Better Than Nothing? I Don’t Think So…

After listening to reactions all day to the fact that the Senate is on the verge of passing what is called a “monumental health care bill,” I have come to some conclusions about how delusional the folks who follow the madness have become. First allow me to say that the Dems are correct, it is a monumental bill. A monumental mistake. The more I dig, the more I find what I don’t like. But I do realize that this is simply a stepping stone for them. This gets the foot in the door. Once passed, they will be able to quietly tack on whatever they like on the backside of appropriations bills or stimulus bills or energy bills. They will never again have to wrestle with a “health care” bill. But that is not the topic for tonight. The topic is, instead, the mindset of today’s political pundits and the folks that follow them.

As I drove home from work this evening, I was listening to the Alan Colmes show on the radio. I listen to him regularly. Sometimes it is a good show, other times it is infuriating. I have been on air with Alan several times and thus far, the only way he can beat me in logical debate is to turn off my mic. A caller tonight touted the idea that this bill, no matter which side of the issue you are on, is a bad bill. It will not have any good consequences and it should be stopped now. A great point, and one I make regularly. Alan became outraged. “We’ve worked too hard, waited too long, and this is how legislation is done. Scrapping the bill would set us back another 20 years without health care for all. And this is a good starting point. It gets real progress a minimal start and we can fix all the problems with the bill later.” That was his rant. And it points out two very important things to me.

First, we should not, in any way, feel that the teeth being taken out of this bill is any sort of victory for the Republican party or for those of us who want to see a real positive impact. What was sacrificed? 90% of Democrats never really cared if public funding for abortion was in the bill. They put it there so they could take it out and say they compromised (that is obviously my opinion, not a fact I can back up). The public option and single payer aspects of the left’s agenda are not dead. Remember that this is the party that took the slow but effective approach to changing the American mindset from leaders to led. They are willing to trash that aspect this time, say they compromised, and then get that added in later. The progressive movement is more than happy to take your freedom one tiny thing at a time. It has worked for 100 years without revolution.

Do not feel that public opinion is overwhelmingly on our side. It is not. CNN did a poll that said 61% of Americans want the current versions of health care reform killed. That does not mean that they agree with us. There are many in that 61% who want it killed because they don’t think the bill went far enough to the left. And that means when the other things are getting tacked on over time, there will be a large percentage of Americans that will support the changes that cause this bill to be the catalyst for the far left version that will evolve over the next decade. There have been no victories for freedom or individual liberty in the passage of this bill. None.

Mr. Colmes is a proponent of a single payer system. And it important to know that. Because his support of this current bill, which doesn’t give him what he wants, tells us a lot about how those who think like him feel about the future. They are aware that this is a gigantic victory, and that it will set the stage for many more changes to come. Remember, in 1913, Congress only had to convince Americans that it was OK to levy a 1% income tax on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Once that was done, they were free to increase the income tax at will, and they have, as now nearly every American pays income tax and the wealthy sure are paying a bit more than 1%. This bill is the same, and the left knows it. They only had to convince Americans to not revolt when they put their paws into the health care arena in 2009. Imagine how many drastic changes they can make in the next 96 years with federal income tax as their blueprint.

And for the record, before I forget. Do not think for a second that the Republicans in the United States Senate are opposed to this bill. They are not. Remember, two shirts, one team. They can play the game with the Democrats and spin it whichever way they like. They know the voting numbers. They know they can’t stop this. So it frees them up to play the good guy to half of America. Instead of having a 100-0 vote (or 99-1 as long as Ron Paul is there), they can vote against it, allow it to still win, and then pretend they are outraged and were against it all the way. They aren’t. They are just as eager to have a new mechanism for control and power over the American people as the Democrats are. If the Republicans were really on our side, we would see some of our arguments presented on the Senate floor. But that is not happening. Ask yourself why that is.

The second thing that it shows me is that Americans and our government have lost their collective minds. This is the mindset of America. A bad bill is better than no bill. Americans have no concept of the unintended consequences that come with today’s bills. They don’t understand the economic impacts. They don’t understand the market impacts. And they don’t understand the liberty impacts. I give Ray a lot of credit for the fact that he would kill this bill if he could, because it is a bad bill. It is a step in the direction he would like to go, but he sees the inherent flaws and says “stop.”. Americans in general have lost the ability to use critical thought and take that tactic with all legislation.

This is a bad bill that I, again, hope to find time to cover in detail soon. And because of that I wouldn’t support it even if I was in favor of government intervening in the health care industry. They have failed to do anything to actually cut costs, increase the level of care, or hold any of the major players accountable for changing for the better. Support from the insurance companies, the AARP, the AMA, and every other major player in health care is a sign of that. Those who fall into the realm of “all men are evil at heart” surely understand that the support from these groups that have put health care where it is means that they are fairly sure they will be able to continue on their merry way, much in the same way as the big financial powers have done after “regulation” to stop their bad habits.

Why is it that Americans believe that compromise is such a good thing when it comes to major legislation such as this? I read an article today about a priest in England that said, “it is OK to steal if you are poor. Just steal from the big box retailers instead of the mom and pop companies.” That is moral relativism, and it is stunning to me that even a priest has been reduced to contradiction with ethical and moral standards. The American voter has taken moral relativism to a new level, under the mistaken belief that the country simply cannot run if people stick to their principles and don’t do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

And that is a giant mistake. Because when we delve into the bullshit that passes for legislation these days, we can find literally thousands of things wrong with every single bill presented. This is true no matter which side it comes from. Thousand of examples of WRONG in every bill. Yet the excuse for supporting these bills is that it is better to pass a bad bill and accomplish something than it is to fight for a good piece of legislation. I point back to my analogy from yesterday. We stand at the edge of a cliff, and the bill says that we should build a rope bridge out of ten pound test fishing line. And people will support this decision because we have to do something. We have to move forward. They know that the line won’t be strong enough to support the weight. But they don’t have any other material to use, so they build the fishing line bridge because they don’t have a better option. They know it will fail. They know disaster looms if they take this path. But they accept the path because we have to do something.

Another BAD idea

I know that there are so many different definitions of morality out there, and that is an excuse used by some for why we can move forward the way we have. But there are some moral absolutes. And you all know that. For example, thou shalt not steal. There wasn’t an asterisk next to that on the tablet with exceptions noted below. And even if you don’t believe in a God, you know in your heart that stealing is wrong. Taking something that isn’t yours isn’t the right thing to do. You can feel it in your heart no matter your religion. You cannot initiate violence. There is another absolute. These are easy things to agree on the morality of. Don’t let the nuanced arguments get in the way. Look at the basics. Ethics and morals are easy. They don’t become hard until you try to contradict them in order to meet some exception you want to the rule. Stealing is bad. There is not argument to that…. until you begin to want to steal to help others, then you find a way to argue that stealing isn’t really bad. That is what floored me about the priest mentioned above. He is a believer in the Ten Commandments. They are the absolutes, from the mouth of GOD himself! Yet he wishes to contradict the word of the God he has devoted his life to! Outrageous!

Stealing is wrong. It is immoral. End of story. There can exist no contradictions to this being a moral absolute. Start with just that one moral absolute and begin applying it to legislation in Congress.

And in doing so, we could perhaps begin to get back to the principles and values that once made this country great. I read the premise made by someone yesterday, I don’t remember who, that compromise is necessary and needed in legislation. That one party must be willing to compromise with the other in order to get things done. And I couldn’t disagree more. I understand that there are good compromises. Party A says there must be 100 widgets per household and party B says 200, so they compromise on 150. That is good compromise. But a compromise that contradicts your very moral principles and ethics is not a compromise. It is a sacrifice of what you consider right. And that is not OK. If your principles say that government has no right to do X, then you cannot and should not EVER compromise on that. EVER. That isn’t compromise, that is contradiction. And there is a very big difference.

Sacrificing one’s principles and morals is a step towards total obliteration of those principles and morals. The expansion of government over the last 150 years is a testament to the slippery slope that exists the second men compromise their principles and morals. What started as a small “compromise” evolved over the years to an absolute abandonment.

What would this mean for our federal government? Stalemate? Gridlock? Probably. But that is not a bad thing. If the people that we choose to represent us in Congress really are people who represent our principles and values, how can their opposition to anything that contradicts those principles and values be a bad thing? Any bill that contradicts those values is a bill that we do not want. Period. Because regardless of how much “good” it could do, if it compromises our values, it will eventually doom us. We know this, yet most Americans choose to push it to the back of their minds. This may mean that only a couple of bills a session ever get passed. But if that means that all the bills passed meet the definitions of morality and ethics and principles, that is a great thing. THAT is when government is actually representing the people, as it was meant to do under our Constitution. Today’s government is nowhere near what the founding fathers wanted to create. They failed. Can a better version of government exist? Who knows? BF will tell you know. I will tell you yes. I guess time will be the only one with the answer.

How does this apply to the health care bill? If you believe that health care is a right (I don’t), then you should vote no on this bill. It contradicts your principles. If you believe that health care is a privilege, you should vote no on this bill. It contradicts your principles. If all 2400 pages of this bill are completely in line with all of your values and principles, then you should vote yes. That may mean it loses 99-1. But a bill that doesn’t represent the values and principles of the people has no business being signed into law. I understand the concept that taking our time and doing it right puts hundreds of thousands in need of health care at risk. But doing it wrong has the potential to kill millions. Passing legislation outside our values has already proven to kill hundreds of millions (wars, depressions, etc.).

Americans must find their values again. They must seek a better path forward. I don’t know that they can. And it may end up in revolution by the shrinking number of people who understand that freedom and liberty are concepts that they are not willing to sacrifice. They will not compromise on their core values. Yet they face a public that has no idea of how to find theirs. I fear for the future. But if the revolution comes…. I will be the one out front on the white horse. Because my values don’t compromise. And neither does my horse’s.


  1. Bottom Line says:

    USW – ” Today’s government is nowhere near what the founding fathers wanted to create. They failed. ”

    No they didn’t. WE failed.

    We failed them with complacency and compromise. They set it up for us, and we abused it. We only have ourselves to blame.

    The Health care Billshit is being passed because we allow it. And it will be a part of American life because no one will tell them to stick it.

    People accept this crap because they don’t know the difference between Rights, Responsibility, Entitlements, and Privilege.

    Soon, someone will tell me that I have to buy health insurance. And when they do, I’ll tell them to stick it. !!!!I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!

    I consider this mandate as a direct threat to my welfare and well-being.

    Being forced into buying (even cheap) health insurance would put my budget in the red.

    That means no money for rent and food.

    No rent or food means potential death via starvation and hypothermia.

    This healthcare bill is no different than holding a gun to my head.

    I don’t react well to threats.


    • Posting for comments.

      BL, I agree that being mandated is just wrong. I think the revolution has already begun, just hasn’t crossed the violent line yet.

      Have a great day!


      • Bottom Line says:

        Indeed it has begun. We’re in the earliest stages.

        I’m conflicted between hiding ’till it’s all over, or just jumping right in and raising hell.

        My gutt says hide.

        My passion says FIGHT!

        Hit hard.

        Hit fast.

        Hit often.

        • v. Holland says:

          My heart says no, my head says something has to be done-but my question is if violence becomes the answer just who are we gonna fight-our neighbors-that thought takes the passion just right out of me.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Have a great day yourself, Brother.

      • “Posting for comments.”


    • I do not accept ANY responsibility for the failed U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is a piece of paper, a contract, that only the government can enforce. I cannot file suit against the government and argue that this bill is unconstitutional because I have no legal standing. I’m just a citizen.

      Government (men and women) make the rules and enforce the rules. If there is an interpretation question, government courts interpret the law. We have no input and our opinions don’t count. All we get to do is elect Representatives every 2 years, a President every 4 years and Senators every 6 years. Those persons have influence in writing legislation etc. and all we can do is get them out of office at the next election cycle.

      • Bottom Line says:


        I share your frustration of apparent powerlessness. And you make a damn good point.

        I guess what I’m trying to say is that we are paying for not breaking the rules and being defiant. Rule breaking comes with a price, but not breaking bad rules comes with an even greater price.

        We the people should have revolted about a hundred years ago.

        • The civil war showed what the federal government can and will do when revolt occurs. That set people in their place and many civil war vets were alive at the turn of the century.

          • v. Holland says:

            Your right the people have revolted in different ways throughout our history-they have gone to war, started new parties and gotten rid of bad parties-it seems to me the problem is that we always wait until things get bad instead of diligently watching and paying attention to what our elected officials are doing. People have set on our contented little behinds and just thought everything would be fine-instead of using the powers that we were given by the Constitution to protect our freedoms.

            • V. Holland:

              I’m not sure that we have any power to stop the government. That’s my point. We may be able to slow it down but we cannot stop it. Government continues to grow, sometimes fast and sometimes slow. We have not been able to stop any social programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Food Stamps, etc.).

              Government enforces and polices itself.

              • v. Holland says:

                I’m not disagreeing with you that we haven’t stopped these things but I believe that we do have the power, if and only if, all the people who actually believe in freedom would stand the h^*l up and use those powers. The problem is they haven’t in a long time. So-the fault is on the shoulders of the people-the answer-I’m not sure there is one, short of violent revolution, and I really hope and pray that the people will start to see the consequences of years of being ignorant and silent because if not -the only answers I see are excepting the path we’re on-or watching the blood flow.

      • Birdman,
        I’ve seen this attitude expressed here many times:

        It’s not my fault. I cannot stop it or change it. I’ll just wait until it fails.

        Imagine if the Foundering Fathers had taken this attitude? They were thirteen small, rural, fragmented colonies facing the British Empire. And you think you have no power – they didn’t even have a vote!

        I have no legal standing. I’m just a citizen.

        This is a complete contradiction…a citizen is legal standing…

        Your attitude is what’s wrong with this country. As long as you maintain that attitude and lack of action, you are the problem.

        “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”

        • Todd:

          I am not a lawyer but it it my understanding that I could not file suit against the government and argue that health care or other laws are not constitutional. This was discussed on Fox news recently. You have to have legal standing. A citizen could not file suit. A business could, like a drug company or some other entity that is harmed.

          I have tried to prevent this legislation from passing. It had no effect. I have attended a tea party, town hall meeting, wrote letters and called. Congress is not listening. I have tried to do something.

          If you have a plan to stop this out of control government, I will listen and act if I can.

          What I am beginning to realize is that there isn’t anything that can be done to stop government from doing what it wants to do. I will not resort to violence because I think that will be crushed.

          I don’t see myself as the problem.

          • One of the tactics O’s courts use to keep the Birthers out is the claim that they do not have legal standing. They are US citizens trying to get their day in court.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Cyndi – surely there are Courts sympathetic to those who believe there is a prima facie case for the supposed body of evidence that exists to demonstrate/evidence the case for the birthers (e.g. find the most conservative district/locale possible then go visit THAT Courthouse). Assuming this – why are there not more lawyers filing motions as such? Last count I saw there were fewer than five lawyers that thought the evidence had any merit. Regardless of what I think or Buck or anyone else with respect to merit – doesn’t that speak something to the notion that even in a nation filled with lawyers that more do not at least see a marketable opportunity here? To me that is common sense – but maybe I am wrong.

              • I don’t know Ray. Maybe Kathy knows. I quit closely following the cases when I realized that if O went so far as to go on TV and admit he was born in Kenya, it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference to his followers and he’d remain in power.

          • Birdman,
            I’m not a lawyer either, but my understanding is you cannot directly file suit against the government without ’cause’. If this health care reform is passed, and you are required to buy insurance, and you do not, and you are fined for that, you could then fight that in court. The decision in a lower court could then be challenged (by either side) in the appellate court, and then the supreme court (if they accepted your case).

            But I’m really talking about that. I’m talking about staying involved and active. You’ve started that with the Tea Parties, etc, but change does not occur overnight. It can takes years and many elections to get enough results to make a difference.

            If you give up you are resigning yourself to accept the decision of others, for good or bad.

            If you feel doing nothing will allow our country to self-destruct, I imagine the aftermath of that will be a lot more work than the effort required now to change the system and stop the destruction.

            And just to be clear, I’m not suggesting violence of any type either.

            • Todd and Birdman,

              You cannot sue the US government unless it allows it.

              In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.

              The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party.

            • Todd:

              I am involved every day in what is going on in our Federal Government. I spend a considerable amount of time trying to stay informed.

              I’m not sure that the Federal Government is worth trying to save. I know you disagree but that is your prerogative.

              Here is an interesting article that shows the frustration of others knowing that they are being ignored. I think most people recognize that Congress is doing what they want to do in spite of letters, tea parties, and public opinion pools that show otherwise.

              December 22, 2009

              Senate Marxist Reid to make it almost impossible to repeal ObamaCare

              By Sher Zieve

              Every day the news coming out of Washington D.C. just gets worse and worse. Just when I thought I could no longer be shocked by the totalitarian Senate and Executive branch, I was…and am. On Monday, the Marxist-run Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided that he would make it virtually impossible for the American people to overcome Congress’ Machiavellian ObamaCare Death Plan. Betrayal is now the operating agenda of both the US Congress and Executive branch.

              On the advice of the Marxist Senate “Parliamentarian,” using an illegal “procedural” measure, Marxist Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wrote an amendment to ObamaCare Section 3403 that states “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” RedState reports that this “applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.”

              Although this change in Senate rules requires 67 senatorial votes, Reid decided to pass it as a ‘procedural matter.’ Clearly, Reid is illegally and unconstitutionally changing the rules to better ensure that his and Obama’s totalitarian control of the American people is absolute and forever. It will require 67 votes to overturn the portion of ObamaCare that provides for the Medicare Death Panels that will decide who will die. But, the 67 votes required to make this change has been ignored by our Marxist government.

              Does anyone out there still think the government is working FOR us? Still think faxes, snail mail, marches, protests and phone calls will work to change things? Do you really believe the next elections won’t be filled with fraud and intimidation to ensure the American Stalin and his Marxist minions remain in power? And — by the way — did you know that Obama and his lackey US Atty. General Holder have decide that the criminal organization ACORN (Obama’s election-fraud organization) will again be funded? Still feeling peaceful? Really?

              We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare:

              Holder says ACORN will be funded:

        • Todd

          First line of decisions starts with:

          Will you fight, kill or die, for the change you demand?

          If “Yes” -> goto Civil War. I do not support in any way shape or form this choice. It always ends badly, even if you win.

          If “No”, continue below.

          What action reduces the power of government?

          Action in favor of government -> increases government.

          Non-violent opposition to government -> increases government.

          Thus, the only non-violent thing left is ….


  2. A Puritan Descendant says:

    USW, Thanks for another fine article.

    When this country began we had some principles to guide us, we had the Constitution and Christianity.

    As a country we have drifted away from both. Now, ‘anything goes’.

    Whether it is stealing as in USW’s example or a couple humping men getting married ‘who aren’t hurting anyone’ we have drifted far fom shore.

    Last evening CNN made the point repeatedly that as bad as all the special deals were, Repugs had always done the same thing. They are correct, but now we apparently have a special deal for Nebraska FOREVER for Medicaid. Things slide from bad to worse.

    The ‘mandate’ may or may not be unconstitutional today after years of court precedence, but it certainly does not fit with ‘Freedom and Liberty’ which is the founding spirit of this once great country.

    The first post today makes my point. The Mandate places a ball and chain around ‘Bottom Line’s’ ankle.

    This is evil, plain and simple.

    We must have some sort of principled or moral foundation to stick with or we are doomed as a country.

    • Bottom Line says:

      A Puritan Descendant said – ” Whether it is stealing as in USW’s example or a couple humping men getting married ‘who aren’t hurting anyone’ we have drifted far from shore. ”

      “…’who aren’t hurting anyone’…”

      I must have really roughed your feathers with that post that day.

      Puritan, I agree with you more about homosexuality than you may think. Personally, I find it repulsive to see two men displaying public affection. It makes me want to throw up because there is just something bizarre and unnatural about it.

      However, I don’t feel that it’s my, or anyone else’s, right to tell them how to live. However immoral or unnatural, they have the same right to their life as you do yours.
      How would you feel if there was a referendum on the right for Christians to get married?
      Who says who’s right and who’s wrong?
      By taking your religious values into the voting booth, and voting No to same sex unions, you are essentially making judgement according to your religious values, and imposing them onto others, thus using coercion to force them to comply with a set of christian values.

      Virtual Theocracy.

      I’m not saying your wrong for being Christian. I’m saying that you’re saying someone else is because they’re not heterosexual.

      And as far as not hurting anyone… I would say that homos are harmless, but would not want to explain to my future 5 yr old why Mr. and Mr. Smith are sucking face.

      A Puritan Descendant said – ” The ‘mandate’ may or may not be unconstitutional today after years of court precedence, but it certainly does not fit with ‘Freedom and Liberty’ which is the founding spirit of this once great country. ”

      ANY law that is unconstitutional is automatically null and void.

      I.E. – The patriot act does not exist.

      A Puritan Descendant said – ” The first post today makes my point. The Mandate places a ball and chain around ‘Bottom Line’s’ ankle.

      This is evil, plain and simple. ”

      Damn right it is.

      After re-reading my post, I realized that I was talking(typing) in terms of fight or flight.

      What is wrong with this picture?

      A Puritan Descendant said – ” We must have some sort of principled or moral foundation to stick with or we are doomed as a country. ”

      We’re doomed.

      Have a great day Puritan!

      • As I think back on history, I find reason to hope for a better future.
        This bill should not be passed. Violent revolution against the worlds most powerful government and its military is folly. But Martin Luther King fought the same government and won. The Tea Parties and town halls show his lesson has not been forgotten.

        May be time to update the music?

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @ Puritan

      You said “a couple humping men getting married ‘who aren’t hurting anyone’ we have drifted far fom shore.”

      Can you explain that? What should be done with those ‘humping men’? Do tell please. I figure if they are pursuing their own happiness then wtf?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        There was a time in the past when I would have agreed with Puritan. I no longer do. From my point of view, to have a government set rules on who can and cannot have an intimite relationship contradicts my core belief.

        To tell people that you believe that homosexuality is wrong is perfectly fine (in spite of today’s PC taboo against saying such things). To legislate that it is wrong is NOT perfectly fine. In a free society, you are free to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and are free to speak your mind. You are not free to initiate violence against those who disagree with you, nor are they free to initiate violence against you.

        The State has no business being in the marriage business. That should be up to free individuals.

        There is nothing wrong in defending yourself against a behavior that poses a credible threat to you, but first you must be able to demonstrate that there is a threat to you and then your response must fit the level of the threat.

    • When this country began we had some principles to guide us, we had the Constitution and Christianity.

      And that is the root of the problem – the basis of both of these are in contradiction and as such, it was inevitable that tyranny would overcome the People.

      The Constitution, in its core, was a hopeless attempt to protect the individual from the excess of government and affirm the immutable human rights of all men.

      Christian belief in America is rooted as it is in England – on a Puritan basis where the belief exists that government must be used to enforce morals.

      Thus, the use of government power to inflict itself on the immoral, but non-violent was embedded in the minds of Americans as it was with the English.

      Because for most people, moral or immoral is merely a subjective belief, government law enforcing subjective edicts accelerates every time access to government power is exchanged.

      The old guard’s laws remain, and the new guard creates more laws.

      Each perverted the Constitution, explicitly in place to prevent the use of government law to enforce morals, to do exactly that.

      Since there is no objective break, the subjective nature of morals/immoral piles up intrusive laws ever higher.

      Until the People firmly understand that using violence on non-violent people, regardless of the justification, always creates evil as an outcome, the People are doomed to a cycle of tyranny.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        BF, GM, I would just like to point out that at the time the first Puritan families arrived on our shores (Mayflower) they were escaping government. A government which was not friendly to the Puritans one bit.

        As for the rest of the responses from all, I am merely trying to point out that we have strayed from where we began. At this point even a set of principles from BF would have us all in much better shape than where we are headed.

        As far as Gay Marriage, I think Buck had a good solution the other day. He said something to the effect of making government weddings equal for all, Gay and straight. Leave traditional ‘marriage’ to the church. Sounds great to me.

    • Good Morning All,

      I will agree that we have drifted from what this country was founded on in the way of Freedoms. We have allowed government to run us into the ground with out question. We let corrupt politicans into office and have looked the other way when they run behind closed doors to make deals.

      I do have to argue with the point of the humping of two men. As a gay women, I do not see myself as a threat to anything or anyone. I do not harm others, I pay my taxes, follow the laws that have been set etc. I do realize that some religious beliefs see my life as a sin. More power to you and your beliefs. I support your right to have those beliefs and to voice them anytime you choose to. I also support my right to live my life the way I do.

      Now as far as marriage goes, that is a religious belief that the government should never gotten involved with.

      • Good Day Ellen,

        I agree wtih you about the people letting the corrupt pols get away with being corrupt. I’ve said it before: as long as Americans can flip a switch and get light, turn the tap and get clean water, open the fridge and get food, they will continue to ignore what the pols are up to.

        I also agree with you about the government and marriage. Married couples should have no legal benefits. It discriminates against unmarried people.

  3. v. Holland says:

    Good article and your right this bill is just the starting point-in reality it is going to intensify the problems that we currently have with health care-the cost. You might note that they have conveniently not insured everyone but they have insured that the cost will go up causing more people to be unable to afford insurance-after a few years-there will be more people begging the government to take care of them too. So they won’t have to do all that much in secrecy because they have insured that the people at least a good number of them will be demanding it.

  4. v. Holland says:

    USW said “Better than nothing, I don’t think so”-and I agree but I have to wonder, if we are forced to have this something-would we be better to just have nationalized health care over this pain inducing bill they are going to pass.

    • And that is exactly what they want you to start thinking….and then they’ve got you

      • Your right, but unless we can get this overturned it will lead to nationalized health care after many years of Hell. My question was more a realization of just how bad this bill is, it may actually be worse than nationalized health care at least in the short term.

  5. The attack on Government Health Care cannot come from a ‘moral’ or Constitutional basis.

    Since morality is purely subjective in the minds of most people, the Socialists and Statists will simply argue their opinion that Single Pay is ‘moral’ – and being in power, will enforce that morality upon all unless their opponents convince them that it is immoral (which they cannot due to the subjective definition of morality by the Socialists).

    The attack on Government Health Care must come from an objective core – economics.

    Here the Socialists and Statists are naked.

    Their only tactic here is to try to pull the argument back into a subjective basis by claiming that economics doesn’t matter in such regards to human ‘need’.

    But even they know that isn’t true.

    • Off topic Black Flag but thought you may want to take a look at this article on deflation. I know you are betting on inflation but would like your thoughts.

    • BF,

      With all due respect, “pull the argument back” ain’t workin! They do not care to listen. You can have a better discussion with a ham sandwich. Recall the town halls and the tea party in Washington. Obama said he wasn’t aware it was even happening. Puhlease!! We have talked and talked. Remember the saying “all talk no action”. Now is the time for action. What the acion is I have no idea.

      • Anita,

        The “Do Nothing” Strategy is not an action.

        It allowing the action of government to defeat itself.

        So you will not see the ‘spear to the heart’ and death of government overnight.

        It is more like a wasting away due to cancer – it can take a week or it can take years.

        As you say “They ain’t listening“.

        So if you admit they are not – what are you going to say that suddenly changes that?

        I will tell you “Nothing”.
        Say nothing – not a peep.
        No cheers, no hollers.
        Bury them with complete silence.

        You admit that you have no action capable of making change….. and neither do I.

        All action – no matter what – will only make it worse.

        Instead of spinning wheels in the mud of frustration, take that energy and use it better.

        Reconnect with community, your neighbors, your city or village.

        This is where your energy will pay dividends.

        Get your community ready for the default and failure of centralized government.

        Get prepared to replace Social Security from the FED with some community charity or support groups locally.

        Get prepared to support local medical services and local doctors to replace the Centralized failure of Health Care.

        Get prepared to restore your local militia to replace the centralized failure of defense and police services.

        Everywhere Washington has their finger that affects you locally – work locally to prepare replacements from your community.

  6. I found this on American Thinker. If true, we are more than screwed.

    December 22, 2009
    Harry Reid slips in a bombshell for Obamacare foes
    Rick Moran

    What did we ever do to deserve Harry Reid?

    When the “manager’s amendment” was passed in the dead of night, I pointed out that the wonks had yet to give it a good going over to discern what other surprises might lurk in the convoluted language used to obscure so much in the bill.

    I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that the wonks have not disappointed us.

    Buried in the amendment is a bombshell; there will be no way to amend parts of Obamacare. Apparently, Reid wants to make this bill something like a royal decree where no one can change what has already been wrought.

    The Weekly Standard blog has the story:

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

    there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.”

    and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

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

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

    i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

    Get that? No repeal, no amendments, no nothing. That part of Obamacare is as set in stone as the idea that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It is unalterable – which, of course, means the entire bill is off limits.

    The goal is to guard against the possibility that the GOP may win back the House and Senate some day and may wish to repeal or drastically alter Obamacare. In the dead of night, Harry Reid has turned the United States from a constitutional republic into a banana republic monarchy.

    Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      I am certain that that wording probably IS in the bill. It is the goal of the Statists (especially of the left-Statist variety, but basically true of all Statists) to make the State supreme. By attempting to prevent future congresses from altering, amending, or repealing the bill they are hoping to accomplish just that.

      If the tactic works, look for it to start showing up in virtually every bill that they attempt to pass.

      • v. Holland says:

        I’m probably wrong because government defies logic at every turn but surely even our politically divided Supreme Court would not have the nerve to say this is Constitutional.

        • I haven’t heard anything about this, so it may or may not be true, I wouldn’t know. And I am not saying it is ok or good, but I fail to see how it’s Unconstitutional.

          People throw the term Unconstitutional around a lot, but I don’t see where they derive this from. Illegal, maybe. Unethical, maybe. Bad/wrong, maybe. But I don’t see where it comes into direct conflict with the wording of the Constitution. Can you point me to a specific article?

          And if it’s not, what grounds would the Supreme Court have for striking it down?

          • If you read the constitution as written, then Congress only has certain enumerated powers as spelled out in the constitution. Congress and the Supreme Court got around this by viewing the constitution as a living document that can be interpreted to fit the times. This went viral with FDR’s attempt to stack the Supreme Court to get his new deal policies passed. The Supreme Court caved in. Progressives want people like Sotomeyer (spelling) on the court so that they can continue to receive favorable rulings. Conservatives what strict interpretation of the constitution as written and intended by the founding fathers.

            Read Mark Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny” and Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” to get an idea on how this all came about in the last 100 plus years.

            Congress has no authority whatsoever to pass health care and impose it upon all 50 states without passing a constitutional amendment. The proper way to do it is with an amendment to the constitution. They know this but take a short cut and pass a bill and impose it upon all 50 states. Prohibition was passed correctly, with an amendment. It had to be undone with an amendment. 90% of what congress does today is not constitutional but there is no Supreme Court willing to check congress. Virtually all social programs are unconstitutional like SS, Welfare, Medicare, etc. and all of these programs will eventually bankrupt the USA since they cannot be sustained economically.

            Now, I don’t see how Congress could ever pass a law and provide that it can never be undone by another Congress.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              It wasn’t Congress and the Supreme Court that ‘made up’ a living interpretation of the Constitution to suit their own ends. This interpretation of the Constitution is a valid interpretation that goes back to the days of the Founding Fathers.

              As for this issue of writing into a law that it cannot be changed: I’m not entirely sure that would hold any water. I don’t think there would be any way to stop a future congress from amending the law, regardless of any such provision.

              • Buck,

                Please find anywhere in the Constitution the word “interpret” or any synonym of that word – even vaguely.

                The Constitution is a document that creates what the government can do.

                No where does it have “Health Care”.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Also, as for the constitutionality of health care reform. Why are you so certain that it is unconstitutional?

              Here is a link I posted to yesterday that goes over some of the arguments FOR the constitutionality of health care reform in general and of mandates in specific:

              Click to access Individual_Mandates_ExecSum.pdf

              • Score another point for your fancy-pants law degree

              • Buck:

                The link you provided is pure bunk.

                It is a conclusion written by a political position, not on legal precedence or analysis.

                The key issue regarding mandatory insurance is that it goes beyond all prior Supreme Court rulings regarding just how broad the “commerce clause” should be interpreted.

                Currently, it would appear that it exceeds the courts prior views on this.

                This of course, does not mean they can’t change their mind. And that in a nutshell is why both parties have been fighting so hard over SCOTUS appointments the past 30 years.

                And of course the whole thing is based on a modernist/revisionist view of the Constitution.

                There is no way in hell this would have been viewed as Constitutional by our Founders. You can claim the opposite all you want but it does not change reality.

                Remember what happened to Jefferson’s proposed Federal funding of public education?

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I wouldn’t say its pure bunk; it provides one argument for constitutionality. I have read several arguments against constitutionality and those too are merely political positions.

                The point I am trying to make is that it is not so clear cut as some may like to believe that this bill is unconstitutional.

              • Buck”

                It provides no argument.

                It simply claims a conclusion.

                One that isn’t even supported by prior decisions regarding the legal issues in question. At least as I have been able to discern by reading and discussing with actual consitutional scholars.

                It is nothing more than an argument claiming unconditional truth regarding the conclusions made.

                It is a political document, not a reasoned legal argument to support the concept. No different than those who claim something as Unconstitutional without some basis for the claim.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Ok then, here is a summary of the errors made by those arguing against constitutionality alongside a summary of the legal arguments (made by legal scholars) for the constitutionality.

              • Buck The Wala says:
              • Buck:

                The media matters link was better.

                But I did notice a little cherry picking by the proponents just as is done by the opponents. I love the reference to 70 plus years of precedence by the SCOTUS, ignoring the previous 100 plus years of rulings that were ignored when the “modern” interpretations were imposed out of thin air. Obviously precedent only matters if it matches up with what you want.

                The marijuana case was an obvious one as well. The issue wasn’t that sale and transport was an interstate activity and therefore subject to regulation. The issue was that because the pot couldn’t be clearly marked as to its origin it undermined the govts ability to regulate interstate commerce. If the pot had a distinct characteristic marking it as California Pot the basis for the finding would have crumbled.

                As I see it there is only one serious constitutional issue in the previous bills. I don’t know all what is in the new one, but it may have others, such as the Reid paragraph prohibiting future changes.

                The one issue is whether Congress can force a private citizen to purchase a service they don’t want to purchase. The minimum wage argument does not fit in my view. The basis there was that minimum wage and unfair labor practices was impeding the interstate commerce of steel. Congress set a goal of easy and readily accessible flow of steel.

                Obviously the logic was expanded to other commerce.

                The forced purchase of a service is not the same. Especially when that service does not flow from state to state. Now, Congress could probably argue and succeed in defending a goal of uniform easily accessible health insurance across state lines. Thus defending the creation of a federal govt sponsored or regulated insurance industry. But that still doesn’t address the ability to force a citizen to purchase something they don’t want under the justification that it is needed to affect interstate regulation.

                Because, they could still affect regulation without such a purchase. It is not core to the underlying interstate commerce being regulated.

                I think it is in fact Unconstitutional, but I am looking at the original version. The erosion of the document by the SCOTUS makes it more of a crap shoot for sure. But I am not so sure that SCOTUS will side with those who think this is an easy slam dunk. The court has constantly declared there are limitations. If the court does not draw the line at this then there trully are no limitations.

                That would be a major shift in legal interpretation. I don’t think they will go there.

                Besides, do we even know if that provision is still in any of the bills being considered?

                I know I don’t because quite frankly I don’t care. Govt provided health care is immoral at its core and economically unsustainable in its reality.

                The whole thing is a welcome piece of evidence for those of us trying to educate folks as to the true nature of our govt. This and Cap n’Trade, and other global warming B.S. laws, are burning coals in the darkness.

                The more coals you have the hotter it gets, until they become so numerous they cause a fire to erupt.

                Best regards

          • I’m not a Constitutional scholar but it is the job of the Congress to write laws, the only path I know to writing a permanent law that can’t be changed is to go through the amendment process and I’m pretty sure even an amendment can be changed with another amendment. What we need here is JAC. to give his opinion, I find he knows a lot about the Constitution.

            • Sorry that should have said “that can’t be easily changed”

            • V.H.

              Here is my view of the wording of concern.

              Congress is free to develop whatever rules it deems fit for its own operation. Somewhere in my memory I recall there was even a SCOTUS ruling that supported this principle. Even if not, it is totally consistant with accepted parlimentary practices of the time and which have been handed down over time. Roberts Rules of Order Revised is in fact a collection of such procedural rules that existed at the time of their first writing.

              What I do not know is whether the passage of rules requires passage of an Act or other such Law. So I don’t know if it has been done before. Normally, a deliberative body would simply propose a resolution to change its governing rules of conduct and if it gains 2/3 majority it passes. This means the same majority could undo the rule.

              However, what appears to be going on here is an attempt to codify a rule change by LAW that imposes on both houses. You see the Senate can not dictate rules for the House and vis versa. This LAW dictates for both.

              It seems to me that if passed it would prohibit either house from considering a change to the subsection, which includes the rule change itself, thus prohibiting either house from changing the rule.

              This is a direct violation of accepted parlimentary procedures. It also seems to me there was a SCOTUS ruling that codified the concept that one congress could not bind the hands of a future congress. I am not positive on this point, however, as it might have just been Congressional procedure that created this precedent.

              The intent is clear. To bind all future Congresses. My concern is whether the Supreme court would even take a case challenging the provision. The issue would be whether Congress can make a law that dictates an otherwise internal rule regarding parlimentary procedure. I do not think the court would intervene in parlimentary rule making disputes.

              There is one other possible challenge, however, that the SCOTUS would take and that is that the law violates the “necessary and proper” clause of Seciton 8.

              “To make all Laws which shall be necesary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constittuion in the Government of the Untied Stares or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

              Any law that prohibits Congress from exercising the Powers expressly granted by the Constitution would be “Unconstitutional”. I think this might have been the basis for the generally accepted view that one Congress can not bind a future Congress.

              To do so would not only violate the foundation of parlimentary procedures but the ability of a legislative body to legislate.

              So now. If this untrained and NOT LAWYER mind can create that simple argument, lets ask why would a Senator, or Senators, with actual legal training and backgrounds even consider including such a provision?

              From the political perspective, I would expect that this provision would cause many Dems to oppose the bill. They know full well that what they do today, gives the Elephants the right to stampede them in the future.

              If only we had real journalists today. One could stick the microphone in Harry’s face and ask him what the legal precendance is for one Congress trying to bind a future Congress. What was his “legal” basis for such a provision?

              Bottom line…….I think the provision is Unconstitutional due to violation of the necessary and proper clause. However, this might be a difficult case to build and get before SCOTUS.

              Best Regards V.H. and to all others who take time to read and think.

  7. Ray Hawkins says:

    USW – so you debate Colmes on air? Ha! Need some YouTubes on that! Don’t hold out on us!

  8. WE all know the problem. IT does not matter how many roads or rabbit trails take us there. WE…all of us on this blog….know the problem. We live it, we talk it, we write about it every damned day. We are all frustrated and we are all pissed. So, what now?

    There are only three choices:

    1) Sit on our ass and complain how the Constitution is a piece of paper that has been bastardized over the years. We can sit on our ass and complain how our religion is based in England and we can complain that morals and ethics have been PC’d and diminished over the years. We can sit on our ass and hypothesize all day long how our vote does not count and therefore a no vote is better than any vote and then complain about the party that is in power is not the party we want or that our forefathers are turning over in their graves. We can sit on our ass and complain about the Senate and the House being whores and prostitutes and have no morals what so ever. We can sit on our ass and suck our thumbs and do nothing and give up because the system is too big to fight. We can complain and sit on our ass and to work and pay our bills and fret about the upcoming tax system and shudder in the dark about how we cannot do anything about it. We can sit on our ass and stand a soap box and say how bad all of this is and that the world is doomed and we can quote writings and politicians and authors all over the globe and say what needs to be done.

    2) We can take up arms and try to overthrow the government by violent means and I think we know what the end will be. We will all be dead and then not have to worry about all of this.

    3) We can get off our ass and find candidates that support our views. We can get off our ass and do more than talk and write….we can organize groups and use intestinal fortitude and get out instead of watching football and attend school board meetings, town hall meetings, city council meetings and be heard. We can send 10 letters per day to all senators and congressmen (it matters not what district you are in). We can and must use the vote to get the bastards out and quit complaining that the ones that go in are just as bad and, consequently, do nothing. Doing nothing is just as immoral and just as unjust and just as wrong as the bastards in congress and doing nothing, you are condoning their actions. We can organize voting blocks and force redrawing of district lines to prevent outrageous voting blocks and gerrymandering. (We have been quite successful in Texas). We can do this….we just have to get off our ass and do it. Show up at the apartment buildings that house illegal immigrants and take pictures. Show up at the hospital emergency rooms and take pictures of the illegals that are there for free medical. Stand up to those that shout out…you shout back. Show up at the city council meetings with those pictures and demand action and when you do not get it, organize drives to throw them out. Start at the local level. Show up at your taxing authorities and protest loudly and get it on record. Show up at you State level legislature and demand your right to speak to open assembly…then do it and ask questions. Change your local and state laws if you do not like them. Form citizen voting blocks and buy internet time and create websites and flood the airwaves with them. ORGANIZE yourselves and move forward. Do not let the power of the Feds scare you. The ONLY way they can intimidate is through the Internal Revenue Service. That is the only power the Feds have to intimidate you. If you are in compliance…so what if they audit. DO NOT BE SCARED. There are things that we can do.

    JUST DO IT!!! Talk is cheap…action is integrity.

    • There seems to have been a shift in tone here over the last couple of weeks. I’m having trouble putting my finger on it, exactly, but it is very real.

      Despite the fact that I am diametrically opposed to much of what the people here would want (or not want) from government, it is very interesting to me to see. I do think that the best hope for this country is an informed and involved populace.

      That said……..

      Where do you get off writing ten letters a day to representative from other districts? By what right do you feel it is ok to be so vocal as to drown out the other voice (such as my own) who might oppose you? This is tantamount to discourse via shouting match. You would have yourselves be a super-vocal minority (and you are a minority). Though a majority wants “smaller” government, I think people here by and large want much, much smaller government. You would impose your wishes on them in exactly the same way you complain about them imposing big government on you. How do you reconcile this?

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Mathius, I’ve also noticed a change in tone and thanks for pointing it out.

        One of the things that I’ve noticed is the hardline position on compromise. We live in a pluralistic society — there must be some form of compromise or nothing will/can ever get done.

        USW, you argue that there can be no compromise due to your own views. But what about my or Mathius’ views? If you start from the premise that you are unable or unwilling to compromise, what comes next?

        • Hi Buck….. yessir…both of you are correct in that there is a change in tone from a lot of people and I will admit to being one of them. I am not one world person and I am not a believer in a socialist or fascist government and with that…there is no compromise. Not to me.

          A question for you and Matt…..why are you so concerned, that if I am a minority as Matt says, about my voice? Just curious. If the majority is against me, then you have no problem.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            I’m not concerned about your VOICE; I’m concerned about the change in TONE.

            I agree that in the society we live in, one of our great freedoms is the ability (and even duty in some respects) to use our voice to argue against things we do not believe in.

            • I think Liberals would do well to notice the change in tone. I’ve tried to point it out to the Libs in my vacinity and they scoff.

              I’m reminded of a saying to the effect of “Never underestimate the wrath of a patient man”.

              I’m not saying things WILL get violent, but when enough Americans decide they’ve had enough, life could get very unpleasant for everyone, particularly O supporters.

            • Murphy's Law says:

              Buck- exactly what about the change in tone concerns you? I ask this, not as a dig, but an honest question. You said you are not concerned about his voice, but his TONE. Explain, please.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Not taken as a dig in the slightest. I can’t think of the right word for it at the moment, but most definitely there has been a change in tone on this site in recent weeks.

                I am not the only one who has sensed this shift -just take a look at Cyndi’s comments immediately above yours, as well as D13’s and Mathius’.

              • I’ve seen the change too, and have decided not to comment much because it just stirs things up more.

                I’d call it ‘group think’ or ‘mob mentality’. When you get a group of people together that all think the same, they feed on each other. One person goes a little ‘over-board’ and the group supports it, so the next goes a little farther, and the next a little further, and…

                The small number of posters that disagree with you just add to the fire. There’s enough conservative commenter’s to beat back the liberal commenter’s, and then you all just ‘high 5’ each other…and the ‘mob mentality’ grows.

                Pretty soon you have lost your connection with reality and you come here time and time again for reformation that you are correct and EVERYONE else is wrong…

                And this works both ways – D13’s calls to action, and Black Flags calls for inaction.

            • Talk about a change in tone! This is from Sue Myrick:

              This protest happened in September, 2009 but apparently it wasn’t enough.

              The fraud, deception, deceit and bribery occurring in Washington regarding Senator Ben Nelson’s vote for the ‘any’ health care bill is standard operating procedure. The way a President, Majority Leader in the Senate and the Speaker of the House of… Representatives do business would land any ‘average’ American citizen in prison!

              I wasn’t a Member of Congress long when I learned this lesson. I was not supporting a major piece of legislation – and had been very vocal about it. I received a phone call from the Transportation Committee Chairman’s office, who offered me $15 million to help finish Interstate 485 around Charlotte. I had championed that road when I was Mayor and they knew it was important to me. I said my vote was not for sale. When politicians make such deals, in my opinion, they are compromising the integrity of their constituents who put their trust in them. So, what happened with Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, to change his mind about the health care bill, is not new.

              First it has been reported that Senator Nelson was threatened by the President that if he did not vote for the ‘any’ health care bill, that Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska would be closed. (Change we can believe in?) Then the Senator was offered free Medicaid for Nebraska. (That means that you and the rest of us Americans will be paying for it.)

              Playing ‘let’s make a deal’ with YOUR money is how those politicians flex their power egos and control your life. THINK: 537 people (House, Senate, President, Vice President) control the lives of 308 million Americans – plus those not yet born who will also have to keep on paying the bill.

              You are now being lied to, deceived, manipulated and robbed of your hard earned money – money you and your family need. Next – higher taxes. You had better become active now! It’s Christmas – they don’t think you’re paying attention.

              This health care bill is a momentous fraud. Those truly needing health care could be covered for a miniscule amount- compared to what this bill will cost you.

              Instead the pirates in Washington continue to divide the fruits of your labor.

              Only you can stop it. Remember the lone student in China who stood in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in front of a tank? In effect, he was saying ‘give me liberty or give me death’. Obviously here in America it will take tens of millions hitting the streets in protest to stand a chance of stopping this continuing march toward totalitarianism.

        • Like US Weapon said, sometimes compromise is a good thing and sometimes not. If you want to make me your slave and I don’t want to be your slave, I’m not going to go for a compromise of being your slave on odd days. These idiots in congress couldn’t agree on something and their compromise resulted in forcing people not even involved in the argument to buy a product whether they want it or not. Does this sound insane to anyone besides me?

      • Hey there Matt…..How are ya my friend? (And you are my friend)..Please allow me to respond:

        Matt asks: Where do you get off writing ten letters a day to representative from other districts?

        D13 responds: Because representatives from your district not only represent you, but represent me. They vote in Congress on measures that affect me. If I think they are wrong on an issue that INVOLVES me, then I will be vocal and have that right. This, of course, on the Federal Level. The State level obviously cannot concern me. but if your federal representative votes for National Health Care and I do not like it….it is not only my right but my duty to say something. And, furthermore, my right to try to find people in your district that think like I do and organize in that district…should I choose to do so. I would have no problem with you down here at all doing the same.

        Matt says: By what right do you feel it is ok to be so vocal as to drown out the other voice (such as my own) who might oppose you?

        D13 says: Freedom gives me that right and privilege. However, I am not saying drown out. That puts a perception in my mind about England and shouting down. By shouting back, I mean that anyone has a right to be heard in open session. Avoid confrontation by the audience….get your voice on record at the meetings. Shouting back and forth on the street does nothing but breed contempt and violence and solves nothing.

        Matt says: Though a majority wants “smaller” government, I think people here by and large want much, much smaller government.

        D13 says: I agree 100%. Never said otherwise.

        Matt says: You would impose your wishes on them in exactly the same way you complain about them imposing big government on you. How do you reconcile this?

        D13 says: I reconcile it this way, Matt. We have a system….it may be flawed but we have a system. I always have used the analogy, it you are fighting rats from the gutter, you cannot do it from the streets…you must fight them in the gutter using their rules. Our government is the same. They are rats in the gutter. Use the system that is set up to change the system. Change it from within…I see no other way. I found this out by fighting city hall (so to speak). If you do not use their own system, you will not make the docket. We are being successful in Fort Worth…so far it is working and we have attention and things are getting done. It is taking the streets back theory. We have also managed to find a suitable candidate that is in the fight to replace Senator Hutchinson. It took some talking but he is taking the mantle and to try. He is conservative…but not extremist. He is not religious right at all but he is a FISCAL conservative…I would say a social moderate. That is how we do it. If he gets elected, then he is a voice.

        That is….if Potomac Fever does not get him.

        How is your weather up there, sir?

        • Weather is cold. Very cold. Grr. I’m moving down to Texas and staying with you ’till the thaw. (Think I’ll fit in?)

          More on this conversation later, I’ll leave it to the Wala for now. Work calls.

          For now, though, ponder this: if you deem it necessary to become super-vocal, what recourse does that leave us on the other side, but to become super-vocal as well? The more apathetic middle is drowned out. Now we have the tea partiers sending 1,000 letters a day to every politician in the country and the tree-hugging, bleeding heart liberals sending 1,000 letters a day. All politicians have no choice but to abandon the middle and pick a side. What happens next?

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Bad idea leaving things to me — work is calling here as well.

            Will try to take this up again later on…

          • Good Day D13 and Matthius,

            I feel that between the media and politicans are forcing people to pick sides. This attitude of you are on one side or another is killing us.
            For example is me. I am a Fiscal conserative with medium social ideas. I dont fit in on the right or the left. I see that the people who are trying to force the hard line in the sand are a large part of the problem.

            • Ellen,

              You’re right that citizens are being forced to choose sides. This is done intentionally. It is part of the divide and conquer strategy: keep the people fighting each other while the dictatorship is being created. What an effective strategy, no?

            • Ellen and Cyndi:

              The problem is not that people are being forced to pick sides.

              The problem is that those sides are based on extemperaneous issues like gay marriage, health care, cap n’ trade, etc. They are designed to divide and conquer all of us. Because once you accept any of it you get the whole deal.

              If those sides are divided along principled ideological lines then I see no reason to be concerned. That is a line worth drawing and one worth defending.

              The other problem is that folks are being pushed to pick sides without the knowledge required to understand what it is they are picking for or against.

              Is it really health care or is it Liberty?

              The best to you both.

          • You are welcome Matt…however…when you leave to go back home, you will be wearing boots, hat, cheering for the Cowboys and Longhorns, talking with a drawl, and drinking Shiner Bach, while eating fajitas with Jalepenos and black beans, have a distinct craving for chicken fried steak and be totin’ a pair o’ six shooters. You will understand that the term “ya’ll” is plural and singular singular and can mean inanimate objects. You will wave at everyone you see and it not be considered an obscene gesture and have this remarkable ability to sense freedom and individuality w/o the collective good syndrome. we know two speeds….full blast and stop and we measure distance in hours and not miles. (From the east side of Dallas to the West Side of Fort Worth is 64 miles or one hour…in traffic.

            So come on doooowwwwnnnnnn……but remember this. Texas is great big….lots of land that man has never seen out there. I have heard rumors of Texas sized Raptors that have an insatiable appetite for the FAR left wing thinkers. Bring your “A” game and come on.

          • Hey there Matt….great points but let me also ask…the apathetic middle….why do they have to be out of it? Why can they not have their own?

            Our system could use a great third party and instead of saying (which you do not) there will never be a third party….do not accept that and make one anyway. The dam never burst without a small leak…

            My old grandpappy used to say ” the mightiest oak was once a little nut that held its ground “. He further said….hold your ground son, if you believe it strong enough…water it…nurture it…it will take root. But don’t ignore it.

      • I don’t think there has been a shift in tone-Compromise is necessary to get things done BUT if something is happening that you are absolutely against there is no compromise-I’m all for reform that will lower the price of health care -I am not for any plan that will change the system to the point that it will become nationalized -What kind of compromise do you suggest that will overcome my objection?

      • Murphy's Law says:

        Good morning Matt! And to everyone else also…….it’s a cloudy day in north Texas, but not too cold, at least not yet. That will come in a couple of days, just in time for Christmas, but no snow……

        Matt asks: Where do you get off writing ten letters a day to representatives from other districts?

        Murf replies: Good question. But do you not realize that a thousand politicians’ heads hit the pillow every night dreaming of higher office? And to get to the higher office of which they dream, they must have the support of more than just those in their districts……if they are wise, they will read those letters…..


      • Displaced Okie says:

        See, here is another problem that can be solved with federalism. If you want single payer health care and other big government stuff. Why don’t you just get passed on state level? Then you and Buck can be happy with your state-run care in NY and D13 and I have it like we want here in TX……problem solved. Unless you guys were counting on Texas’ money to pay for that care, but that would basically be an admission that single payer health care is unsustainable…..

        Displaced Okie

        • Murphy's Law says:

          Well said, D’Okie! (hope you don’t mind my abbreviation!)

          And glad to have you here in Texas!


      • Matt:

        Where were you in 1860?

        You could have prevented the Civil War.

        “You would impose your wishes on them in exactly the same way you complain about them imposing big government on you. How do you reconcile this?”

        What right did we have to impose our “freedom” on those damn “slaves” anyway?

        How dare we impose upon you a system that allows you to live as you wish instead of being controlled and imposed upon by others.

        Your argument falls victim to absurdity. You can not impose “nothing”, which is what freedom and liberty is in reality. It is the LACK of imposition upon others. Thus your claim of imposition falls into a black hole.

        You see, under our system you are free to search out others who agree with your views and then go build a community to live in and impose the hell out of each other for the “greater good” of your little community. I am not free to force you to abandon your community or submit to freedom. You are in fact free to live as a slave to other slaves or slave masters. I am sure you can find enough of both types to fill your new community.

        But you are not free to impose upon the unwilling, also known as the innocent. And I AM THE UNWILLING and on this THERE IS NO COMPROMISE to be found with me.

        Hope your day is going well. Don’t worry, warm wet weather is coming your way.

    • Bottom Line says:


      If you were here, I would shake your hand, salute you, pat you on your back, and give you a hug too.

      I just like the way you put that.

      …except for number two of course. lol.

      150-1 odds, no recruitment pool, no lines, no justification, long term attrition, logistical nightmare, WMD unusable = they lose after 30 years of revolutionary war or less.

      You could use the element of surprise. As in clandestine infiltration, subversion, and sabotage as preparatory for frontal assault via swarm tactics.

      I can think of a few ways to successfully take it back by force, but that is NOT the answer.

      My concern would be being vulnerable to foreign attack.

      I don’t advocate violent revolution, but rather activism and civil disobedience.

      We are already in control.

      We can bring any entity that we want to their knees.

      We just have to, like you said, GET UP OFF OF OUR ASSES AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

      There are at least 100 million frustrated Americans that are ready to do something, but don’t know what.

      What we need is LEGITEMATE leadership.

      Don’t vote for parties, incumbents, or turds. If there’s no one to vote for, don’t vote or run for office yourself. …Or just run for office anyway.


      Colonel, I remembering you mentioning being to Rani that you were unelectable and not very PC.

      I wonder what would happen if someone got up there in 2012 and just put it kinda blunt and simple to everyone instead of being so PC?

      Right now in America and probably even more so by ’12, it might just actually work.

      I think we’re past sugar coated BS lies at this point.

      I think there are gonna be BIG changes in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

      • Bottom Line says:

        Wording Correction:

        Colonel, I remembering you mentioning to Rani that you were unelectable and not very PC.

  9. SK Trynosky Sr. says:

    Maybe, I’m stupid, maybe I’m not. Maybe I’m paranoid, maybe I’m not. Maybe I am both.

    Unless I miss my bet, you have just seen the end of the American Republic. Like Rome some 2,000 years ago, a really good idea just voted itself out of existence. The Senate of the people of the United States is now irrelevant. Bring on the bread and circuses!

    Hail Caesar! Nos morturi te salutamus!

    • I’ll take that bet.

      I’ll bet you 1,000,000 US Dollars.

      You failed to specify a deadline for the collapse. Please name your terms

      • Bottom Line says:


        I think he just did specify when.

        “…you have just seen the end …”

        And he didn’t say collapse, he said “end”

        Just sayin’

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        You see my friend, you suffer from the same virus my eldest son does. It is the “It can’t happen here virus”. Mind you, you won’t come right out and say it but in the back of your mind you think it. I went through many years of my life thinking the same way, then I saw NYC collapse in the seventies. I read a little more, researched a little more and paid a whole lot more attention to the people , poor and middle class I interacted with every day in the poor and middle class neighborhoods of NYC. The city came back from the brink but only because social liberals like Ed Koch and Rudy Guilliani had an Epiphany. They realized that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

        I am in no mood to go into it in any depth right now, but essentially, the Senate of the people of the United States has just voted on the biggest free lunch program possibly in the history of man. Where exactly do you think the bucks are going to come from and when they are not forthcoming, exactly what do you think will happen. Perhaps a new Caesar will rise and he too will have all the answers. Perhaps like our current one, he too will have divine attributes.

  10. Birdman,

    The author has no understanding of economic theory.

    He is rooted in the Keynesian mindset, and with no surprise comes to a bizarre conclusion because he starts from a failed theory.

    So, let’s go through his piece and see where his mistakes are – and where he goes astray.

    Contrary to what you are hearing in the media, the worst economic news may still lie ahead: A deflationary depression is descending upon us. Could it help the conservative movement?

    Right off the bat: why does he (or others) assume that the worse possible economic news is (1) deflation and (2) a depression?

    So, right off, let’s get our heads clear about what these mean.

    (1) deflation – the amount of goods money buys increases. Corollary: the price of goods falls in terms of money.

    Now, does this sound like a bad thing??? Do you not like going to a store and seeing the price of the 52″ LCD TV you are dreaming about go down in price? Well, yeah!!

    So why is this bad?

    Understand this:
    In a free market , price deflation is a sign of a productive economy** (however, in a government run market place there can be a secondary cause of deflation – see below)

    It means there are more of and a greater variety of goods being produced. If the amount of money in an economy is static, this means that there are more goods competing for that dollar – or to say another way, the person holding a dollar has more choices to buy.

    And in who’s mind is this bad?

    So immediately when you hear some dimwit claim deflation is “bad” you know the rest of his thinking is warped as well.

    It means he has been taught a faulty definition of deflation – typically Keynesian which is too little money chasing too many goods.

    Now consider that definition and its implications – “too much”, as if too much money is bad. Any one (other than Charlie) believe this???

    Is too much goods bad??? Look in your own home, is not accumulating lots of goods a typical desire of most people??

    But – oh yes – the economist of Keynes wishes you to believe it is.

    So who is deflation bad for?

    It is bad for debtors. It means they have to work harder to pay off their debts. They traded goods today for their money of the future. But money is becoming more valuable compared to the goods they bought today.

    This is not a problem if the goods bought today bring value to that person. But it is opposite the mindset of the typical person today – who buys junk (that is, goods they do not need or really want) knowing that it will be paid off with cheaper money in the future.

    But how is the largest debtor in the world?

    Thus, it becomes very clear to why deflation is so hated – government hates it. It is great for the people who earn – it is lousy for those that borrow, and government must borrow to pay for its largess, it attacks deflation with every weapon it has.

    Now, Depression. The business cycle is an artifact of fiat money.

    A depression is a resetting of the price calculation of an economy that has been set askew by the inflationary policies of money creators – government.

    Price is the market’s method of allocation of resources. “High bid wins”.

    However, when there is a huge, artificial, increase in money, there are suddenly a lot of ‘high bids’ for goods. This is interpreted by business as a sign of a growing economy – and they respond by expanding their production to meet the demand.

    However, it is not a growing economy that has increased the demand, but the growing ‘air money’ in the hands of the people.

    The producers find that in time the cost of replacement inventory is higher than the price they are selling their product. They are losing their shirts. As they increase their prices to cover costs, the People stop buying – and the producer finds his increase in capacity was not due to greater economic productivity, but merely fake money.

    He closes his plants and fires workers or goes bankrupt.

    The economy resets as businesses recalibrate their production to the reality of the economy. This is the Depression.

    Boom/Bust cycles are directly created by the use of government fiat money in an economy.

    A depression is (1)necessary – it is required to reset the economy back into reality and proper level of production and productivity. It destroys the fantasy and re-establishes the economic truth of that particular market place and (2) cannot be avoided if the economy has suffered fiat money creation out of thin air.

    Any attempt to avoid the depression will create an ever larger cycle of boom/bust until the bust is so big it destroys society.

    **To avoid the destruction of society, the creators of money will attempt to save the monetary basis of that society. Money is the heart of an economy, and an economy is the heart of society. Destroy money and society dies.

    Since it has been the creation of fiat money out of thin air that created the cycle, the Central Bank will attempt to save the economy by destroying the fiat money and turning it back into air.

    This causes the **alternate deflationary causation – retraction of money out of the economy by the Central Bank.

    Loans are paid off, but the money instead of being re-loaned is destroyed.

    This effect is wholly an artifact of Central Banking cartels and fiat money creation. It is also the only tool the Central Bank has to save an economy that is in the process of destroying its monetary base due to high or hyper inflation.

    Hope you’re still with me….

    So, the worse possible economic crisis is not deflationary depression – this is a requirement to return a market place that has been badly distorted with inflationary fiat money creation.

    The worse possible economic crisis is hyper-inflation. This will destroy the monetary base by destroying money, and then society.

    Breakneck federal printing of debt and dollars, gold and stocks rising, the dollar falling — surely these trends presage inflation, or even hyperinflation.

    Obvious to even the novice economist.

    But don’t worry, he’ll come up with some bizarre theory that contradicts reality.

    Most of us have known only inflation, in which prices rise over time. In deflation, prices fall. The last time this happened in the U.S. was during the Great Depression. Japan has been living it these last fifteen years.

    By offering a weak definition, he will use this mistake to create his economic theories.

    Inflation is not prices rising over time. In any economy, prices will rise due to an increase in demand over supply.

    But this is not inflation – it is price mechanisms revealing that a product is successful, the demand is increasing, and that the production of this product should increase.

    Inflation is a systemic increase in price over all goods and services. This can only occur by an increase in the monetary base of an economy – printing of fiat money.

    Deflation is not a drop in price. There is not deflation in the ever-falling price of electronics. This the consequence of an increase in production and as a subsequent consequence, an expansion of choices in electronics.

    Systemic deflation is the retraction of the monetary base – that is, the returning of air-money back into air.

    A falling price trend is at first a benefit to consumers.

    It is always a benefit to consumers.

    But then it leads to a spiral of economic decline: a depression.

    Deflation does not lead to depression. The two are independent.

    Depression is a reset of an economy that has been skewed due to faulty price calculation caused by inflationary practices.

    One can have a depression without deflation; indeed you can have a depression with inflation!! (

    Anyone remember the 1970’s inflationary depression? You will find no Keynesian bringing this up because there exists no economic theory in Keynesian economics that explains it.

    With their mistake of defining inflation, deflation, depression and boom/bust cycle they cannot account for such an event. Though it happened and is fact, they ignore it and pretend it cannot exist.

    Thus, they continue to claim that only a deflation causes a depression, and muddle along wholly lost.

    Deflation occurs when money for whatever reason becomes scarce, and therefore more valuable.

    Does anyone belief money is scarce when the FED is printing a trillion more dollars of it every 4 months???

    Lower prices are the effect. Producers starve for profits, which leads to layoffs, loan defaults, and bankruptcies.

    The reset of an distorted economy, where producers have systemically made errors in the allocation of production due to the lie – that the economy was actually growing – based on the increase amount of money in the economy – must reset.

    Yes, that means companies based on inflation will fail. Yes, that means employees working in companies based on inflation will lose their job. Building and working in a fantasy of an economy must one day reckon with reality. Sad, but true.

    Low debt throttles growth and slows purchases.

    He believes that buying on credit makes you richer. If you haven’t opinioned this guy as a crack pot yet, you have another reason.

    Unsold inventories waste away on the shelf, crumble in value, and must be sold at deep discounts. Prices fall further, and so on, in a vicious circle.

    He fails in his analysis once again.

    There is a stop in this ‘cycle’ – when there is no more inventory. He wants you to believe that it goes on forever. But it can’t.

    As soon as over-valued inventory is blown out – purchased by those that have been economically grounded by saving their money (thus having money to buy things) and/or increasing their production (working harder), there is no more inventory. Producers now get to re-evaluate their economies. Who is buying what and at what price?

    When the depression has cleared the economic playing field – then business production matches consumer demand and the economy recovers.

    However, Keynesian require fear to invoke their policies – and as they live in a fantasy – they fantasize fear that the cycle has no end right up to the destruction of society.

    Normal downturns are triggered by cyclic imbalances in which supply temporarily exceeds demand. Growth pauses while inventory excesses are liquidated. This time, however, things are different. The triggering event was an asset valuation bubble — high stock and real estate prices — boosted excessively in a buying mania fueled by cheap credit during the last fifteen years. Lots of borrowing creates financial leverage, which pumps up profits during good times and wipes them out during bad. Consumer credit swelled with the aid of cheap mortgages and home equity lines. Businesses borrowed cheap short-term money and invested long-term, expecting to roll the loans over as profits expanded. Most significantly, bankers ran high ratios of what they lent out versus what they took in. All of this borrowing was encouraged by the Federal Reserve Board and Congress to foster social goals like full employment and high levels of homeownership.

    But the system eventually became unstable. The real estate that served as collateral for trillions of dollars of debt on the banks’ (and the bank-like Fannie and Freddie) balance sheets became priced too high, and for the first time in seventy years, prices began a serious decline. Many highly leveraged borrowers had their equity wiped out, so they threatened to default. An increased sense of risk rippled through these debt pools, erasing much of their value and rendering them unsalable, or “toxic.” Soon, a “run,” or loss of general confidence, pervaded the U.S. and European economies. Though it has come to be called the housing bubble recession, a better name is the great credit bubble depression.

    Deflation stems from a shortage of money. Isn’t the Fed creating trillions of new dollars that they lend to banks and to the Treasury for disbursement in “stimulus” programs? Yes, but even as the Fed has recently created $2 trillion in new assets, many times, more money has been and will continue to be taken out of the world’s economy through the process of de-leveraging — that is, the paying off or writing off of a portion of the hundreds of trillions in credit floated around the world.

    Typical Keynesian. Has no clue regarding the monetary base.

    If I borrow $100 dollars from you, and cannot pay it back and you write off the debt, what happened to that $100?? Did it disappear from the economy?

    No, of course not. I spent that $100 somewhere. No one borrows money without buying “something”. That is, no one borrows money and then stuffs it in their mattress. Borrowers buy things.

    My inability to repay does not delete that $100 out of the economy – it is a bank account somewhere.

    So ‘write offs’ do not cause deflation = no way, no how.

    So what about ‘paying off’ debt. If the bank receives the money and does not loan it out but instead returns it to the FED, then -yes- that is deflationary. The monetary base shrinks.

    But is that what is happening? Nope, not at all.

    Repayment is not being returned to the FED.

    Instead, the money is being re-loaned to the government for its spending. The monetary base is not shrinking due to repayments at all.

    Despite talk of TARP success and nascent recovery, those toxic assets are still on the books, some with the banks and some with the Fed itself.

    This is irrelevant. What value the FED places on these assets is moot. As the creators (or destroyers) of money, they do not need assets at all. This is a red herring.

    Eventually, much of this money will become worthless. As fast as the Fed is printing new money, money is being destroyed as debt is taken off the table.

    Show where this money is being ‘destroyed’. He cannot. He is claiming fantasy as if it was fact, and building his case on that claim.

    In the end, the Fed will lose as the quicksand of depression sucks more and more money into its muck.

    Ironically, the 60% stock market rally of 2009, which in itself is anti-deflationary, is no source of comfort. Though it’s hard to prove why stocks move, the recent rally is most likely due to a “carry trade,” in which banks borrow cheaply from the Fed and invest in high-return risk markets like stock, gold, or even foreign currencies. The Fed is encouraging this with low rates precisely because this asset re-inflation makes the dollar less valuable. They are fighting the inevitable deflation.

    Is deflation inevitable – yes, least one wishes to risk the destruction of the Western world.

    So fighting is… pointless? Yes.

    So fighting what is inevitable does what? Makes the inevitable worse.

    But they are also creating a new asset bubble just like the one that imploded last year. They have lowered short-term interest to zero. As prices correct downward and the dollar rises as deleveraging continues, the Fed can take rates no lower. The last remedy available is for the Fed to buy government and corporate debt in the open market, literally printing money at will — adrenaline for a burst, perhaps, but not sustainable. Other government measures like deficit spending and expansion of primarily public sector jobs in the “Stimulus” program are simply wasteful, destroying more dollars in the present

    Did you see the slight of hand?

    How can producing more dollars into the economy destroy more dollars in the economy?

    Eventually, if you wait long enough, all Keynesians completely contradict themselves – even in their own theory.

    and creating public debt to burden the future. These effects are deflationary. Obama’s plans for new taxes and regulations, which extinguish dollars, are also deflationary.

    Yes, increase of taxes is deflationary. It is a way the government removes dollars out of an economy – as long as they do not spend it right back in.

    But at $1 trillion deficits, they must be spending it right back in. Only if government has a surplus can they claim taxation is deflationary.

    What about the oft-cited signs of recovery like upticks in GDP, consumer sentiment, and retail sales? Well, even in a trending economy — and ours is trending down — it is normal to see short blips, zigs, and zags against the trend. The numbers are also somewhat cooked for political effect. You’ll know that the grip of deflation is tightening if you continue to see more of the following: discounts, price reductions, joblessness, real estate vacancies, bank failures, business failures, public finance failures, pension defaults, loan defaults, shrinking debt and credit, higher savings ratios, and frugal spending.

    Let’s review the list – which one decreases the monetary base

    discounts – nope. price -nope. reductions -nope. joblessness -nope. real estate vacancies -nope.

    bank failures – YES! but not in this case…. since a bank lends out 100 to 1 of deposits… if it fails, those air-dollars disappear, depositors lose their deposits – money disappears. But what is really happening? A bank that fails – the FDIC pays out the depositors and the loans are transferred to TARP. There is no retraction of the monetary base at all – but a centralization of banking.

    business failures -nope. public finance failures-nope. pension defaults-nope. loan defaults-nope. shrinking debt and credit-YES!! but only if the banks do not relend – but they are, to the borrower of last resort, the government

    higher savings ratios-NOPE! (how stupid can this guy be!) Saving money INCREASES the monetary base. Every dollar in deposit is used in a fractional reserve to re-lend 99 times. This hardy decreases the monetary base.

    frugal spending – NOPE!! So spending money in an economy decreases the monetary base. Bizarr0 attack!

    When Obama took office, conservatives grumbled that he would get an unearned lift in 2012 because the natural tendency of recessions to reverse themselves after two years would put the country on a positive trajectory just in time to lift him to a second term. The thing about deflationary depressions is their persistence. If Japan is a guide, we’ll be seeing this one for a decade or more. Its ill effects should intensify within the 2010 election cycle. It will be far from over, even by 2012.

    The depression will be terrible, but it could have a cleansing effect. We are already seeing the rejection of carbon taxation, for example, because of the hard times. The entire costly Democratic program to expand government against the deflationary backdrop will catch the public’s anger and lead them to “throw the bums out.”

    Obama’s economists, Larry Summers and Ben Bernanke, are smart enough to understand and see the lurking deflation, even if they publicly brag that the worst is over. They might even quietly suspect that their current policy mix will not stop deflation. So what have they told the boss? If they are speaking honestly, then Obama must already know how much pain is coming our way. Or are these generals cowering before their stern commander, who will shoot a messenger bringing unwelcome news? The mood must be pretty tense.

    During the Iraq war, the Dems seemed to be rooting for military defeat as a tactic to win political victory. Their interests were contrary to the country’s. This time, in contrast, conservatives want recovery — a development in alignment with the public interest, but which could also boost Democrat prospects. What Republicans wish for matters not. If depression develops, it will not come from conservative’s wishing, but at least they will have the cold dish of revenge at the polls to relish.

    *While the forecast is deflation for the next few years, inflation is still a long-term threat. Economic trends swing to and fro. A mild deflation could be followed by a mild inflation. Unfortunately, we may see a very deep deflation change into a hyperinflation as panicky anti-deflationary policies overshoot their mark.

    The Deflationists cannot answer these questions:

    (1) where is the government getting their money to fund deficits?
    (2) where is the debt repayments going?
    (3) who is the borrower who does not spend?

    They until they explain themselves in reference to the monetary basis, fractional reserve banking, and the borrower of last resort, they will consistently mistaken their economic analysis.

    • Black Flag:

      Thank you for your analysis. I thought you would eat his lunch and you did. You should post your response on American Thinker under comments to the article.

  11. A Puritan Descendant says:

    An additional note. It is easy to mis-interpret what someone writes in a post. I have done it myself. I don’t help matters by calling myself “A Puritan Descendant”, though I am a Puritan Descendant many times over. Though I believe strongly in God/Universal mind or whatever, I am not a Christian! I have only been in a church once in my life for a friends wedding. I just believe we need some sort of ‘absolutes’ to follow or we are screwed. What this country, since 1776 began with, was working fairly well for quite a while. If we can’t bring it back, we need to bring it back or get a new set of ‘absolutes’ based on Freedom and Liberty. Don’t assume you know where I am coming from based on a few responses or early morning rants. Later

    • Bottom Line says:


      It helps if you elaborate.

      If I talk about how Virtual Theocracy annoys me more so than gay folks, and use the word “puritan” in the context of idealism instead of ethnicity,

      …and you call yourself “A Puritan Descendant” while defending your position against voting NO against gay marriage.

      …then I can see just how easy things can get distorted and misinterpreted as you being a Christian and me being a bigot. (It wouldn’t surprise me if I had puritan blood in me as well.)

      I’m glad you cleared that up Puritan.

      Again, Have a great day!

    • Myself, I did not make the assumption that you were Puritan.

      My statement about the roots of Americanism being a theocracy of Puritans is historical.

  12. This guy is sometimes out there, but also covers things I would otherwise find.
    With government mandated insurance, we can all get even more test done!!!

    How docs and hospitals play radiation games

    Imagine being zapped with powerful doses of radiation for a test you don’t even need. If you’ve recently had an abdominal CT scan, there’s a 50 percent chance you’re in that category.

    A new study found that more than half of all patients sent for costly abdominal CT scans don’t even need the test. But it gets worse. Researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison believe the high doses of radiation from those tests cause at least 23,000 radiation-induced cancers every year.

    Talk about robbery – but forget “your money or your life,” because in this case you could lose both.

    A single CT scan delivers as much radiation as 113 chest X- rays. Around 20 percent use a dose equal to 500 chest X- rays, and some get even more – up to 1,000 X-rays, delivered in one mega-dose of damage.

    All for a test that more than half the patients never even need to begin with! Think about that next time your doc orders one up.

    This new report comes hot on the heels of research showing how 4 million Americans are exposed to overly high levels of radiation each year. Another recent report found that Americans today are typically exposed to seven times the radiation from diagnostic tests as we were 30 years ago.

    Diagnostic testing – not just these CT scans – represent one of the biggest scams in modern medicine. The overwhelming majority of these tests are done to make a quick and ugly buck off your deepest fears.

    Abdominal CT scans alone can cost around $6500 a pop – but who even stops to think about the price when their doc implies something may be wrong? No one! In fact, most people can’t wait to get the test done because they’re worried sick – usually for no good reason.

    The worst are docs with their own testing equipment – believe me, just about everyone who walks in that door ends up with a test. Someone’s gotta pay the bills, right?

  13. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Thomas Jefferson fully recognized that to truly have freedom every generation should have their own revolution. By his own measure we are far overdue. Jefferson realized that revolution was nothing to be FEARED, it was something NECESSARY, lest the government become too powerful and descend into tyranny.

    Those of you who fear revolution do not recognize the necessity because you are duped into believing that the way things are is equivalent to the way things SHOULD be. Or, at the very least, you believe that the way things are “isn’t all that bad”.

    Well, if you do not mind living under a tyrranical government which seeks to further and further limit and eliminate your freedom as an individual human being, then yes, you probably think things are pretty ok. Perversely, you also think that because you are “free”, you have the right to defend things the way that they are because you are either happy with the current arrangement, or at least not overly displeased. However, your freedom is an illusion, so by claiming you are “free” to defend the status quo, you are engaging in a massive contradiction. No one is “free” to argue FOR limiting or eliminating the freedoms of others. Logically, that argument simply fails.

    Now, if you WISH to live in a society which is NOT free, and you want to find a bunch of other people that have the same wish, feel free to find all of the people who are truly willing to live like that, and form such a society. However, the minute you try to FORCE a free person to live in such a society, you have violated THEIR rights.

    So, let’s sum it up nicely:

    If you like the way things are and are happy with where the country is headed, you are free to feel that way, and to voice your opinion, and even try to convince others that it is a good way to organize society. However, it is NOT ok for you to FORCE anyone else to live in such a society.

    Also, those that want to be free can voice our opinions, advocate for such a society, and try to convince others that a free society is the way to go. We also cannot FORCE anyone to live in the type of society we desire either!

    So the main problem is one of logistics… we ALL currently live here, and due to property rights, we all have a RIGHT to live here! This is the tough one to resolve. If everyone favored a free society, or if everyone was ok with living under tyrrany, there would be no issue.

    • Jefferson’s revolution happened in 1861 and ended in 1865 with failure.

      We live the consequence of that failure.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        There was a bit of a revolution in the 1960s that ended in abject failure as well… most of those anti-government freedom-loving hippies are either running the government today or strongly in favor of Statism 😦

  14. Sort of Off Topic…..,0,3305684.story

    Small-business bankruptcies rise 81% in California
    With credit tight and consumers still pinching their pennies, many business owners find they can’t go on.

    December 22, 2009
    E-mail Print Share Text Size

    The Obama administration’s new plan to give a boost to small businesses reflects continued trouble in that sector, which is facing new failures even as much of the nation’s economy is stabilizing.

    As credit lines have shrunk and consumers have cut back on spending, thousands of small businesses have closed their doors over the last year. The plight of struggling firms has been aggravated by the reluctance of banks to lend money, said Brian Headd, an economist at the Small Business Administration’s office of advocacy.

    “While bankruptcies are up, overall, small-business closures are up even more,” Headd said…..

    Here’s another one. I think the author is trying to convince herself…

    Recovery not as strong as previously thought


    WASHINGTON (AP) – The economy grew at a 2.2 percent pace in the third quarter, as the recovery got off to a weaker start than previously thought. However, all signs suggest the economy will end the year on stronger footing.

    The Commerce Department’s new reading on gross domestic product for the July-to-September quarter was slower than the 2.8 percent growth rate estimated just a month ago. Economists were predicting that figure wouldn’t be revised in the government’s final estimate on third-quarter GDP.

    The main factors behind the downgrade: consumers didn’t spend as much, commercial construction was weaker, business investment in equipment and software was a bit softer and companies cut back more on inventories, according to Tuesday’s report.

    Despite the lower reading, the economy managed to finally return to growth during the quarter, after a record four straight quarters of decline. That signaled the deepest and longest recession since the 1930s had ended, and the economy had entered into a new fragile phase of recovery.

    Many analysts believe the economy is on track for a better finish in the current quarter……


    Dressing Down The President

    Removing the Medicare buy-in from the Senate health reform bill (to appease Senator Lieberman) was the last straw for Howard Dean. Dean says, “Kill the Senate Bill,” and I’m inclined to agree:

    This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. And, honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill and go back to the House and start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.

    I blame President Obama for this health reform fiasco. For it’s Obama who empowered Joe Lieberman to blackmail the Senate and hold health reform hostage.

    And that brings me to my latest double limerick:

    Dressing Down The President
    By Madeleine Begun Kane

    Dear Obama, your job is to lead.
    You have failed. So has Senator Reid.
    Seems you’d sign any swill
    Labeled “health reform bill,”
    And then brag that we’ve got what we need.

    Yes, you’ve tragic’ly blown your great chance.
    So spare us the song and the dance.
    Though many will swear
    You’ve done much for our care,
    I am sorry — the prez has no pants.

  16. v. Holland says:

  17. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hi All

    Thought I might take a government vacation and only put in my thoughts about the last few conversations and topics here and they include the following 3.

    On the abortion issue, I think most if not all here know where I stand on that. 100% against it, yes I know, there might be certain times when it might be necessary, but there again, I spoke my mind on that one.

    On the gay marriage issue. There again, I think most if not all here know where I stand on that one. If they want to get married, or have a civil union, then let them. Government should have NO say in that what so ever. Leave them alone.

    On the government issue, I repeat, I think most if not all here know where I stand on that too. They are all a bunch of thieves, back stabbers, liars and cheats. It will never go back to the way it was, never, I don’t think. Government has gotten so out of control, I don’t think there will ever be a way to get it back the way our forefathers had originated it, not saying it was the greatest then, but now, it’s so far off course, you can’t even see the course from here.

    They have intruded, maligned, interfered with, and dictated so much into our lives, that we may never have the freedom or privacy to do or live our lives the way we once did. For, I see, little by little, all that is being taken away from us and all I see anymore, is all the fear mongering going on both sides of the isle. Neither side can or will tell the truth about anything. All I can say about this government is, to practice what they preach. If everything is good for us, then by God, live by that yourselves. Why should you be any different?

    Hope all is having a good day today.


  18. Buck,

    Re; Your link regarding Constitutionality.

    So, the first debunker says:
    aw professor Kerr, who advised Cornyn, declares Napolitano’s argument “weak” and “filled with so many errors.

    “He made a mistake, its Constitutional, and here I will say again, its Constitutional and he made a mistake – and here again, I’ll repeat its Constitutional and he made a mistake”.

    I would say in response – no matter how much he says it is, doesn’t make it so. I had to laugh at this.

    Constitutional expert Chemerinsky: Constitutionality of reform proposals supported by “unbroken line of precedents stretching back 70 years.”

    The ol’ “if we made a mistake 70 years ago, we must continue with that same mistake least we make the old dead guys look stupid”.

    Yale Law professor Amar debunks arguments that reform is a “taking.”

    I’d hope his was better at law then economics – where he does not regard money as property. But since he is using is mistaken economic ideas as a rational for his flawed legal theory, he isn’t that good at law either.

    Yale Law professor Balkin debunks claim that Tenth Amendment prohibits reform

    The 10th amendment specifically states that what is not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution remains with the States.

    I’d like Balkin to point to where in the Constitution the States or the People have delegated Health Care to the Federal government.

    Of course, Balkin tries to side step this by claiming that the matter is merely a judicial argument – and that matters of politics and law don’t apply to the Constitution.

    • Buck The Wala says:


      Did you read the links associated with the article? I haven’t yet had a chance due to time constraints at work, but wanted to at least post a summary. If you have read the links, did Kerr and the others go into greater detail for their positions?

      Regarding Chemerinsky, he most certainly cites to precedent. That is what JAC had requested and what I was trying to provide. The fact that the precedent cited doesn’t go back to 1776 is irrelevant. Where is your proof that the decision 70 years ago was a mistake? (I’ll have to go back and take a closer look myself at the case cited to; again, haven’t had the chance yet).

      The way I’m reading your comment, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that all of these constitutional experts are wrong because they are just carrying forward a mistake from decades ago. Is that really your arugment – that you know better because you would have decided a case differently 70 years ago? I don’t mean to be flippant (from reading and commenting on this site, I know full well not to be flippant with the pirate!), just would like a little clarity as to your position.

      • Buck,

        Kerr posts precisely one past decision of SCOTUS.

        In other words, he does not argue the Constitution at all.

        He argues the past decisions of SCOTUS. He assumes that the past decisions must be right – and therefore are right.

        He makes no argument about anything else other than repeating “he made so many errors”… over and over again.

        • Is that really your arugment

          No, that is their argument….that the past decisions are never in error, and therefore are always right.

          They do not argue the Constitution. They argue that other men have made a decision. That is two wholly different things.

          The Constitution is readable. It is in English. You can look up the words they use in every English dictionary.

          No where in the entire document are the words:

          “interpret” or “Health Care”

          • Buck The Wala says:

            It doesn’t matter whether or not the terms ‘interpret’ or ‘health care’ are in the document. The Constitution is to be interpreted. Its provisions are to be read and apply to a changing world and an evolving society.

            All we have to go on are the words of the Constitution and what those words mean — not just through plain language, but as interpreted over time by the Supreme Court. Given Supreme Court precedent and Constitutional interpretation, these scholars are making an argument that health care reform is constitutional.

            You can disagree and argue that it is unconstitutional. Where’s your proof, outside of merely positing that ‘health care’ done not appear in the Constitution?

            • Why does the Constitution need to be interpreted? Is it in another language?

              interpreting denotes the act of facilitating communication from one language form into its equivalent, or approximate equivalent, in another language form

              The words are precise.

              Unless expressly consented by the States or by the People it is disallowed as a function of the Federal government.

              There exists no amendment whatsoever regarding health care. That is my proof – that no such words of “Health Care” exists in the Constitution, there is and never has been an amendment resolving that the Federal government has a duty to Health Care.

              Simply, Buck, show me where in the Constitution where Health Care is expressly given.

              For ease, I’ve included the definition of “expressly”
              explicitly,particularly, specifically.

              I expressly (pun intended) asked you to find “interpret” in the Constitution because you are under some belief that SCOTUS is charged with this duty.

              But absolutely no where in the Constitution does it say that is their duty.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                The duty of the Supreme Court is to APPLY THE CONSTITUTION to TEST INDIVIDUAL LAWS FOR CONFORMANCE.

                In other words, if a newly passed law DOES NOT CONFORM to what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution, then the law is invalid.

                From this perspective, it is the duty of SCOTUS to INTERPRET LAWS, specifically regarding whether such laws are Constitutional or not.

                Buck (and every supreme court since 1930 or earlier) has this process backwards.

              • Peter,

                Where do you believe the Constitution says this, too?

                Here is the entire Constitution regarding SCOTUS, including amendments

                Article III – The Judicial Branch Note

                Section 1 – Judicial powers

                The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

                Section 2 – Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

                (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

                In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

                The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

              • It is very important to understand that no where in the Constitution does the word “unconstitutional” exist.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                You are operating from a position that the Constitution means exactly what is says. But what does the Constitution say? And what do those words mean?

                Any contract must be interpreted and applied to a given situation. The Constitution is no different.

              • Buck,
                In the preamble of the Constitution, the largest word is ….


                If you have trouble understanding any of the other words in the 4200 or so others in the rest of the document, I can point you to a common dictionary.

                To point;

                SCOTUS claims that since education is not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, it is reserved as a State right.

                I agree.

                For every argument for Federal Health care exists precisely for the same argument for Education.

                We know Education is not a Federal Right.

                Using the same arguments in favor of Health Care fails as well.

              • “Using the same arguments in favor of Health Care fails as well.”

                Restated in an understandable way.

                Using the same arguments that failed for Education fails for Health Care.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                BF, I am perfectly capable of understanding each individual word. Just because you can define a word in the constitution, does not mean you know what the constitution as a whole (or a given clause within the constitution) means.

                Take the commerce clause: “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes”

                Take your dictionary out and define the meaning of the clause. What does it mean that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce?

              • Buck, This is the attorney coming out. Even in arbitration, union contracts are read as they are written, not how some one interprets them. This is the major flaw in your thinking. If a contract says as raise of 45 cents is effective on Jan 1, 2010, do you honestly think that it means, “unless the country in in a recession? Please :roll”


              • Buck The Wala says:

                Hey G!

                Point well made, but that is the difference between ambiguous and unambiguous language.

                By no means is the Constitution completely unambiguous.

              • going below, too squishy!

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Amendments are how a changing society deals with the constitution, not judicial interpretations by unelected men who answer to no one.

      • Since we are talking about the Constitution, here is Kent’s article today on the same:

        Why not a ‘Constitutional US government’?
        December 21, 11:05 PMAlbuquerque Libertarian ExaminerKent McManigalPrevious Comment Print

        Could I live in America under a “Constitutional US government”? Well, sure. Why not? I have been living in America under an unconstitutional US government all my life. I’m a good adapter and don’t usually mind being an outlaw and ignoring government edicts.

        A “Constitutional US government” would be a lot less intrusive than the criminal government America is occupied by today, but why stop there? The Constitution still “authorizes” things that are wrong. Especially, but not only, under the 16th Amendment. So, could we get rid of all the amendments after the 10th? Yes, and as long as we didn’t pretend that some people are “less human” than other people it would make no harmful difference. In other words, we’d still have to live by the Zero Aggression Principle in addition to the whatever the Constitutional US government dictated in order to be an ethical society. We’d also have to cross out the whole “general welfare” and “commerce clause” nonsense to make the Constitution acceptable. Those parts have enabled great evil to be “legally” committed.

        Obviously, once you start messing around with the Constitution in any way, the enemies of liberty (most Democrats, Republicans, elected “officials”, and “law enforcement”) would probably try to alter it to get their own draconian agenda “legitimized” which would be a big step backward.

        The best bet for long-term freedom probably lies in scrapping such fatally-flawed “social contracts” for one that is completely consensual and voluntary. Such as the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. If you have an issue with actually committing yourself to something by signing on a dotted line, just live by the Zero Aggression Principle and the “Principle of Zero Initiated Deception”.

        So, while a “Constitutional US government” would be an improvement, it is a pitifully weak excuse for real liberty. I know what I want, and I won’t stop until I get there. Why not join me?

  19. Bottom Line says:

    Alabama representative Parker Griffith switches from Demopublican Party to Republicratic Party. He says it’s because he doesn’t believe the Demopublicans are taking the country in the wrong direction.


    • Bottom Line says:


      He says it’s because he doesn’t believe the Demopublicans are taking the country in the right direction.

  20. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Some of you here (and you know who you are) are saying that compromise is necessary for a country as large and diverse as ours to function at all. That MAY be true. HOWEVER, you are failing to realize that there are 2 forms of compromise!

    Compromise type #1

    You want scrambled eggs, I want eggs over-easy, and there is only one pan to cook the eggs in. In the end, we both decide an omelet would be acceptable to both of us, so that is what we make and eat.

    Compromise type #2

    You want lasagna, I want vegetarian lasagna because I am vegan (I am not really, but for the sake of this discussion I am…); further, I firmly believe it to be completely immoral to eat products made out of living (or formerly living) animals.

    You attempt to get me to “compromise” and at least let you put SOME meat in the lasagna.

    Compromise type #1 is ok. It does not violate anyone’s values or beliefs. Compromise type #2 is NOT ok, you are attempting to get someone to violate strongly held morals or beliefs in the name of “compromise”.

    So, those of us who believe in freedom and liberty CANNOT compromise when a compromise would lead to a diminuition of our freedom and liberty, because that would violate/contradict our core belief. If a man is willing to compromise his core belief then he HAS NO CORE BELIEF, and further, HE IS NOT A MAN!

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Can we at least put some meat on half the lasagna?

      Peter, I understand what you are saying about compromise and the inability to do so if it violates your core belief. But what about my core beliefs? This is the problem inherent in any diverse society. Core beliefs differ. Morals differ. There is no possible way of giving you everything you want and me everything I want. If you cannot compromise, where does that leave us as a society? Must I sacrifice everything for you? Who are you to make me give up my beliefs for your gain?

      • Buck, you can convince one of the 50 states to enact your ideal world and then go live in that state. If it fails, don’t expect the other 49 states to bail you out of the mess you created.

        I think Ayn Rand said it best, “You cannot compromise with poison. Death always wins.”

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


        Once again, I DID NOT SAY there could be NO COMPROMISE. I simply stated that there could be no compromise on anything that would violate my core belief.

        If my core belief and your core belief are so different that no compromise is possible on a particular issue, then the two of us will have to simply agree to disagree and go on living without any compropmise on that particular issue, just as we had before the issue came up as a subject for possible compromise.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          It is as I said before Buck, one of the things that my core belief tells me is that murder is wrong.

          If the State of New York suddenly decides that murder is ok, provided you only commit it on a Tuesday or a Thursday (which was a compromise between the people that wanted no murder at all, and those that wanted to murder any time they darn well pleased), then as long as I am not forced to live there, and as long as they do not attempt to make it a NATIONAL law, and as long as they inform others not to go there on Tuesdays and Thursdays lest they risk being murdered, then why would I care?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Buck, you seem to be under the illusion that my failure to agree with you on a “compromise” somehow means that you must adopt my position. This is a VERY poor understanding of the concept on your part.

        You are ABSOLUTELY free to disagree with someone else, and there is nothing wrong with that. People disagree about things all the time, and yet somehow society still miraculously and magically FUNCTIONS JUST FINE!!!

        It is when I try to FORCE YOU to agree with my position that society falls apart. It is when you try to FORCE ME to accept your position even though to do so would violate my core belief that problems start. It is when someone turns honest disagreement into an excuse for violence that society cannot hold.

        Haven’t you ever simply said to someone, “Well, we just don’t agree on that issue, but that is fine because there is plenty of other stuff that we DO agree on!” If you HAVE ever said that, then you realize that disagreements are not BAD in and of themselves.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Peter, I am not implying that I must adopt your position, or that you must adopt mine. We know that’s not the case. What I am implying is that we as a society need compromise on the issues of the day. If everyone sits down and says “I refuse to compromise” then nothing will get done.

          You personally can refuse to compromise and argue against a given bill or act to your heart’s content. That’s your right. But as a society, there must be compromise.

          • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

            I am a Nazi, I want to kill all the Jews in Europe. You are not a Nazi and don’t want to kill any Jews.

            Where can the compromise exist in this pluralistic society? Killing half the Jews?

            You cannot compromise with Evil. Unfortunately, many of us believe that things that are transpiring these days are evil.

  21. We’ve talked about this in the past… and this rolled across my virtual desk…

    To think that the U.S. Defense Department is naive about the potential for civilian unrest during an economic crisis would be very naive.

    Here is a section from a Defense Department document.

    Violent, Strategic Dislocation Inside the United States.

    As a community, the defense establishment swears to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. DoD’s role in combating “domestic enemies” has never been thoughtfully examined. Thus, there is perhaps no greater source of strategic shock for DoD than operationalizing that component of the oath of service in a widespread domestic emergency that entails rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the United States.

    While likely not an immediate prospect, this is clearly a “Black Swan” that merits some visibility inside DoD and the Department of Homeland Security. To the extent events like this involve organized violence against local, state, and national authorities and exceed the capacity of the former two to restore public order and protect vulnerable populations, DoD would be required to fill the gap. This is largely uncharted strategic territory.

    Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security. Deliberate employment of weapons of mass destruction or other catastrophic capabilities, unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock.

    An American government and defense establishment lulled into complacency by a long-secure domestic order would be forced to rapidly divest some or most external security commitments in order to address rapidly expanding human insecurity at home. Already predisposed to defer to the primacy of civilian authorities in instances of domestic security and divest all but the most extreme demands in areas like civil support and consequence management, DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain andreverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.

    A whole host of long-standing defense conventions would be severely tested. Under these conditions and at their most violent extreme, civilian authorities, on advice of the defense establishment, would need to rapidly determine the parameters defining the legitimate use of military force inside the United States. Further still, the whole concept of conflict termination and/or transition to the primacy of civilian security institutions would be uncharted ground. DoD is already challenged by stabilization abroad. Imagine the challenges associated with doing so on a massive scale at home (pp. 31-33). . . .

    At the national and subnational level, purposeful opponents could synchronize nonmilitary effort, agitating quasi-legitimate proxies into concerted social action and precision political violence targeted at nullifying traditional U.S. military advantages, limiting American freedom of action, and adversely shaping the strategic choices of or political outcomes inside key but vulnerable American partners. Imagine “a new era of containment with the United States as the nation to be contained” where the principal tools and methods of war involve everything but those associated with traditional military conflict. Imagine that the sources of this “new era of containment” are widespread; predicated on nonmilitary forms of political, economic, and violent action; in the main, sustainable over time; and finally, largely invulnerable to effective reversal through traditional U.S. advantages (p. 34).

    The report indicates that the Defense Department would have a hard time maintaining control at home and abroad.

    The assumption is that the Administration would use the Army to back up local police departments. This would change the nature of law and order in the United States.

    This is why it is important that local conditions be under local control. The squeaky wheels will get grease. The cities will get the bulk of the Army’s attention.

    This is the case for living in a small town where local residents are armed and can be deputized by the sheriff.

    • As a community, the defense establishment swears to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. DoD’s role in combating “domestic enemies” has never been thoughtfully examined.

      Sadly, it still hasn’t been thoughtfully examined. I can see the protection of the citizens in times of civil unrest, but they fail to recognize that the elected government may be the domestic enemy. It must be assumed that the Fed’s could never be that enemy, in the eyes of DoD. Someone please tell me they are not that nieve.


  22. Hey Buck, down here 🙂

    Hope your day is well! I believe the Constitution is very simple and easy to understand. It states everything matter of factly (new phrase for today) and is very clear what the Feds can do. The whole problem comes when they try to do something that’s not stated in that section(s). They can regulate commerce, OK, regulate the health insurance industry, except for the small problem that the States have done this for years (not very well either). If you make a widget, and government regulates what it is made of, no mercury for example, you can’t make a widget and sell it with mercury in it. Fair enough. Now, were does the Constitution say that they can force the people to buy your widget? It don’t and they can’t. How can you interpret that any other way?


    • Buck The Wala says:

      Hey G, my day is prodding along — on and off busy all day long. Wish it would make up its mind! Hope you’re doing well too.

      By your logic, where does it say that government can regulate what your widget is made of? If the commerce clause extends to granting the government the ability and authority to regulate the health insurance industry (as I do)then why doesn’t it follow that the government can mandate insurance? Either the government can regulate in this field, or it cannot regulate in this field.

      Now I don’t believe this is the best option. I just don’t see how it could follow that, given the government’s ability to regulate the health insurance industry, government would not then also have the ability to mandate insurance.

      • Buck,

        I just read Todd’s post about mob mentallity. I think it’s great that you and Matt and Ray and Charlie and Todd post here. No matter what side we all fall on, it’s always a learning experience, that’s why I read along during the day and come here daily, I always learn something, even when I’m wrong. Just wanted to say that for the sake of saying it.

        Anyway, mandating the purchase of a consumer good (insurance). How does that fall under “regulating” commerce. If I’m a millionaire, and can pay cash, how does my being forced to buy something I don’t need, regulating? It’s an absolute contradiction in terms.

        I really don’t like this cold weather! 🙂


        • Buck The Wala says:

          I agree — its a great site and a great bunch of daily commentators. Even when I’m swamped at work I try to take a look at some of the arguments being made by everyone and throw in my own two cents.

          As for the issue of ‘mandating’ it is not just an excercise of regulation, but can also be seen as ‘taxation’. I read an interesting article the other day which basically argued that, just because the tax is benefitting a private party, does not make it any less of a tax. For instance, minimum wage laws are constitutional as a form of taxation, yet the beneficiaries are private parties. I’ll try to dig it up somewhere and post it here later on.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          How cold is it by you anyway? Despite what Mathius says (being from LA, he’s a bit screwed up when it comes to weather), its actually nice around here – about 35 today, nice and sunny.

          • In the mid 20’s, snow showers and a 5 mph steady wind, that wind is what hurts, especially those man parts 😆

            I don’t see how forcing business to pay a minimum wage to it’s employees, remotely comes close to forcing an entire nation to purchase a consumer product, which, is used to help pay for another comsumer product. If I can pay for the second consumer product (healthcare) without the first comsumer product (insurance), then, at least in my little mind, is not regulating or tax, it’s theft. For the record, I buy my insurance through work, and elligable for the same through VA, but not using VA because there are people that really need it far worse than I.

            That’s how I see it, but we’ll just wait and see how it all works out.


            • Buck The Wala says:

              I think the argument goes that, if government can regulate it and if government can impose a tax through a mandate benefitting a private party, then it does not matter that you can buy healthcare without buying insurance. Government is free to require you to buy the insurance.

              Not really sure about the nitty-gritty of that argument and need to look into it more. But for now, I’m heading out.

              Try to keep warm, especially those man parts! 🙂

  23. Buck,
    No, it does not have the power to regulate Commerce except if it deals with another nation, between the States themselves or with Indians.

    Commerce is a division of trade or production which deals with the exchange of goods and services…

    “The Congress shall have Power ..To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

    Congress shall of the power to:
    regulate the exchange of trade with nations;
    regulate the exchange of trade among the States;
    regulate the exchange of trade with Indians in Tribes.

    It has no expressed right to regulate anything else regarding Commerce.

    • Buck The Wala says:

      And what does it mean that Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce among the several States?

      How do you define this provision? What is the extent of Congress’ power in this field?

      • Among=
        in a group or class.

        Congress has the power to regulate trade in the group of States – that is, trade between the State and another State.

        Not a person in the State with the State.
        Not with a non-indian person in one state with another non-indian person in another state.

        With a State and another State.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          “Among the Several States” does not mean between one state and another state. It means between persons of one state and persons of another state.

          This is the reading agreed to by even strict constructionists. I do not know of any scholar who has reached a different conclusion. The real issue for debate is the definition of ‘Commerce’.

          • Of course it does, or else that is what they would have said “and the People”.

            The Constitution explicitly describes United States from States from Citizens from People.

            As I pointed out ‘among’ means group or class.

            “Group of States” – not a group of People in a State.

            Commerce, I’ve defined already too – trade.

            Also note that nowhere is there the authority of commerce between the United States and People.

            Interesting, huh?

            • Hey BF,

              Good stuff on American Thinker today! I couldn’t help seeing many of them scratching their heads in bewilderment, made me laugh just thinking about it. 🙂

              Hope today finds you and the family in good health and spirits.


    • Buck The Wala says:

      “Commerce, undoubtedly is traffic, but it is something more—it is intercourse … [A] power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted, as if that term had been added to the word ‘commerce’ … [T]he power of Congress does not stop at the jurisdictional lines of the several states. It would be a very useless power if it could not pass those lines.”

      Taken from the Gibbons case in 1824.

      • Buck:

        So once again your proof is a group of men who decide on their own to change commerce from commerce to something more called intercourse.

        And I love the “power to regulate navigation is as expressly granted, AS IF THAT TERM HAD BEEN ADDED TO THE WORD COMMERCE.” Despite the fact that the word Navigation WAS NOT mentioned in the power granted to regulate commerce.

        Sorry, but commerce is the commercial trade between people of differing states. Not movement of people or goods unless they are sold in another state.

        See how your defense continues to fall on someone changing the meaning of plainly spoken words of the times.

        • Honestly JAC I think Buck’s arguments are a great example of how a document/contract designed to limit government such as the Constitution is always doomed to failure – people in power will “interpret” it to say whatever they wish it to say, and there is no enforcement mechanism outside the government itself, which is not exactly going to rule in favor of *less* government over time.

  24. And so it begins 😉

    “Organizations and lawmakers opposed to the health care reform package are getting their legal briefs in a bunch, threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the sweeping overhaul should it make its way to President Obama’s desk.”
    Here’s the rest of the article.

    Am I too old to go to law school? LOL

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi Willow

      You beat me to the punch, I put up the artice to you link here, sorry.

      Hope you’re doing good today.


      • Doing great here Judy! It’s almost the cocktail hour 😉
        Hope all is well in Nevadaland!

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Cocktail hour, already? Things in Nevadaland are sucky, Cloudy, kind of windy, cold, maybe get some rain and snow. Had a some rain last night, but no snow, at least not down here in the valley anyway.

          Trying to get the rest of the Christmas stuff done, still have things to wrap, and do some baking on Thursday. Outside of that, things are just fine here. Thanks for asking.

  25. Judy Sabatini says:

    I agree with the statement in here where it says, it should be left up to the person to decide what kind of health care they get, not make it mandatory. Just like with auto insurance, you can pick what’s best for you, not what they think is best for you, same goes for health care. Then on top of that, if you don’t get the health care they’re demanding you get, you’re fined, I think $250 a year, is that right?

    Question: And just what happens if you still can’t afford it? Then what? I’m sure there will be people out there who still won’t be able to afford to pay $700 a month premiums if that’s going to be the going rate. But, I don’t think I heard what those rates will be per month. I guess anyway to gouge, gorge and force you into it whether you want it or not.

    Organizations and lawmakers opposed to the health care reform package are getting their legal briefs in a bunch, threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the sweeping overhaul should it make its way to President Obama’s desk.

    Republicans have agreed to allow the Democratic-led Senate to move up the time for a final vote to 8 a.m. Thursday so that lawmakers and their staff can go home for Christmas. But GOP supporters aren’t backing down on their threats to put a stop to the legislation using whatever legal means possible.

    Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.

    On the first issue, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday renewed the call to examine the constitutionality of whether the federal government can require Americans to purchase a product.

    “I don’t believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens,” Ensign said in a statement, raising what’s known as a “constitutional point of order.” Such procedural challenges are rare and typically lead to a vote.
    related links


    Senate Advances Health Care Bill, Democrats Aim for Swift Passage

    The non-profit Fund for Personal Liberty, as well as a Virginia-based group called the 10th Amendment Foundation, already have threatened to file suit in federal court over this issue if the health care bill passes.

    The Constitution allows Congress to tax, borrow, spend, declare war, raise an army and regulate commerce, among other things. Proponents of the insurance mandate point to the Commerce Clause in arguing that Congress is within its rights to require health insurance and dismiss such potential legal challenges.

    But foes say the across-the-board requirement is too broad.

    “I personally do not believe the Congress has the authority to enact an individual mandate requiring a person to purchase a product from a private seller,” said Kent Masterson Brown, lead counsel with The Fund for Personal Liberty. “I don’t think the power is there. This is not regulating anything.”

    He said his group would be joined by the Washington Legal Foundation in filing suit against the health care bill.

    “This thing may be stillborn, even if it passes,” he said.

    Even though Obama argues that the mandate is similar to laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance, opponents cite several key differences. First, the auto insurance mandate is avoidable, since anyone who doesn’t want to pay doesn’t have to drive. Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover damages to other people and cars — not themselves. Third, auto insurance regulation occurs at the state level.

    When the Congressional Budget Office considered the idea of a health insurance mandate back in 1994 under the Clinton administration, it concluded that the mandate would be “an unprecedented form of federal action.” The only congressional mandate close to that was the draft, the CBO concluded.

    Ensign cited that finding in his complaint.

    Still, the legislation does provide for federal subsidies for those who might have trouble affording insurance coverage, and it provides for exemptions for some individuals.

    Other legal objections are emerging in the wake of a concession that Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., won for his state as a condition for his support of the health care bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to provide for full and permanent federal aid for Nebraska’s expanded Medicaid population. It was only one of a slew of hand-crafted sweetheart deals for those senators who agreed to support the bill.

    But the Nelson deal swiftly drew the ire of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has asked his state’s attorney general to give the issue a legal review. He told Fox News on Tuesday that other states can probably bring a “constitutional challenge” over the issue. He said it’s unfair for one state to get special treatment while others pick up the tab.

    “I don’t believe most senators believe this is OK,” Graham said. “I think it stinks. I think it’s sleazy.”

    Graham said his state could file an equal rights suit under the Constitution. The Constitution calls for “equal protection” of all citizens.

    Likewise, two Republican state representatives from Tennessee on Monday asked their state attorney general to look into the issue — they called the Medicaid expansion an “unfunded mandate.”

    Rep. Debra Young Maggart and Rep. Susan Lynn claimed the Nebraska deal was unfair to other states and asked that Attorney General Robert Cooper take “appropriate legal action” against the federal government if the bill becomes law.

    “It is clear by the wording of the legislation itself that not every state would face a similar and equal burden,” they wrote. “We see this as a violation of equal protection of the law, an affront to our sovereignty, and a breach of the U.S. Constitution.”

    The non-profit Liberty Legal Institute is poised to assist states that are considering filing suit against the government over the health care bill. The group would not disclose where the suits might come from, but claimed great interest in putting health care reform to the legal test.

    “There are a lot of states that are concerned that this violated the 10th Amendment and they are weighing their options,” Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel, said in a statement.

    The 10th Amendment declares that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are “reserved” for the states or “the people.”

    Still another challenge is coming from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who on the Senate floor raised concerns about a section in the health care bill that appears to say that the Senate cannot make changes to it in the future.

    “It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection,” the section says.

    DeMint said he found that “particularly troubling.”

    “We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law,” DeMint said. “I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional.”

    The overall section the senator referred to applied to the creation of an Independent Medicare Advisory Board.

    But a senior Reid aide noted that the language restricting the repeal of the measure only applied to one subsection — a subsection dealing with the manner in which the proposal for the board is introduced and considered in Congress. The aide said the language DeMint found “troubling” did not apply to board or its duties as a whole.

    Plus the aide noted that the language can be waived by a 60-vote majority in the Senate.

    “It’s really a sign of desperation,” the aide said.

    • Bottom Line says:

      Hi Judy,

      Hope today finds you well.

      Great post.

      I saw about 30 seconds of that on FOX earlier.

      Judy said FOX said – “The non-profit Liberty Legal Institute is poised to assist states that are considering filing suit against the government over the health care bill. The group would not disclose where the suits might come from, but claimed great interest in putting health care reform to the legal test.”

      I like the non-profit Liberty Legal Institute. I wonder if they need any help.

      I was just talking about filing suit to challenge the constitutionality yesterday.


      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi BL

        Today finds me just dandy thank you.

        I hope something can be done legally, but how does one file a suit against the government? And who would handle it?

        Speaking of suits, I think all of Washington is nothing but a giant empty suit, causing nothing but trouble for everybody. I am so fed up with what’s going on I can’t see straight. I keep waiting to see what else the blithering idiots are going to come up with.

        Hope today finds you well also BL.

        • Bottom Line says:

          It’s a good day. Thanx.

          Judy – “I hope something can be done legally, but how does one file a suit against the government? And who would handle it?”

          Perhaps we should contact Liberty Legal Institute and ask them.

          here’s there website…

      • Bottom Line says:

        I read my reply and thought…

        “where did I get FOX outta that?

        I thought I read it somewhere in there”

        then I re-read your post and found…

        ” …He told Fox News on Tuesday …”

        Whew, Good, I’m not going nuts.


        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Well, at least one of us isn’t, but I think that was from Fox, Willow put up the link to it, and I didn’t realize that until after I put up the article.

          But, it’s the end of the year, so I think we have a right to go a little nuts. I am anyway. Cabin fever has set in and it’s starting to snow here, dammit. I have had enough winter.

  26. USW, et al.:

    I just watched Des Smits parlimentary discussion with the Senate president regarding the language you shared in your article.

    The issue is whether a 2/3 majority of those present was required to invoke cloture on a rule change. Which it is. But the presiding Chair/President ruled that the law’s wording did not constitute a “rule change” and therefore the 2/3 majority was not needed to stop debate. Even though the wording clearly establishes a new rule that the Congress may not consider any future amendments, repeals or changes. A finding of “out of order” is a finding that a motion or proposed resolution does not conform to the rules. In otherwords, this required him to change the meaning of the word rule to match the meaning of the word procedure in the Senate rules. As one might say, what is the meaning of is. Or as Des Smit said, “our rules mean nothing”.

    Anyway, here is the Wiki explanation of the cloture rule so we all have the same understanding:

    “[edit] United States
    This article is part of the series:
    United States Senate

    (by seniority · by age · by class)
    Hill committees (DSCC, NRSC)
    U.S. Vice President
    President pro tempore (list)
    Presiding officer
    Party leaders and Assistants

    Democratic Caucus
    Republican Conference

    Politics and procedure
    Advice and consent
    Closed session (list)
    Cloture · Committees (list)
    Executive session · Filibuster
    History · Quorum · Quorum call
    Recess appointment · Salaries
    Seal · Standing Rules · Traditions
    Unanimous consent
    VPs’ tie-breaking votes
    United States Capitol
    Senate office buildings
    (Dirksen · Hart · Russell)
    A similar procedure was adopted in the United States of America in response to the actions of isolationist senators who attempted to talk out, or filibuster, a bill to arm U.S. merchant ships. President Woodrow Wilson urged the Senate to change its rules to thwart what he called a “little group of willful men”, to which the Senate responded by introducing cloture in the form of Rule 22 on March 8, 1917.[1] Cloture was invoked for the first time on November 15, 1919,[2] during the 66th Congress, to end filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.[3]

    The cloture rule originally required a supermajority of two-thirds of all senators “present and voting” to be considered filibuster-proof.[4][5] For example, if all 100 Senators voted on a cloture motion, 67 of those votes would have to be for cloture for it to pass; however if some Senators were absent and only 80 Senators voted on a cloture motion, only 54 would have to vote in favor.[6] However, it proved very difficult to achieve this; the Senate tried eleven times between 1927 and 1962 to invoke cloture but failed each time. Filibuster was particularly heavily used by Democrat Senators from Southern states to block civil rights legislation.[7]

    In 1975, the Democratic Senate majority, having achieved a net gain of four seats in the 1974 Senate elections to a strength of 61 (with an additional Independent caucusing with them for a total of 62), reduced the necessary supermajority to three-fifths (60 out of 100). However, as a compromise to those who were against the revision, the new rule also changed the requirement for determining the number of votes needed for a cloture motion’s passage from those Senators “present and voting” to those Senators “duly chosen and sworn”. Thus, 60 votes for cloture would be necessary regardless of whether every Senator voted. The only time a lesser number would become acceptable is when a Senate seat is vacant. (For example, if there were two vacancies in the Senate, thereby making 98 Senators “duly chosen and sworn”, it would only take 59 votes for a cloture motion to pass.) [6]

    The new version of the cloture rule, which has remained in place since 1975, makes it considerably easier for the Senate majority to invoke cloture. This has considerably strengthened the power of the majority, and allowed it to pass many bills that would otherwise have been filibustered. (The Democratic Party had held a two-thirds majority in the 89th Congress of 1965, but regional divisions among Democrats meant that many filibusters were invoked by Southern Democrats against civil rights bills supported by the Northern wing of the party.) Some senators wanted to reduce it to a simple majority (51 out of 100) but this was rejected, as it would greatly diminish the ability of the minority to check the majority.

    The three-fifths version of the cloture rule does not apply to motions to end filibusters relating to Senate Rule changes. In order to invoke cloture to end debate over changing the Senate Rules, the original version of the rule (two-thirds of those Senators “present and voting”) still applies.[8]

    The procedure for “invoking cloture,” or ending a filibuster, is as follows:

    A minimum of sixteen senators must sign a petition for cloture.
    The petition may be presented by interrupting another Senator’s speech.
    The clerk reads the petition.
    The cloture petition is ignored for one full day during which the Senate is sitting (If the petition is filed on a Friday, it is ignored until Monday, assuming that the Senate did not sit on Saturday or Sunday.)
    On the second calendar day during which the Senate sits after the presentation of the petition, after the Senate has been sitting for one hour, a “quorum call” is undertaken to ensure that a majority of the Senators are present.
    The President of the Senate or President pro tempore presents the petition.
    The Senate votes on the petition; three-fifths of the whole number of Senators (sixty with no vacancies) is the required majority; however, when cloture is invoked on a question of changing the rules of the Senate, two-thirds of the Senators voting (not necessarily two-thirds of all Senators) is the requisite majority.
    After cloture has been invoked, the following restrictions apply:

    No more than thirty hours of debate may occur.[9]
    No Senator may speak for more than one hour.
    No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.
    All amendments must be relevant to the debate.
    Certain procedural motions are not permissible.
    The presiding officer gains additional power in controlling debate.
    No other matters may be considered until the question upon which cloture was invoked is disposed of. ”

    If you watch the debate you will here a comment that the Parlimentarian has changed the meaning of the words in the rules as has been done other time recently. This infers that the majority party gets to select its own parlimentarian and that even this supposed honorable duty has fallen victim to party politics.

    So not only is the constitution subject to modern interpretation of the majority, it appears that the rules governing Congress itself are now subject to the same winds.

    The chickens are coming home to roost.

    Best to you and your family.

  27. Buck the Walla and others who might care:

    I often comment on what “I” think the constitution means. My view often conflicts with most, whether on the originalist or revisionist fence. That is because I have been fortunate enough to meet and converse with a certain scholar is takes an approach more in tune with my quest. He and I have had a few “discussions” that are not “in total agreement” but they come from the same place. For those who truly believe the constitution is that ambiguous, they only need to study the period and the various letters and comments surrounding ratification.

    Today Buck asked about the clarity or ambiguity of regulating commerce. The modern interpretation completely ignores the fact that for “commerce” to exist a product or service must be manufactured/created/purchased in one state and then sold in another state. The concern at the time was a trade war between states. Congress recognized that the flow of goods/services across state lines should be relatively free from jealousies and protectionist policies of any particular state. Today the provision is used to justify preventing me from purchasing a product in one state and taking it to my home in another. Clearly not “interstate commerce”.

    Anyway, I thought some of you might like to meet the scholar I refer to so often. So here is a link to a story about his methods and some upcoming work. Please notice his conclusion regarding the power of the president and how many months ago I urged everyone to grasp the idea that the intent of our founders was that the President have very little real power. I did not confer with Mr. Natelson on that point and my conclusion was not supported by some of his findings, as discussed in this article. But it appears he agrees with me.

    Proof positive that even blind pigs can find an acorn once in awhile.

    By the way, I am told that Mr. Natelson was a contributer to the Heritage Foundation Guide to the Constitution, Edwin Meese III, Mattew Spalding and David Forte.

    This is an excellent source/summary of how the Constitution has evolved over time, for those of us who are not lawyers.

    Happy reading everyone.

    • Good read JAC!

      Most people on the left, at least today, will say “phooey on this”. Five years ago, they would have jumped on this like Tiger Woods on a porn star! 😆


      • Judy Sabatini says:

        G You’re bad.

        • It’s the only way to be! 😆

          Gotta keep smiling somehow.


          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Oh, Poor Tiger, his wife left him, his sponsors left him, he’s going to take some time off from playing golf, Gee, I wonder what he’s going to do with all that free time he’s going to have, HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

            Maybe write a book about his numerous affairs. What a doofis.

  28. Iran comes out on top in secret simulated war games

    The war games also showed that while Israel was diplomatically and militarily hobbled, Iran would likely continue enriching uranium.

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    So, they’re going to rewrite the constitution I guess to mandate that everybody get health insurance or go to jail, just to suit them. I foresee very crowded jail conditions, much more than they are now, because I honestly believe there are those who just won’t be able to afford it, I don’t care what type of plan they come up with. Forcing people do get something either they don’t want or need is not what freedom is all about. This is not freedom of choice. This is forced choice.

    Healthcare mandate: Get insured…or else
    Jim Brown and Jody Brown – OneNewsNow – 12/22/2009 7:00:00

    A congressional analyst says the Founding Fathers would be appalled to learn that for the first time in history, the federal government was going to mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance.

    The “individual responsibility” provision in Section 1501 of the Senate healthcare bill (H.R. 3590) requires anyone who fails to buy a “qualifying” health insurance plan to pay an annual tax penalty of $750 per adult family member and $375 per child, or up to a maximum penalty of $2,250 per family.

    Brian Darling (Heritage Foundation)Brian Darling, director of Senate relations at The Heritage Foundation, says the individual mandate may violate the U.S. Constitution.

    “The insurance industry now will have a federal mandate that everybody has to use their product, so you can look at the insurance industry as a whole as a beneficiary of this bill because all Americans will be mandated to buy that product, to be a service, which is unprecedented in our country,” he contends. “And it may be unconstitutional to allow the federal government to mandate that people buy a certain product. I can’t imagine our Founding Fathers wanted to empower a limited federal government to do what they’re doing right now.”

    The House version of the healthcare bill also requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Under that legislation, if American citizens fail to pay that penalty, they could face up to a year in jail.

    In your opinion, what is the most troublesome aspect

    of proposed healthcare reform coming from Capitol Hill?

    In a legal memorandum published earlier this month, The Heritage Foundation charges that the individual mandate outlined in the legislation “takes congressional power and control to a striking new level.”

    “Its defenders have struggled to justify the mandate by analogizing it to existing federal laws and court decisions,” says that memorandum, “but their efforts do not withstand serious scrutiny. An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented — not just in scope but in kind — and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.”

    Heritage suggests that if the constitutionality of the individual mandate is put to the test, it is “very unlikely” that the Supreme Court would either extend current constitutional doctrines, or devise new ones, to uphold “this new and unprecedented claim of federal power.” The memo also accuses sponsors of the current healthcare bills of using a “gimmick” to make the personal mandate appear to revenue-enhancing instead of an unconstitutional tax.

  30. Judy Sabatini says:

    Now, they want to control your temperature in your home as well.

    An unwelcome intruder
    James L. Lambert – Guest Columnist – 12/22/2009 9:45:00

    James LambertRep. Henry Waxman (D-California) is one of the main architects of the House of Representative’s “cap and trade” bill (H.R. 2454) that narrowly passed the House in July. Waxman, an extremely liberal member of Congress, modeled his bill, in part, after similar laws that had already passed California’s Democratic-controlled state legislature. Some of these state laws are now beginning to take effect in America’s most populous state.

    One example is the California Public Utilities Commission requiring all utilities to install new “smart meter” boxes on homes and businesses in the state. The new meters will give public utilities greater control and monitoring ability over private household and business energy use.

    The new system will eventually affect the way we use energy. Using their new meters, the utilities will be able to change rates — in the middle of the day, if they wish. Ultimately, they will even be able to monitor and control home energy use when the “smart grid” is online (see page 122, section 141-146 of the legislation). This technology will ultimately allow “big brother” to control thermostats and temperatures of refrigerators and freezers as well.

    Itron Centron Smart MeterSo imagine my reaction recently when my local utility company showed up to install a “smart meter” on my house. I objected, but was told by the utility supervisor of the “smart meter group” that, as a customer, I didn’t have the choice of opting out. But what I found most surprising was what the second-tier supervisor admitted to me. She said chip technology will be in place soon to control our thermostats, noting that it’s just a matter of time for it to be implemented. And she added that “we still have the choice” of opting out if we want to. Yeah, right!

    Liberal politicians think they know what’s best for all of us. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), for example, wants nothing less than total control of our personal energy use. And it seems contradictory, don’t you think, that these same Democratic leaders don’t appear to be interested in abiding by the same rules they want to force upon us?

    It was during the presidential campaign last year when Barack Obama said “we can’t…keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then expect that other countries are going to say okay.” Yet White House senior aide Barry — responding recently to a question about President Obama cranking up his thermostat this winter — simply stated: “He’s from Hawaii…he likes it warm.”

    So why is this issue so important? Because it’s another example of big government continuing to reach into every aspect of our lives. I don’t appreciate government bureaucrats telling me what temperature I can set on my thermostat, freezer, or refrigerator. It’s a blatant invasion of privacy.

    The cap-and-trade bill has yet to pass the U.S. Senate — but look out! It’s on Democrats’ agenda for next year. When viewed as a whole, the legislation is nothing but a job-killing and freedom-killing bill…and that’s why it must be stopped at all costs!

  31. Hi Again! 🙂

    After much thought and consideration, I’ve taken the call to action to heart. I just finished a lengthy email to the State Senator of my district, to move forward with efforts to force the state to protect my Rights under the State Constitution. I am going to effectively demand that the State apply the 10th Amendment clause of the U.S. Constitution, to stop this crazy healthcare and cap and trade bills from effecting citizens of the state of Ohio.

    I’m hoping for an opportunity to sit with this elected person and demand protection from Federal intrusion. Fights ON! 😈


    • And Yes, I am somewhat crazy, incase you were wondering!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hey G

        NO, You’re not crazy, because if you are, then so is the rest of us. I was telling Jim, what freedom of choice we have here. Either get health insurance or go to jail. Yea, some freedom we have, isn’t it.

        Unfortunately G, our state senator, well one anyway, is cramming it down out throats, while the other is not doing enough to stop it. The people here are so angry with Reid and what he’s doing to stab us in the back, that they are determined to kick his royal ass out of office if possible. His election is definitely at stake now.

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          BTW, G, do you not check your E’s? Sent you one a couple hours ago. Just wondering.

          • If your referring to the letter from the lawyer one, yes I got it. I got it yesterday from dad. If you sent a different on, I did not receive it


            • Judy Sabatini says:

              I’m talking about that one that was written to Nancy Pelosi, but can’t remember the name of the guy who wrote it.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                The one I’m talking about was written by Guthrie Davis.Ring a bell?

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I see that your dad sent it to you from my Emails. I was wondering if there was a way you could put it up here. I tried, but it didn’t want to put the whole thing up, and thought maybe you might be able to where I can’t. Just a thought.

              • Not sure if this works, so please be kind if it don’t. Cool email:

                Hey Gary

                How goes it? hey, your dad sent me this and I tried putting it up on the site, but the letter itself won’t go. . Is there anyway you can post it? I tried twice, but no luck.

                Thanks Judy

                ———- Forwarded message ———-
                From: Judy Sabatini
                Date: Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:16 PM
                Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: WOW, What a letter !!!!!]
                To: Gary Miles

                Think I’ll put this up on USW site.

                On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Gary Miles wrote:


                Gotta love this guy!


                This correct according,

                Check this guy’s credentials. Then, read the letter he wrote, below.



                Born St. Louis , Missouri , August 21, 1944

                Bar Admissions:North Carolina, 1969

                U.S. District Court, Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of North Carolina , 1969

                U.S. Tax Court

                Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

                Education: Wofford College , 1966A.B.

                Mercer University, 1969J.D.

                Phi Alpha Delta

                Vice-Justice, District XIV, 1968 – 1969

                Professional Associations and Memberships:

                North Carolina and American Bar Associations (Member, Sections on: Administrative Law; General Practice; Litigation)

                26th Judicial District and North Carolina State Bar

                Mecklenburg County Bar Association

                American Association of Justice

                North Carolina Trial Lawyers Association

                Captain, U.S. Army, 1969-1971, Vietnam

                National Defense Medal, 1969

                Republic of Viet Nam Service Medal, 1970

                Bronze Star Medals (2), 1971

                Assistant District Attorney, Mecklenburg County , 1971 – 1974

                Charlotte Chamber of Commerce

                Chairman, Board of Trustees Providence United Methodist Church

                Board of Directors, Alexander Children’s Home

                Board of Directors, Charlotte Culinary Institute

                Wofford Alumni Executive Council

                Scoutmaster, Boy Scouts of America

                Board of Directors, Boy Scouts of America of Mecklenburg County

                Board of Directors, Girl Scout Council

                Life Member, National Eagle Scout Association

                Life Member, Girl Scouts of America



                Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.

              • Didn’t work, please disregard

        • Hi Judy!

          Please pass on a big Merry Christmas to Jim and your boys!!! 😀

          I must have written something wrong, but when I say State Senator, it’s not the U.S. Senator. This is at the state level, as we have a similar government as the U.S.

          The state level senator is in the state legislative body, not the Federal body. Lower level (state) vs. Federal (US Congress). Starting at the lowest level. That’s where I have a slim to no chance at success, but, I don’t have much to do the next couple months, so what the heck!


          • Judy Sabatini says:

            I will do that when I see them. The boys won’t be here until Christmas day, Matthew spending a few days with Christopher and Rebecca, going to babysit her boys, while they’re at work.

            So, you mean like out congressman then? Our congressman is Dean Heller, and I’m pretty sure he is against this bill, and I will definitely write him then, I get newsletter updates from him time to time , so maybe it’s worth a shot. I’ll let you know if I get anything in return.

            • No Judy, I’m talking about State government, you have a Governor, and a stae legislative body, like the US Congress, but they are state level only.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                OHHHHHHHHHHH! Okay, so what do I do, write who then. Sorry for being not so up to par with this government stuff, but there are too many levels to deal with, and I really don’t understand too much, and who to write to then, the governor himself, or who? Please help me with this. I feel like such a doltz here.

              • The Governor is fine. I’ll see if I can forward what I sent to my state senator, and you can edit it to fit your state 🙂

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Thanks G, I’ll do that. Not going to hold my breath waiting for a response though. I’ll pass out.

  32. The time when writing letters changed something has long passed………….the pen is mightier than the sword************


    • The pen got us in this mess, because the sword was not thought of. The MSM used the pen quite well, to put us where we are at, the sword will not, at this time, get us out. Patience David, The power of thought will always beat violence, even if you fight fire with fire. 🙂


      • The pen most certainly did NOT get us in this mess! It got us out actually, for a while at least. The pen got us out, followed by the sword. So together they work wonders!!!

        Maybe the quote should be: The PEN and the SWORD is mightier than either used ALONE!!! The PEN wrote COMMON SENSE, the PEN wrote the REVOLUTION and it is writing the revolution today, if you read it as such. The PEN managed to PEN our finest MOMENTS via the DECLARATION and the CONSTITUTION!!!!

        The MSM does not use the pen, not even close. The MSM uses propaganda and brainwashing mechanisms to control the Populace. Simple as that! Oh the MSM uses the PEN much like someone uses gossip!!! To slander and defame!

        So we must evolve, and fast. Let us use the PEN and the SWORD and defeat COLLECTIVISM and let us defeat TYRANNY and let us DEFEAT the NWO!!! Let us defend the CONSTITUTION and Let us Defend the LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        ABSTRACT??? For most, yes. Tough to do??? For most, yes. But it can be done, if we want it. The war is over if you want it. So yes the power of thought will beat violence if…………………………fire with fire is nothing, the war will be fought outside of our outdated concepts………power of thought, I love that!!!

  33. Judy Sabatini says:

    To Bottom Line.

    Maybe one of these days, we can actually finish a conversation. LOL! You keep disappearing off of here.

    Have a great night BL and see you tomorrow, that’s if you don’t vanish again.LOL


  34. Judy Sabatini says:

    To everybody else, Good night and sleep well, and hope you will have a great tomorrow.

    Love you all



  1. […] switches to the GOP SMALL DEAD ANIMALS   The sound of settled science STAND UP FOR AMERICA   Better than nothing? I don’t think so.. STOP THE ACLU   Rock the vote promises Sex Embargo THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY  First Amendment Right […]

%d bloggers like this: