to impede its opponents, however. Having once hoped to inflict a Waterloo-like low on Obama by scuttling health-care reform, they are now intent on turning his March success into November defeat.

    And yet, with a specific law for Democrats to defend, that will prove harder than the GOP thinks; a critique based on caricature and scare-tactics usually grows weaker in the face of well-presented facts. Further, as soon as the corrective reconciliation legislation passes the Senate, the worst of the offputting special deals will be gone.

    Meanwhile, most major pieces of the law, and particularly the protections against insurance-company abuses, poll well with the public. It’s no coincidence that Obama highlighted some of those in signing the law yesterday.

    “We think we will win on the actual specifics in the bill,’’ said US Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts. The bet here is that Markey is right — provided the president stays on the offensive as salesman-in-chief for the landmark new law.


    Dem Pollster: ‘Brutal’ election for Democrats in the Midwest
    By: Mark Hemingway
    Commentary Staff Writer
    03/24/10 9:08 AM EDT
    Following up on my post yesterday about gubernatorial elections in the Midwest, the Public Policy Polling — a Democratic firm, mind you — says things are going to get ugly in Novemeber in Big Ten states:

    If the election was today Democrats would likely lose something they currently hold in every state where they have something to lose- Pennsylvania Governor and perhaps Senate, Michigan Governor, Ohio Governor, Indiana Senate, Iowa Governor, Wisconsin Governor and perhaps Senate, and Illinois Senate and/or Governor. Only Minnesota doesn’t join the party because Democrats have nothing to lose there.

    What all this really makes me wonder is just how many House seats Democrats are going to lose in the region this year. The smattering of polling we’ve seen has not been very good for the party, but because it’s so limited it’s hard to get a handle on just how bad the situation is. Given the Obama numbers and what we’re seeing in Senate and Gubernatorial polls though I’m guessing it’s not a good picture for Democrats. It’s going to be a very difficult year for the party in this region.


    Likely GOP Gov. victories in November could have big effect on redistricting
    By: Mark Hemingway
    Commentary Staff Writer
    03/23/10 12:38 PM EDT
    Over at Real Clear Politics, Sean Trende takes a look at the electoral landscape for gubernatorial elections in the Midwest and sees the potential for the GOP to make some significant redistricting gains in Congress:

    The biggest state-level prizes in the 2010 midterm elections will be a string of governor’s races in the industrial midwest: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The victor guarantees themselves at least a seat at the redistricting table in 2010 in states that are almost all at risk of losing one or two seats. This could ultimately result in a 10-15 seat swing of house seats, depending on which party comes out on top.

    Veteran Michigan pollster MRG shows that the GOP could be in the driver’s seat in one of the more Democratic states of the bunch. In the GOP primary, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, Attorney General Mike Cox and businessman Rick Snyder are all bunched around 20% of the vote; two other candidates receive 10% and 1% of the vote, respectively. The Democrats all have very low name recognition; “undecided” is the big winner over House Speaker Andy Dillon (21%), Lansing Mayor Verg Bernero (9%) and Alma Smith (6%).

    Trende only looks at the polling for Michigan, but note that Rasmussen has the GOP candidates in Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania leading. Only the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota is trailing, but only by three points and still within the poll’s margin of error.

  51. henry, yes Michelle Obama did say that and I can tell you my electric bill doubled this summer, I live in Texas and I am not sure we will be able to afford for it to double again as it usually does in the summer. I understand this, but I think its a consorted effort to raise the price of electricity. I grew up without a/c and I can do it again. We had sleeping porches, maybe they will come in fashion again, but with the crime, maybe we will need chainmale, LOL!

  52. admin
    I know you have very little time but if you find yourself with the opportunity I’d love for you take a look at the dynamics which have played themselves out in Pittsburgh over the last few years. The city is a mess financially and yet year after year and against the votes of the populace have continued to expand an unrealistic and unsustainable image. UPMC is the largest employer in the city and pays no taxes. That is one thing but it is another to look at how they pay out monies. The revenue is in the billions and yet they pay no taxes. Add to that Carnegie Mellon, Highmark, Gateway and yes even the Salvation Army(takes 40% of all donations given to a rehab and turns them into the general center while giving nothing back to the rehab)

  53. Henry, we’ll try to do Pittsburgh, but we have an article about what is going on in New York that has been ready for a long time and is yet to be published. We’ll try to get to Pennsylvania (which along with Ohio, and New York are the most interesting states this November).

    RGB44Hrc, Mark Hemingway and Trende should read our analysis. We had (dare we say it) a much more interesting article which we published in November of 2009. It was Part I of our Mistake in ’08 series, which we also have another oft delayed installment ready to be published.

  54. PM317,

    This bill happened because James Roosevelt, head of the Rules and Bylaws Committee which docked Florida and Michigan half of their delegates, and awarded Obama four of the delegates Hillary won in Michigan as well as all of the uncommitted delegates from that state, is the CEO of a health insurance company and this bill is the bill that he wanted to pass. he gave Obama the delegates he needed to secure the nomination and Obama gave him the healthcare bill that he wanted. It’s very simple.

    This bill is all about corruption. It’s about Obama paying back (literally) his benefactors. Health insurance companies and Wall Street funded his campaign and both of them have done very well under his administration.

  55. Clarification
    Harbor Light which was once a subsidiary of the Salvation Army was told it could not receive government funding if it discriminated on the basis of religion.
    The rehab business is huge, the Harbor light in pittsburgh charges well over 150/day per client per day they live in a dorm and see a counselor every two weeks for one half hour. In addition to the 150/day they get tens of thousands of state and federal grants for housing the “homeles” 40 percent of these monies are then returned to the salvation army which has been told because of its religuous affiliation it cannot get federal monies.

  56. admin
    should you ever need a little leg work– I will quote a bad 80’s film– Look no further Mr Kim I’m your man.

  57. also where pittsburgh big government robbed its populace
    added 10% alcohol tax to save the bus system. It was saved and a judge ruled the money couldn’t be used outside of public transportation so where did it go? All services are being cut back?


  58. basement, agree and for a while there was panic after Brown’s election but of course the crooks came back with even more resolve.

  59. admin
    with all due respect New york is too watched. I think the same thing about the state of PA but Pittsburgh is small enough and represents America more than most major cities. The conference here was a rehearseal for something. Unless you were here you cannot comprehend what was done. It was a complete government takeover. Everything. I was in New York for the RNC convention and it paled in comparison to what happened here, more because the majority of people acqueisced. It was flagrantly wrong and msnbc cnn et al and yes fox gave no credence to the peoples whose lives were upset and lost money lots of money.

  60. Wow
    So sorry for over posting. I’m just an angry idiot. Will try to refrain in the future.
    Grateful for all of you and making me think/see outside the box.

    raised 1.4 million sadly I read DNC raised the same amount
    Apples to oranges Henry. That 1.4 million will be used to target a single individual. The underfunded dnc must allocate 1.4 million in graft it receives in many different directions, including G&A/

    Or maybe they are waiting for November to get even.

  63. Trench warfare is next—



    Published on on March 23, 2010

    Printer-Friendly Version

    Let’s begin our reaction to the passage of Obamacare by remembering Winston Churchill’s famous formulation with which he introduced his war memoirs: In defeat: defiance

    In war: resolution

    In victory: magnanimity

    In peace: goodwill

    Now is the time for defiance! Here’s what we must do:

    1. Restore the Medicare cuts mandated in this bill. Block the reduction of physicians’ fees by 21% scheduled to take effect this fall. Override the cuts in Medicare that require annual approval by Congress. Challenge the Democrats over each and every cut. Try to peel away enough votes to stop the cuts from driving doctors and hospitals to adopt the course already taken by the Mayo Clinic in refusing to take Medicare patients.

    2. Defeat the Democrats in the 2010 election! Start with the traitors who voted no in November and then switched to a shameful yes when it counted in March: Baird (Washington), Nye (Virginia), Kosmas and Boyd (Florida), Then go on to win the open seats in the House and Senate. And then fight to replace as many Democrats as possible. Remember: Any Democrat who voted no would have voted yes if they had needed his or her vote. The only way to repeal Obamacare is to vote Republican.

    3. Defund Once we get the majority in both chambers, defund appropriations for the Obamacare program. The bill passed by the Congress and signed by the president is simply an authorization measure. Funds must be appropriated for it each year by Congress. Through zero funding these changes, we can cripple them before they take full effect.

    4. Repeal And, once we defeat Barack Obama, we need to proceed to repeal this disastrous plan before it can ruin our health care system. Then, we must replace it with a Republican alternative which relies on the marketplace, tax incentives, and individual responsibility to provide health care to all Americans.

    Above all, we must finally learn the fundamental lesson this political process we have been through has to teach: That there is no such thing as a conservative or moderate Democrat. Blue dogs don’t exist in real life. Only yellow dogs.

    The days when there were Democrats who refused to follow their radical leftwing party line are over. There are no longer “state” Democrats who vote conservative as opposed to “national” Democrats who vote with the left. They are an extinct species. Some Senators and Congressmen capitalize on our memories of those days and pretend to be moderates. But they are just faking it.

    Nancy Pelosi knew — as Harry Reid knew in the Senate — that she had the potential support of every single Democrat in her chamber if only the price was right. The sole difference between moderate and liberal Democrats is their asking price. Moderates require slightly higher bribes to assure their votes.

    There are only two kinds of Congressmen or Senators: Democrats and Republicans. We have had a national education and its time to learn from it. In days gone by, intelligent people liked to say that they voted for the person, not the party. Now those who say this are fooling themselves. There is only party! The most conservative Democrat is way to the left of the most liberal Republican.

    The Democratic victory on Obamacare will prove the most expensive in the party’s history. It will lead to the eradication of their majority, the defeat of more than fifty of their Congressmen, the switch of Senate control, and Republican domination for decades. And, in the end, it will have done nothing to improve health care. But, fortunately, we can win the 2010 election to stop it from doing much damage.

  64. Henry, no need to apologize. We completely understand the anger and frustration. You’ve been entirely respectful towards all, which is the best way to discuss issues.

    As to New York, vs. Pittsburgh the current title of our New York post is “The forgotten election”. That election has echoes everywhere so in a sense it is not a New York post but a bit about what the future holds. BTW, it is not an election in New York City.

    We also agree with you about the silly “security” which is leading to a “cow” mentality. We once wrote about how if you buy a train ticket you have to show ID, but if you buy it from a machine, nothing is required. Ticket agents will even inform you to use the machines if you don’t have ID to show them. It’s not “security” it’s flim-flam (and this started well before B.O.). Also the fake building security nonsense is truly infuriating.

    As to your comment about Mary Todd and 72 degrees. We mocked her when she showed up in the dead of Winter last year in a sleeveless dress to one of the publicity stunts. She undoubtedly keeps the fireplaces at the Rezko house with all the mahogany fireplaces lit. The private quarters for her and the boob are probably at 82 degrees.

  65. Yes, I know Morris brings alot of baggage. But the question is–is he right in this instance? Is the only difference between a conservative and a liberal democrat the price? When Bush was in office we had the same problem. No republican voices rose i opposition to his policies. If that is true then all we can do is play both ends to the middle and work against the party in power. If Hillary re-enters politics then for sure the equation changes but for now and for me at least the fundamental challenge is to save our nation from the forces which aim to destroy it. Sadly at this moment in history culprit is the democratic party. Four years ago it was the Republican Party. Only the threat today is greater than it was before. If you take the careless remark by Dingel–that the goal is to build a structure of government to “control” the people and the careless remark by Dean that this is our moment to “rule”–as opposed to serve, then the real game here becomes obvious.

  66. wbboei,

    It’s a class war we’re looking at, not a partisan one. I may love me some Al Gore, but he caved in to the ruling class when he should have stood up and fought for all of us. He didn’t. He failed. Clinton, otoh, was approached and offered a free ride to the presidency (sorta like the one Obama got) if he simply let Bush Sr. win his second term. But Bill stood up for all of us who needed a job and got to work on our behalf.

    I’m as liberal as the Greens, but I’m not a Green because I want to win. But the Democrats are as compromised as the Republicans at the moment and it’s all about class.

    We had eight years under Bush of the energy companies, the defense industry and the real estate industry robbing us blind. Now Obama is in office, and there’ll be a few more industries stepping up to the trough. Wall Street was first, and the health industry was second. I’m sure that the oil companies will come around soon enough for another heapin’ helping of our hospitality.

  67. Henry and jb too, take it easy. There is absolutely no point in losing our heads over these corrupt and ineffective politicians. Also you are not alone — things are slow to work in a democracy but they will work and votes and elections are our tools.

    And finally, Que Sera, Sera.. whatever will be, will be.

    From “The Man Who Knew Too Much”

  68. “Clinton, otoh, was approached and offered a free ride to the presidency (sorta like the one Obama got) if he simply let Bush Sr. win his second term.”


  69. The greatest threat posed by Obama is that over time the truth means nothing and the electorate becomes a mindless mob of bots burning smashing and killing anything that stands in their way. This movement by the forces of darkness bigotry and ignorance masquerading as something they are not was depicted in a well known play a century ago. The message was clear but the denouement was unsettling. When bots rule to speak your mind is to become an Enemy of The People.

    A coastal town in Norway is on its way to becoming a major health resort thanks to its new municipal baths. In anticipation of an influx of tourists in the coming summer season, property values are rising, business is picking up, and unemployment is decreasing.

    At the modest home of Thomas Stockmann, an idealistic physician, the spa and its benefits make for lively conversation between Mayor Peter Stockmann, the brother of Dr. Stockmann, and Hovstad, editor of the local newspaper, both of whom arrived for a visit just after the Stockmanns finished supper. With Hovstad is an assistant named Billing. Dr. Stockmann is out for a walk with his sons, Ejlif and Morten.

    “Mark my words, Mr. Hovstad–the baths will become the focus of our municipal life!” the mayor says. “Think how extraordinarily the place has developed within the last year or two! Money has been flowing in, and there is some life and some business doing in the town. Houses and landed property are rising in value every day.”

    Hovstad mentions that he plans to run an article about the health resort–written by Dr. Stockmann, the medical director of the baths–in the spring, the right time to generate interest in the new community asset. The doctor, who came up with the idea for the baths, has been an untiring promoter of their potential benefits.

    Peter Stockmann reminds Hovstad that he, as mayor, played a “modest” part (really meaning the most important part) in making the baths a reality. It was the mayor’s practicality and business sense, he hints, that were the driving forces behind the project.

    When Dr. Stockmann returns from his walk with Captain Horster, a seafarer, he is in a cheerful mood. Everything is going right for him and his family, he says, and he now has enough money to afford a few little luxuries, like the roast beef they had for dinner. When the mayor inquires about the article his brother wrote, Dr. Stockmann says he has decided to withhold it for the time being, but does not say why. Suspecting that his brother is keeping something from him–possibly something about the spa–the mayor accuses the doctor of withholding important information, then says:

    “You have an ingrained tendency to take your own way, at all events; and, that is almost equally inadmissible in a well ordered community, The individual ought undoubtedly to acquiesce in subordinating himself to the community–or, to speak more accurately, to the authorities who have the care of the community’s welfare.”

    After Mayor Stockmann leaves, Dr. Stockmann’s daughter, Petra, a schoolteacher, arrives and joins in the conversation. An idealist like her father, Petra says, “There is so much falsehood both at home and at school. At home one must not speak, and at school we have to stand and tell lies to the children.” Captain Horster offers to provide a room for the school in an old house he owns.

    Dr. Stockmann then opens a letter he received, then waves it before Hovstad and his wife, announcing a remarkable discovery: The baths are contaminated. The doctor speaks in a triumphant, jubilant tone, for he believes he has done a great service for the public welfare. He says several cases of typhoid fever and gastric fever the previous year aroused his suspicion about the spa water, so he took samples of it and sent them to a university for analysis. The letter he holds contains the results of the analysis: The spa is a cesspool of disease. It seems that tanneries in the town leached impurities into the water. Hovstad–seemingly idealistic, like Dr. Stockmann–promises to publish news of the discovery and says his printer, Aslaksen, a prominent citizen, will back the decision, as will a homeowner’s association.

    In the days immediately following the discovery, Mayor Peter Stockmann discovers it will cost an enormous sum in tax dollars to make improvements, including laying new pipes to handle the leachate, which his brother says are necessary to eliminate the pollution. So he decides to challenge his brother’s findings as faulty and asks him to renounce them. The doctor–viewing himself as the guardian of the common weal, a savior–refuses.

    Meanwhile, Hovstad, fearing the wrath of the taxpayers, decides not to publish Dr. Stockmann’s article. At a town meeting in a large room provided as a goodwill gesture by Captain Horster, almost everyone lines up against Dr. Stockmann–Mayor Stockmann, Hovstad, Aslaksen, the homeowners, ordinary citizens–and shout him down when he attempts to explain the problem and alert the town to the danger. One citizen wonders whether he has an alcohol problem. Another suggests insanity runs in his family. Still another thinks he is getting even for not receiving a salary increase as the spa’s medical director. All agree that he should be labeled “an enemy of the people,” one bent on destroying the town. When Stockmann and his family leave the meeting, the crowd hisses and boos, then begins chanting “enemy of the people,” “enemy of the people.”

    The next morning, the Stockmanns discover broken windows and rocks littering the floor. The doctor piles the rocks on a table, saying he will save them as heirlooms for his children. A letter arrives in which the landlord gives Dr. Stockmann notice of eviction. It doesn’t matter, Stockmann tells his wife, for he and his family will cross the sea and resettle in the New World. Then Captain Horster arrives and announces his employer has fired him. The mayor enters and announces that the citizens are circulating a petition pledging that they will no longer seek the medical services of Dr. Stockmann. The mayor advises his brother to leave town for a while, then return and confess his error in writing. Such a move might earn him reinstatement as medical director of the spa. Dr. Stockmann says he will never admit that he was wrong–never, never–under any circumstances.

    After the mayor leaves, another visitor arrives. He is Morton Kiil, the father of Dr. Stockmann’s wife, Katherine. Kiil is the owner of polluting tanneries. In his will, he had stipulated that a handsome sum be bequeathed to Katherine and the Stockmanns’ children. However, he tells the doctor that he invested the bequest in stock in the tanneries. Furthermore, he is going around town buying up all the remaining stock in the tanneries. Thus, if Dr. Stockmann sticks to his story–that is, if he refuses to recant–the stock will become worthless and his wife and children will inherit nothing. Kiil tells the doctor that he has until 2 p.m. to change his position.

    When Kiil leaves, Hovstad and Aslaksen arrive. They think Dr. Stockmann is involved in a scheme to inflate the value of the stocks and want in on the scheme. But Stockmann dismisses them, raising an umbrella as if to strike them. They hurry out. Captain Horster invites the Stockmanns to board at his house during the winter. The doctor expresses his gratitude, then says he will focus his medical practice on the poor and educate his children himself. In fact, he says, he will start a school of his own to teach the town’s guttersnipes. He is feeling upbeat, cheerful as he looks ahead.

    “I am the strongest man in this town,” he says.

    Then he announces he has made another important discovery. Gathering everyone close to him, he says “The strongest man in the world is he who stands alone.”

  70. Sales of New U.S. Homes Dropped in February to Lowest on Record
    Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
    By Bob Willis

    March 24 (Bloomberg) — Sales of new homes in the U.S. unexpectedly fell in February to a record low as blizzards, unemployment and foreclosures depressed the market.

    Purchases decreased 2.2 percent to an annual pace of 308,000, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. The median sales price climbed by the most in more than two years.

    The new-home market is vying with foreclosure-induced declines in prices for existing homes in an economy where unemployment is forecast to average 9.6 percent this year, close to a 26-year high. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner yesterday said it would take a “long time” to repair the housing market as the administration takes steps to overhaul real-estate financing and regulation.

    “It’s going to be a long, slow slog and the lagging sector will be new home sales because they have to compete with existing sales and foreclosures,” Bill Hampel, chief economist at the Credit Union National Association in Washington, said before the report. “New home sales probably have until the fourth quarter until they start recovering.”

    Sales were projected to climb to a 315,000 annual pace, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of 78 economists. Forecasts ranged from 275,000 to 343,000. The Commerce Department revised January data to show 315,000 sales at an annual pace, up from the previously estimated 309,000.

    Goods Orders

    Another Commerce Department report showed orders for long- lasting goods rose in February for a third month, while inventories and backlogs climbed by the most in more than a year, indicating the manufacturing rebound will keep propelling the recovery.

    The 0.5 percent increase in bookings for durable goods was in line with the median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and followed a 3.9 percent gain the prior month. Excluding transportation equipment, orders advanced 0.9 percent, more than anticipated.

    The report on home sales showed purchases dropped in three of four U.S. regions last month, those most likely to have been influenced by the winter storms. Purchases fell 20 percent in the Northeast, 18 percent in the Midwest and 4.6 percent in the South, which includes the Washington area.

    Demand climbed 21 percent in the West, pushing the year- over-year increase in that region up to 35 percent, the biggest 12-month jump since March 2004.

    Higher Prices

    The median price of a new home in the U.S. increased 5.2 percent to $220,500 in February from a year earlier. The advance was the largest since September 2007.

    The supply of homes at the current sales rate increased to 9.2 months’ worth, the highest since May, from 8.9 months in January.

    Housing, the industry that triggered the worst recession in seven decades as the subprime mortgage market collapsed, showed signs of recovering in 2009 as an $8,000 first-time buyer tax credit boosted sales ahead of its originally scheduled expiration in November.

    Extension of the credit for contracts signed by April and its expansion to include some current homeowners has failed to boost sales in recent months.

    New-home purchases are considered a leading indicator because they are based on contract signings. Sales of previously owned homes, which make up the remainder, are compiled from closings and reflect contracts signed weeks or months earlier.

    Existing Homes

    Sales of existing homes fell 0.6 percent in February to a 5.02 million rate, the lowest since June, and the inventory of unsold homes rose to its highest level in almost two years, the National Association of Realtors reported yesterday in Washington.

    Prices fro existing home have dropped due to foreclosures, which RealtyTrac Inc. forecasts will reach a record 3 million this year. Such sales draw buyers away from the market for new houses.

    A lack of jobs is another hurdle to a housing recovery. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg in early March forecast the jobless rate this year will average 9.6 percent, near the 26- year high of 10.1 percent reached in October.

    The end of Fed purchases of mortgage-backed securities, aimed at keeping borrowing costs low, represents another challenge for the industry. The program is scheduled to expire at the end of this month.

    “Promoting and maintaining stability in the housing market is critical to achieving economic recovery and sustainable long- term growth,” Geithner said in testimony before Congress yesterday. The administration will develop a “comprehensive reform proposal” beginning later this year, he said.

    To contact the report on this story: Bob Willis in Washington at

  71. rgb44,

    Admin has been saying all along that Squat is Bush 111.
    Personally, I think he’s 1000 % WORSE than GWB.

    Basement Angel,
    Amazing detective work at 5:31.

    birdgal, admin and others who commented on my happy news, thanks so much! This site kicks butt and it inspired me to fight hard!

    (sorry for the late comments but I am drowning in my new profession which forces me to take photos to go with a dozen weekly stories even though I have zero ability in that area. I am trying to learn yet a third digital camera and it is TOUGH!)

  72. Bush was much better..he at least loved America and was not hell bent on destroying our democracy.

  73. … Presidential scofflaw- couldn’t tell the Truth if his life depended on it. Sold the Public a non-existent Bill of Goods. Someone here on this blog got suckered by Obama. Reminded me of this benefit put into ObamaCare- because why? They “BELIEVED” him!

    Gap in health care law’s protection for children

    By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 16 hours ago

    WASHINGTON — Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

    Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

    Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

    However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.… I’d call that a …Maybe, s BIG Maybe! Why? Because Obama Cannot be TRUSTED!

    Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That’s the same year when insurance companies could(?)(My emphasis) no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems. I find this statement particularly hard to believe! When the Ins Cos begin calculating how much it’s going to cost them insuring pre-existing conditions either the premium costs will be they will be un-affordable to subscribers OR they back off the original promise of insuring preexisting conditions…
    Obama’s public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

    “This is a patient’s bill of rights on steroids,” the president said Friday at George Mason University in Virginia. “Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.”

    And Saturday, addressing House Democrats as they approached a make-or-break vote on the bill, Obama said, “This year … parents who are worried about getting coverage for their children with pre-existing conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage — this year.”

    Late Tuesday, the administration said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would try to resolve the situation by issuing new regulations. The Obama administration interprets the law to mean that kids can’t be denied coverage, as the president has said repeatedly.

    “To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term ‘pre-existing exclusion’ applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans newly sold in this country six months from today,” HHS spokesman Nick Papas said.

    The coverage problem could mainly affect parents who purchase their own coverage for the family, as many self-employed people have to do. Families covered through employer plans typically do not have to worry about being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

    Parents whose kids are turned down by an insurer would still have a fallback under the law, even without Sebelius’ fix. They could seek coverage through state high-risk insurance pools slated for a major infusion of federal funds.

    The high-risk pools are intended to serve as a backstop until 2014, when insurers no longer would be able to deny coverage to those in frail health. That same year, new insurance markets would open for business, and the government would begin to provide tax credits to help millions of Americans pay premiums.

    An insurance industry group says the language in the law that pertains to consumer protections for kids is difficult to parse.

    “We’re taking a closer look at it to see what exactly the requirement will be,” said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main industry lobby.

  74. I don’t do videos. This probably isn’t worth anyone’s time but just in case anyone is curious.

    An accusation is going around that some Tea Party people insulted John Lewis and others. Most people I read say there is no evidence, that there was a video which should include the insults but didn’t.

    Here is a link to a video posted by some people who believe the accusations. Maybe someone would like to do a reality check on it?

  75. Just a reminder of the special award to Hillary


    Secretary Clinton To Attend Congressional Women’s History Month Celebration in Her Honor on March 25th

    Office of the Spokesman
    Washington, DC

    March 23, 2010


    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the guest of honor at a event marking Women’s History Month on March 25th at 12:15 p.m. in Statuary Hall of the U.S. Capitol. The event will be hosted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey.

    Statuary Hall
    The U.S. Capitol
    Washington, D.C.

    The office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi will coordinate the press logistics. Press must display Congressional media credential with picture ID. Press should contact their respective Congressional media gallery for credentialing.

    Pre-set time for cameras: 10:30 a.m.

    Press Contact:
    Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi

  76. ABM90
    March 24th, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    Just a reminder of the special award to Hillary

    Thanks for the reminder, AMB… Bill and Hillary continue to shine because of their genuine due diligence benefiting our country and the World. It’s about time they get their long awaited recognition.

    It’s just as well HillaryCare was not mentioned or attributed before BO’s bread and circus signing. The further away the Clinton’s associations are from BO’s Administration, the better I like it.

  77. I understand that some constitutional scholars are weighing in on the merits of the legal challenge to Obama care and expressing the same confidence I have that the individual mandate provision at least will be struck down. This delights me to no end because unlike them I am no constitutional scholar.

    Their reasoning is based on the Tenth Amendment and its central role in the establishment of the Constitution. At that time, there states were having a difficult time finding common ground. They were sovereign entities unto themselves and the prior Articles of Confederation had established that principle. The question was whether they could provide for the formation of central government without undermining the sovereignty of the individual states.

    Not surprisingly, the smaller states were apprehensive that the larger states would ride roughshod over them. That problem was solved however through the concept of bi-cameralism, whereby there would be equal representation in the upper chamber (Senate) and proportionate representation in the lower chamber (House).

    At the same time, all states where concerned that they would lose their sovereignty if a strong central government was created, and Washington had to get involved lest the generations fail. The result of his efforts and those of others was the Tenth Amendment which reserved all powers to the states and people all powers not enumerated in the Constitution.

    Ironically, this Amendment which was key to the establishment of the Constitution was largely forgotten thereafter until Mr. Justice Douglas found a penumbra of privacy in that Amendment in Griswold vs. Connecticut, and later of course Mr. Justice Powell expanded upon that principle in Roe vs. Wade.

    There is a practical reason to strike down the entire bill. The federal mandate it will impose on the sovereign states to pay the cost to cover 25 million illegals and/or 40 million uninsureds will bankrupt a number of states. That too would be inimical to their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.

  78. It’s a class war we’re looking at, not a partisan one.
    Very true Basement Angel.

  79. Secretary Clinton To Attend Congressional Women’s History Month Celebration in Her Honor on March 25th

    Office of the Spokesman
    Washington, DC

    March 23, 2010


    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the guest of honor at a event marking Women’s History Month on March 25th at 12:15 p.m. in Statuary Hall of the U.S. Capitol. The event will be hosted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey.
    Go Hillary, go!

    The only bad part is Nasty is cohosting this shindig.

  80. Many years ago, Hollywood did a movie called The Night of The Generals, starring Peter O’Toole, Omar Shariff, Donald Pleasant inter alia. The movie is about the efforts by a German Major Grau who is obsessed with the murder of a prostitute by a man whose face could not be seen but who was wearing the trousers of a German general and is killed for it. The balance of the movie deals with how his friend, a leader of the French resistance takes up the case and arrests the ex General 25 years after the war, shortly after his release from a Soviet prison.

    There is a scene in that movie which puts me in mind of Obama and what his ultimate plan is for the country. This scenario was presented to me this afternoon by a friend. In this particular scene, SS General Tanz a mad man and a butcher fresh from costly victories on the eastern front is brought in to deal with the problem in the Warsaw ghetto, which was honey combed with freedom fighters who were harrassing the forces of occupation.

    The plan is organized into three phases. Phase I is to invite the people living in the Ghetto to surrender peacefully, and many of them do only to be arrested and hearded away. Phase II is to kill those who resist and phase III is to destroy the Ghetto and all inhabitants still remaining therein.

    Major Grau (Shariff) is a witness to this lethal operation. He watches General Tanz (O’Toole) execute Phase I, and then use token resistance as a pretext to quickly exectute Phase II, and just as quickly Phase III. The sight is appalling and Grau cannot bear the sight of it.

    What I was told today is that Phase II for Obama is to bankrupt these states through this bill and Phase III is to impose marshall law. If that is indeed the plan then all dimocrats who voted for it are in pare delicto for what happens. Meanwhile the Republican effort to stop him has been nothing short of pathetic.

    Either way, the last firewall is the Supreme Court.

  81. It is being reported by sources on the Hill that McConnell is secretly skuttling efforts by members of his own party to take a vote to repeal Obamacare during the reconciliation process. Why would he do that? Because it will not succeed? Because he believes it would put them on the wrong side of history? Or is it perchance because he likes the political position they are in at the present time and with the court filings which are likely to do some good, this is not the ideal moment to pile on? Do I agree with him? Damned if I know. His judgment in the recent past has been poor on such matters, that much I do know.

  82. 1. Obama Job Approval
    47.7% 46.6% +1.1%

    2. Congress
    17.4% 77.0% -59.6%

    3. Direction of Country Right Direction Wrong Track Spread
    RCP Average 33.0% 60.8% -27.8%
    Where’s the bounce?

  83. wbboei,

    Republicans aren’t going to repeal Obamacare. It’s right up there alley. This is basically Richard Nixon’s plan with a bit of Romney thrown in. They want to get in on the health insurance dollars and if they threaten to repeal the bill, the health insurance industry will fund their Democratic opponents.

    They’re going to work it like they do the abortion issue – they’ll have it both ways. They’ll say they oppose it but do nothing to change it = unless they change it to make the insurance companies even happier.

  84. Basement Angel: I think they would like to repeal it. They do not want the federal government to control a more and more and more of the country. I know them personally. That is foreign to their philosophy. Whether they do repeal it depemds on whether they win back congress and the right people are in charge. Leaders as opposed to casper milquetoasts like McConnell and Hatch.

  85. Admin: some poster at The Confluence is using parts of your material without attribution. The other way to look at it I suppose is that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
    But Hillary said . . .
    Posted on March 24, 2010 by myiq2xu

    The past couple of days we’ve seen a dramatic increase in the use of one of the favorite Obot memes – the gist of which is Hillary supports Obama so we should fall in line. The current version is Hillary supports ObamaCare so we should cheer for its passage. We first saw this meme back in the summer of 2008 and it didn’t work then either.

    The Obots seem genuinely confused when we respond “So?” to what they think is a trump card for our criticism of and opposition to Teh Precious. Their confusion arises from a key difference between us and them.

    Obots are followers of Obama. As far as they are concerned whatever Obama says is the TRUTH – permanent and unchanging – even if it contradicts something he said five minutes earlier. Whatever Obama does is RIGHT, even if he follows the same policies as George W. Bush.

    On those rare occasions when the Obots acknowledge that Obama is breaking promises and/or doing things no Democrat should, they create all kinds of excuses and rationalizations to justify his actions. In this regard they are truly the creative class.

    When all else fails, when they cannot rationalize or explain away his conduct, the recite their mantra that “the Republicans are worse” and promise to remain loyal to Obama and the Democratic party no matter what.

    RIGHT HERE >>>>>>>>>>

    We, on the other hand, were never followers of Hillary Clinton. We supported Hillary because we believed she was by far the best candidate running, but we never thought she was perfect or infallible. We chose Hillary because she was the candidate that most closely shared our beliefs, but we didn’t alter our beliefs to fit our support of Hillary.

    The Obots claim that Hillary supporters are a bunch of middle-aged women who were never interested in politics until Hillary ran for the Democratic nomination. This is the “identity politics” myth that is second only to the racism myth in perpetuating misinformation about us. I don’t know about y’all, but I don’t “identify” with women of any age. I can’t think of a politician of either gender I identify with. If I was using identity politics to choose a candidate, I would have voted for Obama because I have more in common with him than I did with any of the other candidates.

    Hillary was not my first choice. I wanted someone more liberal but the only liberal that was running was deemed an unserious kook by the media. I really didn’t want to see the GOP recycle all the CDS from the nineties either. But Hillary impressed me and won my vote.

    But while Hillary was an imperfect candidate, Obama was a very bad one. He ran an ugly, divisive campaign, and his followers recycled all that CDS from the nineties before the GOP ever had a chance to. Contrary to what the Obots claim, we weren’t angry because “Hillary lost.” We were angry because our votes were stolen and the process corrupted.

    Despite what happened Hillary chose to remain loyal to the Democratic party. She is serving our country as Secretary of State. But her choices are not binding on me.

    I originally opposed Obama because I believed him to be unfit to be President of our nation. I believe that even more so today. I opposed Obamacare because I believed it would be bad for our nation. I still believe that too..

    I have read and listened to a great many people on the subject of Obamacare. Some of them, like Paul Krugman, I respect. But I don’t agree with him. Some of them, like Glenn Beck, I don’t respect at all. But I don’t agree with him either.
    I read and researched for many months, then I made up my own mind. With all due respect to our Secretary of State, I prefer my opinion to hers.

    If you want me to change my opinion (it’s been known to happen) then you need facts and logic. I don’t mean facts like “It’s a fact that Hillary supports ObamaCare” either. When Obama was inaugurated I said I hope I get proven wrong about him. So far, no luck.

    I would support ObamaCare if I thought it was a good program. Maybe in 2014 when it takes effect I’ll find out I was wrong. If so, I will happily admit it.

    Don’t hold your breath.

  86. We, on the other hand, were never followers of Hillary Clinton. We supported Hillary because we believed she was by far the best candidate running, but we never thought she was perfect or infallible. We chose Hillary because she was the candidate that most closely shared our beliefs, but we didn’t alter our beliefs to fit our support of Hillary.
    If those were your words then they are the wisest words ever written on the subject. They define us for what we are–adults, brave souls based on the criterion laid out by Ibsen in Enemy of The People summarized above, and contributors to constitutional democracy. By contrast, Obama is the Pied Piper of Hamlin, his bots are children of all ages, and they are enemies of true democracy. The test of a democracy according to somebody, Voltaire maybe was a willingness to tolerate the thought we disagree with. By that test, Obama and his hordes are totalitarians.

  87. There’s a problem. Senate Repubs found two student loan provisions which must be stripped. Another House vote coming. At least that’s what two local NBC affiliates report this morning on the telly.

  88. They are reporting the same on my local channel. Interesting, I thought they knew what they were doing, and had or at least had someone read the bill.

    Another case of passing a bill that no one understands. \

    wbboei I agree: We are followers, not worshipers of HRC. However, the Dims and Reps believe that once elected, by any means possible, they don’t have to worry about the voters. They behave like we work for them. I will never forget the look of amusement on a hard core Dims face, when I said the Gov worked for me.

  89. Hillary is Onthe road again.

    Obama is on the run again


    osted: 23 Mar 2010 08:44 PM PDT

    Interactive Travel Map | Trip Page

    Secretary Clinton led a Cabinet-level delegation to Mexico City for the second formal Merida U.S.-Mexico High Level Consultative Group meeting on March 23, 2010. Following her meeting with Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa, Secretary Clinton said:

    “[L]et me begin by thanking the Foreign Secretary and the Government of Mexico for hosting these very important discussions today. We have had the opportunity to delve into many areas of common concern that lie at the heart of the Merida Initiative and our shared responsibility to combat and defeat organized transnational crime. We’re looking forward to continuing this conversation in the weeks and months ahead. We will be seeing President Calderon later today because the United States strongly supports his courageous campaign against violent criminal organizations on behalf of the Mexican people. And we honor the service and sacrifice of Mexico’s men and women in uniform in the military and in the police forces.

    “The relationship between our two nations is so comprehensive and complex and deep and broad. It is not bound by borders or bureaucratic divisions. And what we are focused on today is a part of that relationship, but a truly significant part. We are working in our two governments together to solve the problem posed by the criminal cartels that stalk the streets of your cities and ours, that kill and injure innocent people, and spread a reign of terror and intimidation, and use the trafficking of drugs to addict people, the trafficking of persons to degrade them, and who are truly an insult and a rebuke to the common values that our two nations share.

    “It’s an honor to be joined here in Mexico by a very significant delegation from the Obama Administration. Defense Secretary Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler, Acting Administrator of the DEA Michele Leonhart, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets in the Treasury Department Adam Szubin, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske, Ambassador Pascual, and a wide range of senior officials, all of whom are committed to this unique partnership that we are exhibiting today.

    “Our broad engagement allows us to come at these problems from many different angles, to devise cross-cutting solutions, to ensure that our two governments are working hand-in-hand, not just at the ministerial level but all the way down our bureaucracies.

    “We are expanding the Merida Initiative beyond what it was traditionally considered to be, because it is not just about security. Yes, that is paramount, but it is also about institution building. It is about reaching out to and including communities and civil society, and working together to spur social and economic development.”

    Secretary Clinton continued, “The narcotics cartels are waging war on civil society. This violence shreds communities, it holds back economic development, and it undermines progress. So yes, we accept our share of the responsibility. As I said when I first came here a year ago, I think standing right here on this stage, the United States is your partner and your supporter. We know that the demand for drugs drives much of this illicit trade, that guns purchased in the United States — as we saw some of the examples outside — are used to facilitate violence here in Mexico. And the United States must and is doing its part to help you and us meet those challenges.

    “Our partnership is so important because, as part of our continuing consultations, we are learning from each other. We are exploring different approaches. We are working to determine what is the best way forward. We’ve discussed new tools that we can use. But at the end of the day, it is not about discussions or meetings; it is about results. And that’s what our two presidents are focused on. They want real results that translate into greater security and improved opportunity for our citizens.

    “So today, we agreed on a specific path forward. We are designing concrete and specific work plans, complete with tasks, timetables, and measurements in four strategic areas: disrupting the capacity of the criminal organizations, reforming and strengthening security and justice institutions, creating a 21st century border that advances citizen safety and commerce, and building stronger, more resilient communities that can resist the influence of the cartels.”

    Read Secretary Clinton’s full remarks here.

    Fact Sheets

    U.S.-Mexico Security Partnership: Anti-Arms Trafficking and Anti-Money Laundering
    U.S.-Mexico Security Partnership: A New Border Vision
    U.S.-Mexico Security Partnership: Progress and Impact

  90. Senators voted on 29 consecutive GOP amendments between 5:30 p.m. Wednesday and 2:30 a.m. Thursday, when they recessed.

    By 57-42, Democrats rejected an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., barring federal purchases of Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. Coburn said it would save millions, while Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., called it “a crass political stunt.”

    Democrats also deflected GOP amendments rolling back the health law’s Medicare cuts; killing extra Medicaid funds for Tennessee and other state-specific spending; barring tax increases for families earning under $250,000; and requiring the president and other administration officials to purchase health care from exchanges the statute creates.

  91. So sex offenders get viagra, but women have less reproductive choice? What a bunch of jerks. Unbelievable and totally unethical. I really do hate them all.

  92. wbboei I agree: We are followers, not worshipers of HRC. However, the Dims and Reps believe that once elected, by any means possible, they don’t have to worry about the voters. They behave like we work for them. I will never forget the look of amusement on a hard core Dims face, when I said the Gov worked for me.
    NMF: take another look at what that says. First. it says we are not “followers” of any politician, we make our own choices and we do not defer to choices we fundamentally disagree with simply because a politician we like embraces them for reasons of her own. (Note: now that may not be the position of everyone, but it is certainly my position.) Second, we decide which politician to advance by whether they advance the interests of our country, at least as we perceive them. Third, if it were simply a case where the politicians we elect do not consider themselves accountable to the voters once they are elected, that is as you say a real problem. But the bigger problem now with the dimocrats is they consider themselves free to implement policies which are destructive of the country and inimical to its interests. They bank on the fact that enough of the electorate are sheep and will support policies which ultimately lead to their own demise if they merely push the right buttons. And now, they whine about death threats to advance their next line of defense for their treason that anyone who opposes it is either a racist or a thug. Compare and contrast the whining you see with that low life Stennie Hoyer with the fortitude and stoicism we saw from Hillary when she was confronted with actual attempts by al Qaeda in Africa.

  93. Still The Economy, Stupid

    By Larry Johnson on March 25, 2010 at 1:32 AM in Current Affairs
    No matter how euphoric Democrats are in the White House and the Congress, their manic behavior does not alter reality. Pretending that they have done a great thing, that health care will now be affordable and that costs will be contained is completely delusional. Why?

    Because the costs the bill impose are going to dampen economic activity and lead to more unemployment. Consider, for example, the tax on tanning salons. That means the price of getting bronzed skin is more expensive today than it was yesterday. If it costs more does that mean more people will want to get their melanin toasted? Hell no. This will reduce the demand for tans. Folks on tight budgets will go back to the old-fashioned way–i.e., laying out in the sun rather than laying out cash to recline in a tanning bed.

    As that happens can we expect tanning salons to hire more workers? Nope. They’ll probably cut some workers.

    But we’re only talking about one narrow, irrelevant sector of the economy. Right?

    No!! Here are some facts that Democrats and many in the media are ignoring:


    Sales of new homes in the U.S. unexpectedly fell in February to a record low as blizzards, unemployment and foreclosures depressed the market.

    Purchases decreased 2.2 percent to an annual pace of 308,000, figures from the Commerce Department showed today in Washington. The median sales price climbed by the most in more than two years.

    The new-home market is vying with foreclosure-induced declines in prices for existing homes in an economy where unemployment is forecast to average 9.6 percent this year, close to a 26-year high. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner yesterday said it would take a “long time” to repair the housing market as the administration takes steps to overhaul real-estate financing and regulation.

    “It’s going to be a long, slow slog and the lagging sector will be new home sales because they have to compete with existing sales and foreclosures,” Bill Hampel, chief economist at the Credit Union National Association in Washington, said before the report. “New home sales probably have until the fourth quarter until they start recovering.”


    Sales of existing homes fell for a third straight month in February, pushing sales down to the lowest level since last July. There is concern the fragile housing rebound is faltering, making it harder for the overall economy to recover.
    The National Association of Realtors said Tuesday that sales of previously occupied homes dropped 0.6 percent in February to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.02 million.

    The weakness in sales depressed prices with the median home price dropping almost 2 percent from a year ago to $165,100.

    If people are not buying existing homes, if people are not buying new homes, then they are not buying new furniture, they are not buying new rugs or electronics, they are not hiring painters and plumbers and electricians. These are the kinds of activities that create new jobs.

    If homes are not being built and/or re-sold than economic activity is going to limp along. Got it?

    And what is Barack Obama doing? He and the Democrats have now imposed new costs on construction firms, you know, the guys who build houses and employ people. With their new costs they will be less likely, not more likely, to bring on new workers.

    What about mo’ better health care coverage? Trouble on that front too.

    Ed Morrissey lays out the perverse incentives put into the bill. Why perverse? A law designed to insure everyone gets healthcare is going to actually give people a poorer quality of health care and provides strong incentives for employers with more than 50 workers to downsize and to limit pay. How do you like them apples?

    Will ObamaCare drive businesses out of providing health insurance?

    In a word, yes, and that’s not just me talking. Last night, CBS did a perspective on how ObamaCare’s mandates and tax incentives will impact small businesses, which Democrats insist will see benefits from the ObamaCare largesse. The only problem is that the system actually incentivizes businesses to pay penalties and throw their employees into the government-run exchanges:

    Let’s see how much hooting and hollering the Democrats are doing come November. I am betting they will be crying rather than cheering. It all hinges on housing and real estate and giving those folks who have the capital to put people to work and incentive to hire more workers. Simple economics, but Barack is a moron and does not understand simple things like this.

    Echo 44 Items

  94. They keep telling us the housing market is back. I have even seen that published locally. Yet, nothing is selling in this neighborhood. People are beginning to not see things as they are portrayed by the Media, but as they observe around them.

    I was at the Dentist office yesterday. I started a brief conversation with two women waiting for the teeth cleaning like I was. All I said was I don’t feel about politics the way I used to. One women came out of Illinois, the other I was not sure of. One was a Rep, and I was not sure what the other was. There was this unanamous quick discussion of how they agreed that none of us really fit into the Dem, Rep categories. The Rep observed that O was from her state and just following the Chicago Way. We all agreed health care was needed, but there appeared to be this concensus that none of us want to be pigeon holed into one category or the other. I was kind of amazed. That is a small stat sample, but no one contrived to slant it one way or the other. I consider these to be discussions in which people really tell you the way they feel. I don’t think that polling accomplished this. In fact, I am wondering if more people are refusing to participate in polling. I know I am refusing.

  95. Admin
    I anxiously await your take on NYC
    Lived there from 91 to 2006. hands down my favorite place on the planet. Not a big fan of the disney/starbucks/barnes and noble apple though. And I was stupified about how muted the response was from the elites after the RNC convention.

  96. jb, Obama’s version of Bush’s “my way or the high way”. This guy is good at snubbing people, not leading and building a consensus. Israel should stop trying.

  97. If King George Would Not Listen

    This is one of those posts that has to be written and has to be said, though I know going in to it I’m going to get beaten up from all sides, though especially from a left particularly out to get me right now.

    Nonetheless, this must be said.

    The threats, potential acts of violence, and violence against those who voted for the health care legislation must be condemned. They are neither helpful to those seeking repeal nor the acts of a civilized society. I comfortably say I speak for all the front page posters here condemning the violence and threats. The people who think this country has descended into the darkness do in fact send us down a dark path themselves with these actions.

    Clear? Good.

    Here comes the controversial part that still must be said: I have heard the audio of some of the threats. I get worse stuff routinely. Rush Limbaugh gets worse stuff on a daily basis. Republican members of Congress have gotten similar and worse stuff. Thank God this wasn’t a free trade vote or a variety of left wing groups would have half the country in flames right now. I do believe the 24 hours of threats, many of which were pretty weak, has gotten more national coverage than the leftist anarchists in Texas who molotov cocktailed the Texas Governor’s Mansion — for which arrests have never been made.

    I am forced to largely conclude that the Democrats are running to the nearest microphone in an effort to play the victim and generate sympathy as they try to steer poll numbers back in their direction. (See also Ann Althouse)

    Some of it is very bad stuff. I don’t want to underplay the bad. Some of it, however, is not. And some of it is overplayed. Like the press reports about protestors yelling racial epithets at Congressman Lewis, which video shows and reporters I’ve talked to confirm, did not happen, a lot of this is going to be overblown, but the media loves a good story.

    As one example of the over the top “violence on Democrats” stories went, people put a coffin near Russ Carnahan’s home as a threat. Turns out it was for a prayer vigil.

    But there is something else here.

    There are a great many Americans who truly believe the Democrats shredded the constitution on Sunday night. Made more galling, the Democrats were pretty upfront that they were pushing it through before congressmen could go home and face their angry constituents every poll showed were opposed to this legislation. And only after the vote did the media really start talking about the taxes, the flexible spending account cuts, the pre-existing conditions loophole for kids, etc. — i.e. the bad stuff in the bill.

    I’ve said for weeks I was a bit fearful of what would happen as a result. I sincerely pray we are not on the cusp of some group of angry and now unhinged mob lashing out at congressmen for a vote in the Congress. But something seems to be brewing and I frankly don’t think the Democrats should at all be surprised. They were and they knew they were playing with fire to advance legislation many Americans see as the undoing of the American Experiment. Some of those Americans will now conclude that, like with the founders, if King George will not listen, King George must be fought.

    Acts of violence against congressmen for behaving as congressmen are wholly inexcusable. We should be vigilant to police our own side because as we’re already seeing through a series of breathless and inaccurate reports, the press and Democrats are going to be quick to run most any story and the retraction will never be as significant as the initial report.

    But let’s not act surprised. The only people surprised by the rage are the ones who refused to venture outside Washington to understand first hand what the voters were actually thinking before congressmen voted.

    Frankly, after all the leadership threats and bullying against swing Democrats to vote for leadership, I think it is a bit ironic Democratic leaders are now decrying threats and bullying of swing state Democrats by their constituents who very clearly did not want them to vote as they did.

  98. wbboei
    not so true
    moved to NYC with a dream. Had two months covered for rent on Ridge and Rivington in the lower east side. My first job was a foot messenger didn’t know uptown from downtown east side from west side. I was broke but every day was an adventure I was fortunate but it was so incredibly alive. Today I might agree with you I don’t think you can move there with a dream and a couple of hundred dollars. I actually fear NYC will become like Paris a city living on its history. No way a Dylan thomas a basquat a warhol(yuck) could exist today.
    I had opportunity in NYC to flit about in Manhattan never cared I loved the character bars. Two of my favorites Siberia and the P & G were shut down as they were unsavory but alas they were part of making the hoods savory. I waon’t even touch on CBGB or THe Bottom Line. I feel like NYC is becoming very bland. A city of people who think they can dismiss others and worship Rothko as a god because it was written inthe New Yorker.

  99. Henry & wbboei,

    Last summer we made a trip back East, and I insisted on going to NYC, driving the whole of the Island, and then taking a ferry to Connecticute I think. Anyway, we approched NYC from the South around 10 a.m., and took a bridge and went East of the City (would you believe it no traffic jams). The skyline was gorgous, and really showed me a side I had never seen. We then drive the whole of Long Island, and went to the ferry that is not the popular one, Orient Point. We arrived early (they had me call and make a reservation for the ferry on our way out of NYC), and so we arrived right after the hourly ferries stopped, and we had around 2 hours to kill. We went to a bar next door, I loved how it was like small town, and had a great early dinner, and then walked back over to the ferry, and got loaded first. I loved the whole experience, and want to go back and explore some more. I am not a big city person, but I loved that adventure.

  100. NewMex
    I will always love NYC
    For me though NYC is Manhattan
    It was shangrai -la
    Today you cannot move there without a minimum of 20 grand.
    And as such it does not allow for bottom up art.
    Love the city and as I said I had opportunity when I was young to be a So Ho person but I never cared for those places I loved the dives like Milano’s and Rudy’s.

  101. Just wondering
    pretty much everyone of my NYC bambi friends has a print or espresses their unmitigated love for marc Rothko.
    I have always found him lacking. Thoughts?

  102. As predicted, Erickson’s post generated a fascinating exchange of enlightened views. One gentlemen named locked and loaded spoke about the need to defend liberty, another one named Neil forgot how the country was founded and said violence is not the American Way and went on and on about it, another gentlemen asked Neil at what point is there no alternative, Neil never answered but went on and on about other things, and then someone said something which I at least could agree with:
    As Americans, we have almost universally embraced the ideal that our liberties were won and maintained at a great cost, and we have never been shy about averring that the cost of blood is always on the table in the defense of liberty. Most Americans would proudly agree.

    I do not believe that all peaceful legislative and political options have been exhausted by a long-shot. But clearly, our liberties are under assault by our own government. We have never before faced such a threat. When that legislation was passed, and this charlatan president signed it, the liberty of the American people suffered a wound so severe that the treatment required has taken on urgent if not emergency status.

    You are correct Erick, the Leftists should not be surprised, and I do not believe they are. They know exactly what they are doing, and they expect this reaction. They intend to capitalize on it, which is why it is so important for people to understand that while there IS a time for everything under heaven – including, God forbid, revolution and / or civil war, this is NOT that time. We MUST make every effort to advance the cause of liberty by convincing our fellow citizens that the very thing that makes us Americans is being attacked by this rogue government.

    Let THEM be the bad guys. If the day comes when we must defend ourselves physically from the crimes of this government, let us be prepared, vigilant, united, and so clearly in the right that events cannot be twisted against us by propagandists.

    Chaos will not serve us well.

  103. wbboei
    Sadly I think we expect the best from even our worst enemies. The people on the planes on 9/11 projected their own moral cognitive structure upon the highjackers and because they believed in the good and that the plane was simply being high jacked they sat by and allowed the towers to be destroyed. They played on our sense of right. And are continuing to do so.

  104. mj
    March 24th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    You know, at this point, the thing is the American public really doesn’t support more building in those territories. That’s just the truth, so I find it hard to see Obama’s position as a loss for him.


Comments are closed.