Why the Democrats are Doomed with Health Care

I know, I know, that starts out a little tough. Democrats are doomed. But I really do believe this to be true. Forget about the actual bill for just a moment. We all have differing opinions on whether the bill is a good one or not. But ignore that fact for a moment. What I want to look at is the process we are seeing unfold. I know that those on the left have attempted to justify each of the shady moves that have been either proposed or actually used in order to attempt to get this legislation passed. But the fact is that I simply cannot recall a time when a legislature has acted in such a subversive way in order to do what they would like to do. I am aware I am but a young buck, and I have only followed politics for about 20-25 years. But I simply have never seen something like what we have witnessed over the last year in the health care push. Obviously you can all correct me if I am wrong. But even if I am wrong, and there was a time where stuff like this happened before, I simply fin it sickening to watch it happen in this environment and under these circumstances.

First let’s be clear why the push is happening the way it is happening. The Democrats, specifically the Democratic leadership is well aware that once the elections come around, they are going to lose a lot of power. They could possibly hold on to control in both chambers, but even if they do (which I think is unlikely), they are certainly going to have a much smaller margin between them and the GOP. Because of this, they are aware that it is now or never to get this done. A majority control such as this comes along every 20 years or so, and they realize that they were too busy gloating and believing the GOP dead, and thus didn’t get started early enough passing the big one they wanted. They screwed up and found out too late that Scott Brown would win and they would lose that filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Now they are scrambling. And they are well aware that if they don’t pass this bill right now, they are not going to pass it after the elections. Or even if they do, it wont’ look anything like what they are on the verge of.

So the Democratic leadership is really in a “we will get health care passed at all costs” point. They don’t care if members lose their seats. They don’t care if Americans are irate with them and vote them out of power. They don’t care about much of anything. And they aren’t worried about the consequences. What the Democratic leadership has decided is that the only thing that matters is getting this bill passed and setting the table for the ability to increase its control and scope later. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

Just look at what we have watched happen just around this legislation. I want to go through the entire thing as I see it. But before I do, I want to acknowledge that the GOP is no better than the Dems. I feel like I have to always say that out loud, lest you all think I like their tactics. We began with the actual legislation specifically NOT being open for public view as the President had mandated would happen. It was drafted in back rooms behind sealed doors. Then we saw that whomever wasn’t on board was literally paid off to vote for it. A common tactic I know, but part of this process. Debate was stifled and the bill was voted on in 1:00am sessions. Then we got to merging the two bills and the loss of a Senate seat to a GOP member who said no. Immediately we saw that reconciliation was a tactic that was deemed acceptable in the Senate. And now we see that the House is planning to attempt a loophole move to get it through the house. In between all this we had false information campaigns from both sides, a health care summit that was a ridiculous farce, and a war of words that borders on recess playground rhetoric and logic. So let’s touch on each of those things.

During the campaign and the period leading up to the Congressional games, we saw a campaign of what I would deem misinformation. We saw questionable reasoning being used to make the case for health care reform. I covered this a little more in depth during a health care series we did here in September. The first one dealt with many of the claims that were being floated as reasons why the reform was necessary. You can read it HERE . I am still not convinced that health care reform is an absolutely needed thing in the US. Our system is pretty damn good, albeit expensive and growing disproportionally in cost. I believe that the government is a major part of the reason for the high cost of health care. As such I think if we do reform, the most effective path would be one where we look at where government is involved and remove the obstacles that they have placed that interfere with the market correcting itself. But that is another discussion for another day (and a day soon as I am working on that article currently). The point is that both sides lied to us incessantly, but the Democrats were lying about the need for reform, and the GOP was lying in order to block it. No one wanted to have the discussion about whether health care is a right at that point. But we moved ahead on the questionable information none-the-less.

Then the negotiations began. Despite the President promising that the entire thing would be covered on CSPAN for all Americans to see, it wasn’t. In fact it wasn’t carried on CSPAN as the special he promised, and it wasn’t carried on CSPAN as debate in Congress either. Because the real work and the real deals were all being done behind closed doors. And that is sketchy in and of itself. We are allowing a piece of legislation that affects 1/6th of our economy to be debated away from the public eye. And in these closed door sessions a bill was crafted by each chamber. There were the famous buy-offs that we all know about for folks like the Louisiana and Nebraska folks, and even far more that I am sure we didn’t ever get to hear about. There was greasing and strongarming, wheeling and dealing, threatening and promising. And to top it all off, the Republicans were, for the most part, completely shut out of these meetings and their input was not only NOT sincerely sought, but was ignored when it was accepted at all. Eventually bills were crafted in both chambers, with many differences.

Then we had a summer break and the madness that was the town hall meetings. Many passionate people showed up at them. My guess is that about 20%-30% of them were misinformed folks who were falling for what either lobbyists or corporations were putting out there. But the rest were genuine. Some were certainly misinformed, but genuinely angry on their own, no pushing needed. Liberals got outraged that some things came out that had the truth stretched a little (death panels, had a basis in truth, but Palin was dishonest at best in her presentation of them) or that they had hoped wouldn’t become mainstream discussion (cuts to Medicare, federal funding for abortion, mandatory coverage requirements). I understand the lefties frustration. But here are my thoughts: If you had demanded that your party actually BE transparent in the crafting of these bills, there wouldn’t have been nearly the opportunity for those on the right to misrepresent them. Death Panels wouldn’t have been an issue had they been discussed in the open so people were already aware of what that measure really was about. Your lack of transparency opened the door for misinterpretation. Ironic isn’t it?

So we moved on to getting those carefully crafted bills through the chambers. What we saw was a consistent move to ensure that as little debate was heard as possible. And the two chambers were able to pass bills in the middle of the night. BOTH of them. Doesn’t that strike you as odd, that such a major piece of legislation was done in the middle of the night. If they had the votes they could have voted the next day. I believe this was intentional. I think the Democrats didn’t want the public to easily watch to see it happen. They knew very few would go back and look for information on who voted for what or what final arguments were made or what actions were taken. And they had complete confidence that they could control the damage to the party so long as no one watched it first hand. After all, when opponents wrote about what happened, they knew they would be able to spin it or that people would not pay attention, simply assuming that the other side was simply sour grapes.

The 41st Vote Against Health Care Reform

Then all that needed to happen was to merge the two, get a quick vote, and send it on to be made into law. But a peculiar thing happened along the way. Something unthinkable. A Republican won the special election to fill a Democrat’s seat. All of the sudden the ability to stop a filibuster was gone. The Democrats knew they had screwed up now. It took exactly 23 minutes from Brown’s acceptance speech to the first mention of using reconciliation from a leader in the party. That is it. And that has been a debate raging ever since. I will offer a very quick measure of my thoughts on it:

Reconciliation is a tactic that is available to the Senate. But one that was absolutely never meant to apply to legislation of this type. I am aware that the Democratic leadership and liberal pundits can come up with lots of tidy arguments as to why it is OK for reconciliation to be used in this case. They look to interpret details a certain way of craft witty reasoning to make their case. But cut the bullshit for a minute here folks. You and I, average Americans, can sit here and think for 10 seconds and we know without a doubt that despite what may or may not be a legal loophole that could be humped through, reconciliation was NEVER meant to be used in this way. Maybe there could even be a legal case made that would exonerate the Senate in a court of law. But every average joe in America is smart enough to know that using reconciliation goes against the INTENT of why the rule was put in place. And that matters. It matters a lot in a situation such as this.

That is where the Senate it. The House, on the other hand, realizing that without reconciliation they can’t get through the Senate, knows that they cannot change much at all to the Senate bill. Because to change anything in the bill would take reconciliation off the table. But this created a problem for them. Because they don’t have the votes to pass the Senate version in the House. Oh Nancy is buying and threatening and coaxing where ever she can. The President is making phone calls and visiting with members who might be swayed. Despite all of this, they still don’t have the votes, and it appears they might not get them. So they decided they would attempt to find a loophole too. So they did.

They can use the process of deeming as a way to pass the Senate version of the bill without actually having a vote on the Senate Bill. They basically put wording in the reconciliation bill that says they accept the Senate bill as worded. Another sketchy tactic that goes against the fundamental premise of what Congress is SUPPOSED to be doing when it wants to pass a bill of this magnitude. The Constitution is set up to ensure that on important legislation, we are able to hold members accountable for voting for or against. This eliminates the ability to do that, and thus eliminates the spirit of what the Constitution intended in Congress. I think we can all agree that while this loophole might somehow manage to pass muster, legally, that it is in direct conflict with the spirit of what the United States Congress is supposed to be. I don’t know if it is Constitutional. There are arguments either way that are convincing and certain things they could do to skirt specifically being unconstitutional. But there is no way to take the stink off of this that is caused by a rotten maneuver being used to pass a MAJOR piece of legislation.

So here we sit, waiting to see just how far Democratic leaders in Congress are willing to go in order to pass through a VERY unpopular piece of legislation. I know that there are arguments that there are parts of the bill that the public likes. I know that there are arguments that even if this makes things a little better then it is worth it. I completely disagree with both of those arguments. This bill is bad. Again, I won’t get into all the reasons in this article. But it will not bring down costs, it will lead to the demise of private insurers, and it does have several provisions that I think are not only unconstitutional, but morally wrong.

What is the point of this whole article? The point is that this entire thing stinks to high heaven. If the majority of this country really wants to reform health care in America, then it could be done above board and without all of the lies, loopholes, and secrecy. It is a major piece of our economic puzzle. Further, it is the largest increase in entitlements in history. This bill will have a profound impact on the future of this country politically, financially, socially, morally, and constitutionally. There comes a point where everyone involved needs to stop and take a look at what is going on here. If these types of maneuvers are what is needed to get this bill passed into law, then perhaps the bill shouldn’t be passed into law. If you want me to support the idea of health care reform, you have to begin by eliminating every single one of the shady techniques, secret dealings, and false information campaigns. It isn’t about partisan politics for me. I think you all know that. It is about doing what is right. And this doesn’t feel even close to right. Because it isn’t. You cannot justify doing the wrong things in order to do something good. If it is a good thing to do, you won’t have to do the wrong things to get there.

And that, my friends, is why the Democrats are doomed over health care. One of two things will happen here. Option one, they will use these tactics and get this bill on the President’s desk. If this happens they will have soured a large percentage of the population on the party. As I said, you may thing people are dumb, but they know a rat when they smell it, even when they don’t understand why. Most Americans know that this doesn’t feel right to them, even many who want health care reform. Matt and Buck surprise me a bit that they support the use of these techniques, because what I know of them says they are smart guys who also are moral guys. What is happening here has to feel just as dirty to you guys as it does to me. You are too smart for it not to. And you are also smart enough to think it through and realize that this isn’t the way to get where you want to go. Do it the right way or don’t do it. I am sorry to single you out, I don’t mean it to be ignorant. Just thinking out loud. Many of the people who do support the bill no matter what will find out later that the bill is not what they represent it to be. And then they will turn as well. I am 100% positive this bill will not reduce costs. I am 95% positive that it is the first step toward eliminating private insurers. Those two facts won’t sit well with folks later, even though they don’t believe them now.

Option two, this bill will fail. This is actually the better option for the Democrats in the long run. This bill will not be something the Democrats want on their legacy. But they will be viewed as failures in the short run. This hurts the Democrats worse in the short term because it could completely deflate what was perhaps their most promising President in terms of furthering their agenda in the last 50 years. Had he approached these pieces of legislation in the right way, he probably could have talked the American people into most of what he wanted to do. But I think the problem with this approach was that what he wanted to do and what people think he wanted to do are two entirely different things. Again, another topic for another night.

Either way, this ends badly for Democrats. And what is perhaps lost on most of the far left crowd that demonizes the right (that HuffPo crowd), is that health care may have been the only thing that could possibly brought the Republican party back from the brink of irrelevancy. I honestly thought the GOP was on its way to a slow death, being replaced by something more in line with the tea party movement. But this was the one issue that the Democrats would bring forward that could re-energize the GOP base and get people moving again. So no matter what happens with this bill going forward, the GOP are already the big winners in this battle. They removed the ventilator and got to move our of intensive care. They could still die soon, but this gave them more life than they were looking at a year ago.

And while the parties end up on winning or losing sides, the real loser in this is the American people. The combination of vastly superior communication technology and the most caustic political environment in my memory has resulted in a divide in the America people that is now wider than ever despite closing for many years. Race relations took the proverbial two steps back as claims of racism have opened old wound and made race an issue for millions of Americans who had moved past it. The fringe on both sides has become more bitter, more vengeful, and more entrenched.

But I have a new hope. The worse things get the less people have to lose. And that means they are getting closer and closer to revolting and throwing off the chains of an overly oppressive federal government that has done nothing to increase liberty since the civil rights act. I don’t want a physical and violent revolution, but I do want one. The only thing that I am looking for is a Very Damn Little Government. And a people enlightened to the concept of liberty in a way that hasn’t happened in 240 years.


  1. Posting for comments. Have a Great Day everyone! 🙂


    • Me too gang — In response to U.S. Weapon:

      Always a pleasure Mr. Weapon! The forum of folks you have over at Stand Up for America are unparalledled in their wisdom and discernable, professional debate. All this because of your leadership, sir!

      Thank you for answering the question. I, like you, humbly submit that no political party is above or beyond the others — as long as there are politicans –I am sure corruption will be the end result. However, I do worry about the generations after our current one, I deep in my heart believe that this political rodeo has done far more harm than good. Thanks again mate!


  2. Excellent first-rate account of the political pulse USW!

    The last paragraph was moving.Deep and very emotionaly poignant. It made me realize our government has reached a potentially hazardous, stagnant state.I can’t help but feel that as a nation we are sitting on a bomb that just needs a politically improper spark to light its fuse.Health Care Reform anyone?

    • Excellent summary USW!

      There will be some breaking point reached. The country is divided and this President and Congress did it. Perhaps Texas or some other state will declare secession and/or refuse to apply the healthcare bill to their state.

  3. This whole game they’ve been playing on us is an insult. The promised transparency, the deals, The 1am votes (what, you think we’re sleeping?), reconciliation, and now this deeming. The new term is so fitting SLAUGHTER.

    We all know that most people just don’t get involved. I can’t prove anything but any one with any sense of fairness has to smell a rat. If the bill is soooo good why all the sneakiness. And I don’t understand how the pols can just continue pushing. Realizing the whole way that they are also being used.

    JAC: You say that anything done can be undone. You have to prove that to me because I’m reading a lot that we’re going to be stuck with it. It cannot be repealed. What’s the lowdown?

    Usually when there is this much protest to other bills they just fade away. Why will this not go away?

    • TexasChem says:


      It’s a shame that more people don’t get involved.The problem is time.Time is money to the majority of Americans.The working class anyway.What spare time we have we try to spend with our families.I would love to get more involved I just can’t seem to find the time for it.I have a highly technical job that tends to get stressful due to the hazardous nature of the chemicals and extreme pressures I work with.Couple that with a work-week that averages 48 to 84 hours, depending upon overtime needs and; I am just flat worn out.I am a part of the backbone of this countrys’ lessening production force and I do not see anything this current administration has in their agenda that benefits my working middle-class group.Everything they are proposing is bad for the working man.UNLESS your Union and working FOR BIG GOVERNMENT.Even that is a lie since in the end the Union workers are still just snakes swallowing their own tails!I see no way for the American economy to sustain itself and benefit the middleclass worker with the direction this socialist POTUS and his thug lackeys are trying to lead us.It’s insane.

      • Mornin’ Tex,

        You are way more involved than most people I know. You are at least familiar with the bill and the process. The folks I’m talking about just see “free” healthcare and how can you be against that? Without digging deeper their mindset is dangerous to all of us.

        But I’m speaking of the people who know it’s wrong and stay silent. Does the admin and congress even see that mass of people? I just cant see that many being in favor of this bill. O & Co. cannot be that blind? You just dont hear of overwhelming support FOR the bill. Not even IN congress. They’re all tip toe-ing around it. I don’t get it.

      • Hi TC,

        You mention the working middle class group. Over a year ago I mentioned to my boyfriend that I believed the political class is trying to destroy the middle class. When he stopped laughing, he asked me why they would want to do that. When I told him that its because we’re in their way; that they can’t create their ‘utopia’ as long as we’re around because we have our own ideas about things. He immediately scoffed and said “Good! I can’t wait for it!” I’m still stunned by this. Here’s a 59 year old white man, with a degree in engineering, and MS in Business, who for ten years before ‘retiring’ at 58, made almost $100k per year, has a beach house, and investments. It doesn’t occur to him that if his Party is successful, he will have nothing. As much as I love him, I won’t feel sorry for him when he’s penniless. Also, I won’t be able to help him either. What do I have? Not much. 2009 was the first time in my 47 years, that I’ve finally breeched the $50k mark. It wasn’t by much.

      • My 8 year old granddaughter is here this week and we have been watching the Health Care issue much of the time and discussing it.

        She emailed her other grandma and asked what she thought of the Health Care Bill and the answer she got was, “What Health Care Bill?”


    • Anita

      When I said anything can be undone I also explained how hard it is to do. My comment was in response to someone trying to claim that future congress’ can not overturn legislation once passed. That is obviously false.

      Political reality check:

      Health care, if and when passed, can not be undone until 2012.

      Even if the R’s got hold of both houses in 2010 any bill to rescind health care would be vetoed by Mr. Obama and the R’s would not have the 2/3 to overturn the veto.

      To undo something you need 2/3 in both houses and a President on the same side.

      Now you don’t need 2/3 in a single party, just on the same side of the issue.

      So, anything done can be undone. The probability of that is very, very low. But it is possible.

      The danger of health care is the effect on the public mindset. We know from experience that welfare is like a drug. Look at the “third rail of politics” we call Social Security.

      Cap and Trade was the one issue I thought would be the easiest to overturn of the big issues. Health care the hardest. That is why they did this one first.

      You may recall, or not, that I also said a year ago we should be spending our effort on the long term goals because there was little we could do against health care, cap n trade, etc.. I was willing to concede that efforts against these bills should be viewed as tactical delay strategies at best. I was and remain concerned that failing to stop them would create a sense of frustration and cynicism among the “newly” awakened citizens. This would in turn jeopardize any effort to restore our liberty in the long run.

      I am afraid we are about to find out whether that fear was justified as well. The Silent Majority may fall silent once again, forever. Or will it go silent but grow in anger and determination? That is the big unknown.

      In the end, WE (whoever that is) will need 2/3 of each house and the President, and 75% of the State legislatures on OUR side. That is because the ONLY way to stop this madness is to amend the constitution. And even that is a temporary fix. The long term solution is a complete shift in our cultural values.

      Liberty can not be restored until the vast majority of our nation fully understand and grasp freedom as paramount to their ability to live a fulfilling life.

      I offer you a very big hug this morning in hopes of tempering the sense of doom that will soon overcome you, when this bill is passed and signed.

      Good post yesterday from Lombardi. It doesn’t matter that you get knocked down. What matters is that you get back up.

      Best wishes to you and yours

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Part of the reason this bill will not go away is that the Dems already staked their careers on it. Come November they will be tagged with this bill, regardless of whether or not it passes.

      • Too bad we don’t know the final outcome of November yet.

      • I disagree with USW on that, I can see some Dem’s that opposed this could use it to survive. If they did listen to their base voters and came out publicly against Nancy and Reed, it could let them win
        re-election. Will come down to how well they can dance.

        • I don’t know LOI you may be right but I believe birds of a feather do indeed flock together!The entire Deomcratic party has branded themselves on the forehead with this administrations policies and agenda.They have concentrated on the wrong set of problems facing our country.Global warming, cap n trade, healthcare reform,sexual identity,TAXES.Time and time again they have swung for the fence and struck out!Jobs and the economy should have been their number one focus instead of focusing on retrieving monetary funds to further their socialist programs.

          • USWeapon says:

            Just to play devil’s advocate on this one TC. Would you have supported the Democrats if they had made jobs and the economy the focus for the last year? Or would we instead be having more discussions on the intrusion of the federal government into the private market? I imagine that the problem is not where their focus has been, but a fundamental disagreement on core values between people like us and people like them. Just a thought.

            • I do agree with your point bringing to light the core values differences.

              I would have supported any party had they gone about focusing on solutions that were fiscally conservative in nature.Federal intrusion into the private market is not fiscally conservative!

          • Incumbents have something like a 90% re-election rate. I do hope I am wrong, but the blue dogs could
            survive and some even thrive.

      • Buck


        The Repubs and conservatives are ignoring the complex dynamics occurring on the left between the Progressives, More Traditional Modern Liberals, and the Pragmatic Liberals. There could be others but that uses up all the names I could make up.

        But I think it will be easier for the D’s to explain to the far left and progressives how they voted for this to open the door. The full montie just wasn’t possible at this time.

        That will be easier than to explain how they killed any chance of getting anything now or far into the future.

        By the way Buck, can you explain the difference between “public option” and “single payer” for me.

        I can’t get a straight answer from anyone I’ve asked.

        Perhaps Mathius, Ray or others could offer their interpretation as well.


        • Buck The Wala says:

          From my understanding they are extremely different:

          Public Option = a government-run insurance plan that people would be able to pay premiums into assuming they meet requirements. I believe this would be the same as Aetna or BCBS or any other private insurance plan, but would be run by the government at a lower cost

          Single Payer = this represents universal health coverage for all (Medicare is an example of single payer)

          Lastly, is ‘Socialized Care’ which is the British system and the VA system — this is where everything is completely controlled by the government (government owns hospitals; government employs doctors, etc.)

          Here’s a quick rundown of the differences between Public Option and Single Payer:


          • Buck

            Thanks for the link but now I think I am more confused. Or at least I think those advocating these options so vocally are confused.

            Many of the “libs” at HuffPo for example want both options. Seems to me they are mutually exclusive as per the info in your link.

            Kind of funny how the name “single payer” was given to a program that is really “government only insurance”.

            Thanks again

            • Buck The Wala says:

              There does seem to be a lot of confuion on this, but the two systems would be mutually exclusive. A public option would work as an insurance option alongside private insurers; single payer would establish a new system entirely.

              Hope you’re having a good one!

          • Buck said:

            “but would be run by the government at a lower cost”

            Can you say that with a straight face and really believe it. Name one thing the government does at a true lower cost than the private sector.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              That’s the idea behind it, nothing more.

              First off, there is no public option in this bill. Secondly, even when discussed it was supposed to be fully self-sufficient and run based solely on the premiums coming in just like any other insurance plan.

              I truly hope this could be the case, and believe it could be possible, but am not naive here.

              • Buck

                So if it is NOT a public option and it is NOT single payer, and these were the only two options pushed by the LEFT, then what the hell is it and why are the Dems voting for it?

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  The bill still results in many changes, but the fact of the matter is that it is an extremely watered-down bill and more in tune with what the GOP initially wanted than with what the Dems initially wanted.

                  So in essence, I have no idea why all the current problems.

                  (Though on the issue of public option, I believe this bill does create a temporary public option for those at ‘high risk’ until the rest of the bill’s provisions go into effect)

                  • The problem with is that it gives the feds a toe in the door…soon it will be a foot, then a leg………..

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      Here’s where the different philosophies come in — I’m all for that toe, foot, leg coming in the door on this issue.

          • Single payer would work if legislation was passed doing away with all Health Insurance Companies! The Health Care System would then be required to follow the free market and be bound by the laws of Capitalism!Hey Doc…I can pay yas 100 dollars to set this bone in my arm but thats all I can do!I’m joking of course (in a sense) but we as a society have allowed ourselves to be controlled in this manner.

            Regardless of what anyone says all Insurance Companies are just Gi-normous Ponzi schemes in my opinion.The insured are the investors and the companies keep the returns!

  4. v. Holland says:

    I actually love the title, brought to mind-The powers that be, have “deemed” that we the people are going to be “doomed”

  5. I’ve said this before-I’ll say it again..Why can’t we have a referendum vote on healthcare? Are they (congress) afraid of the big bad wolf (us)?

    • v. Holland says:

      They’re doing every unethical thing they can to pass this bill, there’s no way they would take it to the people who have made it clear they don’t want it.

    • Anita

      The constitution does allow for referendums. Bills must be approved by both houses.

      Such an effort would be nothing more than advisory to Congress.

      That’s the legal, now for the practical. Copies of a 2000 plus page bill mailed to the homes of almost 200 million voters?


  6. The Final Nail has been driven home.


    Despite CBO’s abysmal record at accurately predicting the cost/benefits of legislation, this will give the remaining Dems on the fence the cover they need.

    Get ready for gloating like you have never seen before. It will be hard to control your anger but you MUST.


  7. A Puritan Descendant says:

    USW, Ditto!

    TexasChem, Ditto!

    Anita, Ditto!

  8. Pull up the biggest paddy wagon you can find and load them all up. Most unethical group of people in one location, including prisons. I’m guessing at least some inmates are repentent, but none in Washingon are.

    Brett Baier, a real news journalist, from a real news station showed BO’s complete ineptness last night. This guy belongs on a used-car lot (my apologies to honest used car salespeople), not in the WH.

    We need to keep up the fight though so that this crap we are going through is corrected and then not repeated. It will be tough and it will be a long process, but I still have hope. (and faith and charity, ala Beck).

  9. Stuck in Ohio says:

    “But I simply have never seen something like what we have witnessed over the last year in the health care push.”

    USW-I just turned 61 this year and have been following political events since JFK and I have to agree with you. There have always been “questionable” tactics used throughout our political history, but never such a blatant disregard of public opinion or such an assault on the Constitution and our rights as citizens.

    You have pointed out in many previous articles that this assault on the Constitution goes back many, many years, but the current administration’s attempts just leave me shaking my head in disbelief that this could be happening in our country today.

  10. posting for comments

  11. Fatum et Fatum

  12. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey All, I just got this from Senator Ensign, and I thought I would share with all here. I wrote to him and while back about the health care bill and this is the response I got.

    Hope all is having a good day today.

    This is an official communication from the Office of Senator John Ensign. Any tampering or alteration of this communication is prohibited and may result in criminal investigation or prosecution.

    March 18, 2010

    Mrs. Judy Sabatini

    Reno, Nevada 89502

    Dear Mrs. Sabatini:

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me concerning efforts to reform our healthcare system. I am grateful to hear from a fellow Nevadan, and it is always reassuring to see citizens taking an active role in the legislative process.

    The debate on reforming our nation’s healthcare system was initiated primarily for two reasons: first, to contain the cost of medical care; and second, to provide access to health insurance to those who are currently uninsured. Although I believe that health reform is needed, I do not believe the Senate bill is the right prescription. I did not support the Senate bill, which passed by a vote of 60-39, because it imposes a $500 billion tax hike which will primarily hit the middle class, raises health insurance premiums, cuts Medicare by almost $500 billion to fund a new entitlement program, and includes an unconstitutional mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance. Unfortunately, the Senate-passed bill will do nothing to control costs and will go a long way toward eroding the high quality of care that we know today because of the massive increase in the role of government in our health care.

    As a Member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Medicare and Medicaid programs, I have been very involved in the healthcare reform debate and introduced 35 amendments at Committee and more than 20 amendments on the floor, including a Constitutional point of order against the individual mandate. I believe that health reform legislation is one of the most significant bills that Congress has ever considered and will, in part, determine the direction of our country for many years to come.

    I know that many Nevadans are concerned that the Senate-passed health reform bill will cut Medicare to pay for new entitlement spending. I share this concern. Overall, the bill cuts approximately $500 billion in Medicare. About $120 billion of the cuts are to private Medicare plans, known as Medicare Advantage plans. These plans provide beneficiaries with additional benefits that substantially reduce out-of-pocket costs and ensure access to high-quality, coordinated care. I am concerned that cuts of this magnitude will cause Nevada Medicare Advantage enrollees to lose extra benefits and possibly even their chance to be in a private Medicare Advantage plan. The bill also cuts Medicare payments to hospitals, hospices, home health, and nursing homes. I do not believe that it is right to cut Medicare in order to fund a new entitlement program, especially when the long-term financial stability of the Medicare program is already in jeopardy. I supported an amendment that would have sent the Senate bill back to the Finance Committee with instructions to remove the language that cuts close to $500 billion from Medicare. Unfortunately, the amendment failed by a vote of 42-58.

    Many Nevadans have also contacted me to express their outrage over provisions in the Senate bill that provide certain states with special deals at the expense of taxpayers in other states. Most of these deals were made in order to secure votes in support of the bill. For example, the bill provides Nebraska with permanent federal aid for the state’s expanded Medicaid population. Other states get the federal aid for three years but Nebraska’s benefits are indefinite. Most recently, a deal with union heads was made to give their members an exemption until 2017 on the “Cadillac” tax on high-cost health plans. I believe it was wrong to carve out exemptions for some at the expense of taxpayers in other states such as Nevada. I also believe it was wrong for the Democrats to make backroom deals with the pharmaceutical industry, hospitals, and other special interests to limit cuts in return for their support.

    I certainly recognize the need for innovative solutions to address the healthcare system and the many chronic conditions affecting millions of people in this country. The problems associated with the healthcare system are complicated, to say the least. We need to reform the healthcare system. However, the answer is not by raising taxes, forcing Americans into plans they don’t like, or by placing a government bureaucrat in between patients and doctors.

    My colleagues and I have developed a number of ways to help reduce healthcare costs and improve access to health insurance coverage. Some of the reform solutions I have suggested include reducing frivolous lawsuits against doctors through comprehensive medical liability reform; allowing small business to pool resources to purchase health care for employees through Small Business Health Plans; allowing for the purchase of health insurance across state lines; providing for greater transparency on the cost and quality of care; and encouraging financial incentives to patients for healthy behavior, such as quitting smoking, losing weight, or engaging in other responsible activities.

    Typically, when the House and Senate pass different bills on the same topic, a formal conference committee is established to iron out the differences between the two bills. In this case, a formal conference committee has not been established and the future of healthcare reform is uncertain, particularly as a result of recent changes in Senate party margins. These changes will shift the Senate’s balance to 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans. I expect that the majority party will spend the next couple of weeks evaluating and possibly pursuing various legislative and procedural options.

    Ensuring access to high-quality, affordable health care for the people of Nevada is a unique and challenging task. As a member of United States Senate, I will continue to work toward meaningful solutions that will lower the cost of health care and, at the same time, improve the efficiency and quality of care. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind and know that I am committed to staying active in the healthcare reform debate as it moves forward.

    Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. Should you have any other questions or comments, please do not hesitate to either write or e-mail me via my website at http://ensign.senate.gov.



    United States Senator


  13. Judy Sabatini says:

    Another one from John McCain

    My Friend,

    This morning, the Congressional Budget Office released their final numbers on the Democrats’ health care bill. They estimate this unprecedented takeover of our health care system will cost taxpayers $940 billion. This bill is full of kickbacks and back room deals, and exceeds the $900 billion ceiling President Obama set last September.

    We must do everything in our power to defeat this bill from becoming law. The work we do in the final hours before the vote will make all the difference. Speaker Pelosi wants the House to vote for this bill on Sunday – less than 72 hours from the time I write this email. We have very little time to act.

    I urge you to immediately call your Member of Congress to tell him or her to vote “No” on this disastrous piece of legislation. You can find your representative’s office phone number at http://www.house.gov or by calling the House of Representatives main switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

    The telephone lines in many Washington, DC offices are being flooded with calls from people like you who oppose this bill. If you are unable to get through to the Washington office, please call your representative’s district office or contact them through the email contact form on their website.

    Each poll that has been conducted shows an overwhelming majority of Americans are against the Obama Administration’s attempt to impose government-run health care. Yet the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are doing everything trying to ram this bill through Congress this weekend.

    Your representative in Congress needs to know you oppose this bill, so once again, I ask that you take a few minutes right now to call your representative and ask them to vote “No” on government-run health care.

    I thank you for your time and generosity. Your involvement will make all the difference.


    John McCain

  14. Carry over from Yesterday:

    Humiliating America

    by Eric Margolis

    After the astounding humiliation of Vice President Joseph Biden by Israel’s rightwing government, that nation’s premier newspaper, Ha’aretz, cited an old Hebrew saying, “Biden had to wipe spit off his face and say it was only rain.”

    Before arriving in Israel, Biden had repeated President Obama’s demand that Israel cease building new housing in East Jerusalem, which violates international law and decades of UN resolutions. Washington and the EU have repeatedly asked Israel to cease most building activity in the occupied West Bank.

    Shortly before Biden arrived at an intimate dinner hosted by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel dropped a bombshell: it would build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Some reports in Israel said thousands more are planned on the West Bank and Golan.

    All the humiliated Biden managed to do to express his anger was to arrive an hour and a half late for Bibi’s dinner.

    What a pathetic, cowardly response. Biden should at least have gotten on his plane and flown home. A great power cannot afford to lose face like this.

    Biden’s humiliation showed the unprecedented influence that Israel’s rightwing government holds over Washington and made a mockery of the endless talks about Arab-Israeli “peace.”

    The Biden fiasco also delivered another body blow to the wobbling Obama administration.

    Netanyahu’s insult was so stinging, that even Israel’s point-woman in the administration, Hillary Clinton, who waits in the wings to replace a fallen Obama, was forced to blast the Israelis. But, of course, everyone knew this was mere political theater. Israel may announce a brief delay in colonization, then go right on gobbling up the West Bank and Golan.

    How the mighty have fallen. In 1956, Israel colluded with Britain and France to attack Egypt. Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula. President Dwight Eisenhower ordered Israel to get out of Sinai without delay or face a total cutoff of aid and diplomatic support – or even face a military response. Israel got out.

    If you like this site, please help keep it going and growing.

    Adding to the black comedy, Israel’s hard-line interior minister apologized for authorizing illegal colonization while Biden was in town and promised not to do it again – when Biden was next in Israel that is. As Washington stamped its foot in impotent fury, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made the mocking excuse that the announcement had been a mistake of timing.

    This pathetic episode shows Israel’s right wing has Washington in its pocket.

    And why not. The Israel lobby had forced candidate Obama to promise that if elected, he would never press Israel into a peace settlement. Congress has become more attuned to Israel’s needs than Israel’s own Knesset. The US is inching towards war with Iran.

    Israel contemptuously scorned Obama’s calls for it to cease colonizing the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, and withdraw its 500,000 settlers, many of whom are Americans and Russians.

    Netanyahu even denounced senior Obama aides David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel as “self-hating Jews” for opposing Israel’s expansionist policies as injurious to America’s strategic interests.

    The Obama administration’s humiliation by Israel is having loud repercussions in Washington. Staunchly pro-Israel Republicans are elated over Obama’s failure, the latest sign of presidential weakness.

    Israel and just about everyone in Washington knows that Obama would not now dare to challenge Israel’s many supporters in the US Congress, or enrage Israel’s powerful American lobby when his administration is floundering and mid-term elections are on the political radar.

    The Republican Party is firmly in the grip of Protestant fundamentalists who believe an expanding Israel is an essential part of their faith. Many Republicans mistakenly believe that Obama is an Arab.

    Israelis understand that the White House has to pretend to rebuke Israel in order to maintain good relations with its Arab allies, reassure them over the supposed Iranian threat, and pretend the US-backed Palestinian authority of Mahmoud Abbas has legitimacy.

    Biden’s humiliation was shared by the hapless Abbas, who was just tiptoeing under US prodding into more useless “indirect” negotiations with Israel. He was left looking confused, helpless and ever more so an American-Israeli puppet. The useless Arab league huffed and puffed. Back to square one.

    That suited Israel’s Netanyahu just fine. Israel is relentlessly gobbling up the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Its policy is to keep talking and stalling until there is nothing left to negotiate. The only power that can stop Israel’s colonization campaign that is destabilizing the Mideast and bringing the threat of war with Iran, Syria and Lebanon, is the United States.

    Israel’s self-confidence was shown by the assassinations in Damascus of Hezbollah leader Imad Mugniyah and the recent brazen murder in Dubai of Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Israeli officials joked away this crime and dared the world to do something about it.

    Israel humiliated the Turkish ambassador over a Turkish TV series that showed Israel in a bad light. It treated a visiting delegation of pro-peace American legislators like dirt. Having largely fended off international criticism of its savaging of Gaza and the UN’s ensuing Goldstone Report, Israel understandably felt it could face down any pressure from abroad.

    Israel seems to believe that Barack Obama may be a one-term president. Its American supporters never trusted Obama and worried he would press Israel into concessions to the Palestinians.

    As Republican electoral fortunes rise, Israel senses it has carte blanche to do whatever it desires. The politically wounded president is sneered at as a weakling by Republicans and Israel’s right-wingers. Israel’s pro-peace movement has been deflated by America’s failure to press for a just settlement.

    One really must wonder why Obama allowed Biden’s humiliation to take place. This shameful display of American political cowardice was perfectly predictable, even inevitable.

    Israel’s hard right knows that the one sure way of thwarting any possible peace with the Palestinians is to keep annexing East Jerusalem and squeezing out its Arab population. Some of these activities are even financed by American tax-free “charities.”

    • Now that article is indeed an emotionally charged dogmatic attack against Israel BF!
      Excellent example of Dogma.

    • You do know that Eric Margolis holds extremely anti-semitic views?
      This is the same guy that stated that Hamas was not a terrorist organization.
      This guy is in the same boat as the paid shills who troll blogs in my opinion.His articles reflect that!

      • Eric is an award winning internationally acclaimed writer with specific expertise in the region.

        He is very credible to me and his sources are impeccable.

      • Any one who criticizes Israel is labeled anti-Semitic. Such a label is now irrelevant.

        • I always smirk at those the yell “anti-Semitic” to those that support Arab rights.

          “The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites. ”

          It’s obvious they don’t know history.

          • Well, since were argueing the point of history (obviously) relative to the word Semite; lets just see how the term came to be coined as applying to the Jewish people.

            The word “Semitic” is an adjective derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in the Bible (Genesis 5.32, 6.10, 10.21), or more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite.

            The term “anti-Semitic” (or “anti-Semite”) usually refers to Jews only. It was coined in 1879 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, “The Victory of Germandom over Jewry”. Using ideas of race and nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the first major power in the West. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr founded the “League for Anti-Semitism”.

            So, as you can obviously quite clearly see, language and word usage seem to have the quality of evolving with history BF.

            • TexasChem,

              So let me get this straight.

              You quote a German, who demonized Jews, as the overwhelming sources of re-defining Semitism – a 3,000 year old people, which includes Arabs.

              I’m sure you’re aware that Arabs also claim their heritage to Abraham, right?

              • Yes I do BF.I fully understand the religions of Abraham as well.

                My quote was to educate as to how the term has evolved to pertain mainly to the people of Israel today BF.

        • Don’t know if I agree with you here or not BF.The word fagot once applied to a bundle of twigs and not a male homosexual did it not?

  15. Off topic

    A sample of an EO and a czar working together…..

    Click to access aero-rdplan-2010.pdf

    UAVs in American airspace. John Holdren’s plan.

  16. v. Holland says:

    I’m insulted-I was pretty sure I was part of a hard working family and I’m not in the union. Course it’s okay if the index is fixed so that all us non-union bums can pay for that % of hard working families.

    March 18, 2010

    * Lobbying/Industry

    AFL-CIO on board with reform

    Despite a last minute change to the tax on high-end insurance plans, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said today his union will actively support health care reform.

    “We’re convinced now is the time to say yes,” Trumka told reporters in a conference call.

    Unions opposed the so-called Cadillac tax and successfully convinced Democrats to use the reconciliation bill to delay and blunt most of its effect. But in a last minute tweak designed to produce more savings, Democrats lowered the index at which plans will be taxed, making it likely that more plans will be affected over time.

    But Trumka said the union will have years to fix the index before it goes into effect.

    “Health care reform will not be paid for on the backs of working families,” he said.

    Trumka said “nothing is off the table” when it comes to lobbying for reform’s passage, but stopped short of threatening to primary Democrats who oppose the bill.
    Posted by Chris Frates 04:09 PM

  17. Cyndi P said
    March 16, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Hi V,

    I consider Mattius and Buck part of the mindless middle. I agree that they only want what’s ‘best’ for us. Unfortunately, they believe that our ‘leaders’ are as goodhearted as themsleves. That’s why they don’t see the danger.

    Buck The Wala said
    March 16, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    I have to object to being assigned to the ‘mindless middle’. I have a mind. I have given much thought to the issue of the health care bill and whether it represents a march towards socialism or a real danger to this country. I have then concluded that it does not in the least.

    To cast aside my opinions as being ‘mindless’ because they do not conform to your conclusions is absolutely ridiculous. It would be just as easy and lazy for me to simply cast aside your conclusion as insane just because I disagree.

    USW said,

    Matt and Buck surprise me a bit that they support the use of these techniques, because what I know of them says they are smart guys who also are moral guys. What is happening here has to feel just as dirty to you guys as it does to me. You are too smart for it not to. And you are also smart enough to think it through and realize that this isn’t the way to get where you want to go. Do it the right way or don’t do it. I am sorry to single you out, I don’t mean it to be ignorant.

    Life of Illusion says, I was surprised at Cindi’s remark, and thought it went to far as a personal attack. On the other hand, I agreed. To many times there is no strait answer on the why’s of believing many of these actions are founded in both logic and morals. Obama won his senate seat by getting his opponents disqualified. While legal, was it ethical? When a lawyer goes to court, I understand it’s OK for them to lie, cheat, withhold information, anything to win, even if it means a killer is set free, that’s their job.

    But when a lawyer runs for office, they take a different oath, to honestly and faithfully represent the people who elected them, and to support the constitution. And the higher office they seek, the more important their integrity becomes. From the start, Obama has shown his promises on transparency, on having the debate on CSPAN meant nothing. What does this say about his ethics? Pelosi and Reed have shown they will also do anything to achieve their agenda. Again, just look at the ethics of their tactics. This may all be legal, at least until a SCOTUSA says otherwise, but is it how our laws are supposed to be made?

    I think of myself as being a fairly good person, I return money when a waitress miscounts. I would like to think I would refuse a gift, even something I really wanted, if I knew it was stolen. People I know that are thieves or liers
    find no support or friend ship with me. I would also like to think I would reject any President, senator, etc. acting in a unethical manner, even if it were to grant me something I wanted. If President Palin is poised to sign the VDLG act in 2013, I hope I will speak out against her, if it can only be done thru reconciliation and/or deeming.

    So to Matt, Buck, and our other liberal friends, I do not think you mindless, but I do want to understand where your thinking on this is?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      LOI, not quite sure what your question is relating to — on what do you want to better understand our thinking?

      I never argued that I supported deeming bills into law. In all my comments from the other day I passed judgment on that issue, stating only that it is constitutional and that, as Mathius pointed out, it has been done in the past by the GOP.

      On your point that you understand its OK for lawyers to lie, cheat, do anything necessary in the courtroom to win, I think you may be misunderstanding something — all of the above is NOT TRUE. It violates legal ethics and attorneys are often penalized by the state bar for taking such actions. In the courtroom, attorneys must vigorously represent their client, this is true. But they cannot lie or cheat in doing so. Attorneys will use procedural rules, admissibility rules, objections, etc. to their advantage, as they should. But it is not ok for them to lie nor cheat in doing so.

      I would say the same is true for an attorney running for office. The rules of professional responsibility follow an attorney around 24-7, not just when inside the courtroom or representing a client.

      • Thus Clinton was disbarred or is that debarred for lying about his little tryst.

        • JAC

          How goes it today? Good weather here for a change! 🙂

          If my memory serves me correctly, Clinton voluntarilly gave up his license to practice law in the face of disbarment. Many lawyers who do wrong will do this rather than face being disbarred. Interestingly, Obama and his witch both voluntarily gave up their licenses as well,,,MMM MMM MMM

          Peace !


          • GMan

            Missed ya last night, sorry.

            I forgot Clinton gave it up. Interesting that fearless leader and spouse did as well.

            Friday is another Big Sky Day here.

            Should be in 60’s again. But clouds and wet this weekend.

            Be free

            • JAC:

              Would you mind if I had your e-mail address?

              If it is OK with you, let USW know and we can exchange e-mail addresses.

      • Buck,

        I am asking if you support the healthcare bill, but consider it’s means of passing to be unethical.

        I am asking if you support Obama, but consider some of his actions to be unethical.

        Same for Pelosi and Reed.

        Is passing this bill in the way they ALL have acted, moral?

        Will you support or denounce their actions?

        What are your ethics and values? (Not a question to answer except to yourself. I do not claim any higher moral ground. I have lied.
        I have stolen. I am not perfect, but am trying to be a better person. I feel guilt when kicking my dog(not hard) but damnit, he pee’s on everything in my shop, and the kids know not to let him in….

        You and God are your only judge, I do not speak in that light. I do think Cyndi’s comment, if poorly expressed was worth the thought of your considerable minds. I do think USW’s words were a request to hold yourselves accountable. I think you and Matt dodged that today. It’s a free country, say what you want when you want. This blog is a little different. Your intellectual peers will hold you accountable, as they will me. I have had harsh disagreement with the Flagster, but mostly agree with him. On healthcare Flag dismissed my claim tort reform was worth being an issue. I researched the cost of health insurance in three states and proved my point. DO YOU KNOW HOW DAMN HARD IT IS TO GET FLAG TO ADMIT HE WAS WRONG? It’s about the same to get a Democrat or Republican to admit they were wrong. And the reasoning for that….

        So what are you Buck? Liberal? Progressive? Democrat?

        I am not a Republican. If that looks conservative, so be it.

        I am an independent.

        I think, therefore, I am.

        Sorry for the late posting, I do appreciate the response. I am out for the night, but will check in tomorrow. Hope all are doing well.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Do I support the health care bill? yes and no. I feel it is better than what we have now, but there are certainly problems with it. Overall, if you are asking if I would personally vote for the bill, the answer is yes. Are the means of passing this bill being employed today ethical? Again, yes and no. It is legal, at least based on my reading, but it is a given that not everything that is legal is ethical. I don’t think deeming is necessarily unethical, but it is borderline and raises clear concerns.

          Same answers with Obama — overall I support him, but I will also criticize where I think he has erred. Are his actions ethical? Again, yes and no, but I don’t think he has acted completely unethically. With health care he clearly mishandled the issue though and I will not hesitate to criticize him on that.

          In terms of this bill, have the actions of politicians on both sides been moral? No, not necessarily. There have been immoral actions on both sides of the aisle.

          You ask me what I am — I am a progressive. Incidentally, John Stewart had an absolutely hysterical sketch last night where he spoke of Progressivism and of Conservative Libertarians a la Glen Beck. Had me rolling on the floor!

          • Buck

            He handled health care perfectly, from his advantage point.

            Now that it is close to passing it is in fact HIS PLAN.

            Had it failed it was the Senate’s fault because it was THEIR PLAN.

            Replay this whole thing in your mind from start to finish.

            I will say this. It was badly played ONLY if bipartisanship and breaking out of the “toxic environment” of D.C. were TRULY a goal. But since that was a farce, he handled the thing quite well.

            We will now find out if the progressives have driven a wedge deep and permanently between the major groups of our population. Will the offended get over it and forget. Or will this be the beginning of a deep and long vengeful feud.

            If Obama really wanted to change the nature of D.C. he should have openly and frequently spoke out against the strong arm tactics employed by Pelosi and Read. He had a chance to create a great legacy. He missed it one year ago. Such is the price of arrogance.

            Good morning my young lawyer friend.
            Happy Friday

            • v. Holland says:

              “We will now find out if the progressives have driven a wedge deep and permanently between the major groups of our population. Will the offended get over it and forget. Or will this be the beginning of a deep and long vengeful feud.”

              My guess based on my personal feelings-I’ve don’t think I have ever felt this hopeless or angry before-forgetting it isn’t possible and I am a pretty peaceful person normally.

              • v. Holland says:

                We have what 4 years to pay without any benefit-a lot of time for the anger to increase.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              I disagree – it was not badly played only if bipartisanship was a goal; it was badly played by Obama and the Dems, period. But then that’s always been my problem with the Dems – I generally support their policies and goals, but they always seem to shoot themselves in the foot in accomplishing things.

              As for the progressives driving the wedge, let’s be honest here — any wedge is not driven solely by the Democratic Party from this single legislation. Both parties are responsible for these wedges in society and where we stand today.

              • v. Holland says:

                “The straw that broke the camels back” Comes to mind.

              • Buck

                The wedge I am talking about is not the normal name calling, vitriol and partisan politics. That has been going on for a long time.

                The average American ignores it with disgust but not anger.

                What has happened here is a legislative smack down against about half the population. Not just the Republicans, but half the American citizens.

                That is the difference. But if the economy turns around and unemployment gets back to the 5-6% range, and if they can unravel the mess the Fed/Treas. created then we will find out if the damage is lasting. Will Americans go back to their lives and be happy for their govt subsidized health care or will they stay angry.

                Also the arrogance of the Dem leadership has pretty much poisoned the water permanently in D.C. among the elected. Until congress is cleaned out we will see one “up yours” after another every time one side gets the advantage. Yes it has been very bad ever since the Bork nomination, but now I think any chance of healing those wounds is gone.

                Another good reason to dump all incumbents in November.

              • v. Holland says:

                The point isn’t who’s at fault the point is that the anger on both sides is real and dangerous and I for one don’t know the answer since the beliefs also seem very real. I still hold out hope that once the American people see where all this crap is heading that we will stand together and stop it but that hope is growing thin and I for one don’t see us going down without a fight. I’m just not sure what that fight will consist of and it scares the hell out of me.

            • I will never forget what they are doing to freedom and liberty in this country. I will never forgive the liberal, fascist, criminal, socialist, Democratic Party. They are the party in power and they are driving this.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Liberal, yes. Criminal, no.

                Its fair for you to disagree with the Democratic platform. Just as I disagree with the GOP platform. But let’s remember for a second why they are in power – the people voted them in. And let’s also remember what will happen if people disagree with the direction the Dems take us – the people will vote them out.

                • Buck

                  Violation of authority granted by the Constitution = Criminal.

                  Both parties are criminal, however. I care not what animal represents the fasciolist he is still an enemy of liberty.

                  • Buck The Wala says:

                    Can you expand on where there’s been a violation of the authority granted by the Constitution?

                    Thanks JAC!

                    • You know as well as I do.

                      We’ve chased it around before.

                      You disagree because you have accepted the modern version of living document.

                      Honestly, do you think the founders would stand before us today and declare, yep you got it right?

                      Would they express their PRIDE in what we did with what they gave us?

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      I don’t know the answer to that question. But I do know that they wouldn’t necessarily agree with your view either.

                      That’s part of the problem, we just don’t know.

                      But to proceed based on your interpretation to say that the actions are “Criminal” goes a bit far. If its supported by a valid interpretation of the constitution, then I don’t see how it can be labeled as criminal.

                • Buck, in my view they are criminal.

                  I am not a fan of the Republican Party.

                  I only like VDLG.

              • Buck,

                I am not a lawyer. I deal with Collective Bargaining Agreements and I am familiar with Labor Law.

                Other than the U.S. Constitution, is there any other contract that is regarded as a “living document”? If you and I negotiate the terms of an agreement and put it in writing and both sign off, how does that agreement become a living document? I expect you to hold me to the terms of the agreement and I will hold you to the terms of that agreement. The passage of time does not change the agreement.

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  The Constitution isn’t your typical contract executed between two parties for a specific event and duration.

                  The Constitution embodies the social contract between We the people and the government. The Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution knew what they didn’t know (the future, evolving times, etc) and set up a document that could be interpreted by each passing generation. It established a framework to be applied.

                  A typical contract is much different. A typical contract won’t ever have a chance to become a living document to the same extent as the Constitution. However, lets look at two initial rules of contract interpretation:

                  Step 1: Read the document – does it resolve the issue by its very terms? If so, done.

                  Step 2: If the document does not resolve the specific issue, or is deemed ambiguous, you can look to extrinsic evidence outside the four corners of the document.

                  The above isn’t perfectly analogous to ‘living document’ theory but it isn’t as if you never look ‘outside’ a typical contract either.

                  • If the language is clear and unambiguous, then the language prevails. I agree with that point.

                    I contend the Constitution is a contract, like any other one.

                    The Constitution clearly spells out the enumerated powers of the Federal government. It clearly limits what they can do.

                    The founding fathers gave us a way to change the Constitution, through the amendment process. That is the only way to change it that I am aware of other than a Constitutional Convention.

                    Showing intent requires extensive proof in the negotiation of labor agreements. Even then, if the language is clear and unambiguous, an arbitrator is likely to support the clear language.

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      You argue that the language is clear, that the document clearly sets out what the federal government can do.

                      But its not so neat and simple.

                      And the Constitution is not the same as any other contract — contracts typically bind only those parties that sign it. This is not the case with the Constitution.

                    • You reaffirm what I already know.

                      The Constitution is a useless document.

                      It did not prevent what it was supposed to prevent and that is the growth of government.

                      I know you disagree with this. We agree to disagree.

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. There’s just no convincing you is there!?

                      Enjoy the coming weekend!

          • Buck you say you’re a progressive. So what are you progressing to? What is the ultimate goal of progressives?

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Brief description of the basics of ‘progressivism’:

              Progressivism is a political philosophy that takes as its objective the greatest political and economic good of the greatest number (sometimes called the common good). It is, therefore, a form of liberal populism. Progressives do not seek change merely for the sake of change, but rather insofar as the institutions and practices of a society depart from this objective and hence require reform. Progressivism thus stands in sharpest contrast to economic elitism and political authoritarianism.


              Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies. The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working condition for women. American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate progressive taxation and oppose the growing influence of corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system.

              The ultimate goal, in my mind, is to foster a government that works with and for the people, to provide basic safeguards of rights and protections from special interests.

              • Sounds pretty fluffy, vague, and collectivist. So what will America look like when the progressives are done with their ‘reform’? How do the actions of Obama and Congress further the objective? Can you show me one progressive society that demonstrates that the objective of progressives can be achieved, and that it improves live of the majority of citizens? What is the minimum standard that progressives believe that all humans under their care are entitled to?

                • Buck The Wala says:

                  Lets see, a society where Progressivism has improved the lives of its citizens and increased the standard of living…America!

                  Progressivism fought for, among other things, the minimum wage, child labor laws, and voting rights for all.

                  • Actually, it was capitalism that created the technology that improved lives and standards of living. People had the right to vote before Marx came along with his manifesto. If it weren’t for captilism there wouldn’t be anything to divie up. I’d say the former East Germany was a prime example of what you get when the is no capitalism, and only progressivism/collectivism.

                    So, please answer the questions above, if you can.

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      You don’t have to accept my answer, but America does have, in part, a progressive legacy.

                      You seem to be confusing progressivism with socialism.

                      I never argued against capitalism. I do of course believe in the need for regulations though. But to argue that capitalism alone is the prime driver of the above is to ignore history.

                      People had the right to vote before Marx. Of course. But that has absolutely nothing to do with anything –women didn’t have the right to vote until 1920. African Americans could vote, but it wasn’t until 1963 (or 1965, mental block) that the Voting Rights Act was first passed.

                    • Buck The Wala says:

                      How does the current health care bill reflect on progressivism (to answer your question on Obama and Congress)?

                      One ideal of progressivism, at least to me, is universal health care. This bill doesn’t come close to accomplishing this. So to me it is not a ‘progressive’ bill. I support the bill not because I find it to meet progressivism, but because I believe it is better than what we have now.

                  • Buck

                    Progressives also fought for eugenics, population control, and forced family planning.

                    With no surprise their philosophy springs from this root:

                    “We know better than you”.

                    Minimum wage and labor laws is an affront to freedom of association. Allowing such usurpation of rights now reeks it’s ugly head in determining who I may or may not entertain on my own property and a seizing of such property.

                    Adding more people to vote is a step backwards.

  18. Davey Crockett has died again. Daniel Boone as well. Both gone all at once.

    Fess Parker gone at the age of 85.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Sorry to hear about Fess Parker, was one of my favorites in the old TV days. Now I have those songs running through my head.

      Rest in peace Mr, Parker, you will be sadly missed, but always remembered for your coon skin cap.

  19. PapaDawg says:

    Its late, and I got on here late, and I’m tired . . . . . but I just gotta say something about all this mess.

    Here is the future, and believe me I pray that I am wrong. (a) At best, the political party system in the USA is done for. At worst, we will fall into a Socialist-Democratic type of governance similar to Hitlers 1930’s Germany.

    (b) The population of the USA suddenly awakens and demands en-mass the resignations of all currently serving in the House and Senate and start afresh.

    (c) The “Second American Civil War” will erupt. It will be a long and devastatingly bloody ordeal. Only God Himself knows what the eventual outcome of that will be.

    People are angry, and getting angrier by the minute, and Congress and Obama are not paying attention.

    I don’t need to tell anyone here that we are now in a very delicate historical time-line.

  20. I feel your pain Papa Dawg. I’m with you on a & b. If things don’t settle down then we’re looking at c.I fear things are going to keep simmering and my 11 year old son will be fighting in the Civil War.
    Wake up America.

  21. As CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer predicted – if it passes, get ready to see a sell-off on Wall Street. Cramer appeared on CNBC’s March 18 “The Kudlow Report,” with his former broadcast partner Larry Kudlow. Kudlow asked Cramer to elaborate on his theory ObamaCare could send the financial markets reeling or “topple the stock market,” as Kudlow described it.

    “First, it is the single biggest impediment to the stock market going higher,” Cramer said. “And a lot of this has to do with what’s not being talked about enough with how it’s going to be paid and also about what it will do to small business formation. This bill is a disaster for both.”

    Cramer said the uncertainty this health care bill present to entrepreneurs is an obstacle, but he also explained the anticipated higher taxes that will finance this legislation are going to be another barrier for higher stock prices.

    “You’re either going to have health care premiums go up dramatically, which is just terrible, particularly if you and I wanted to start a business,” Cramer said. “We would have no idea how much it would cost. But the last thing we want to do is start it. Probably stay at our old job. Yet you and I know that small businesses are the secret. That’s how we get employment in this country. Or we have dramatically higher taxes. And it looks like — people won’t even realize it when it hits them – but you and I fought very hard for a very long time to reduce taxes and I think we played a role. Reduce taxes on capital gains, reduce taxes on dividends.”

    And with higher taxes, Cramer explained the appetite for risk won’t be there for investment in the economy.

    “At a time when the investor is just completely flummoxed, doesn’t know what to do – I think it’s going to lead to big selling in the second half of the year, when people say, ‘Jeez, all the reasons, the favorable tax treatment that made us risk owning stocks – going away.’ Very bad for the stock market.”

    But that’s just the tip of the iceberg Cramer said. If health care passes, Obama will make a push at amnesty for illegal immigrants – that in turn will be covered by this health care legislation at a cost to every one else.

    “I think this is a two-step process,” Cramer said. “The first step is this health care – which they scored it as not being that bad for taxes. You and I think that’s a little disingenuous. But what will happen next, I think Obama will be emboldened as he would be – a big victory. So the next thing is a push for amnesty for people who have immigrated to the country not legally. And I think that’s where you’re really going to get the step in the function up in the cost of this. I wish that we would – the debate in Congress dealt more with this because what would really break the back of Treasury is a whole group of people who we never thought we’d be covering who we will be covering.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/03/19/mad-money-cramer-health-care-passage-will-topple-stock-market#ixzz0icsTqnlD

    • v. Holland says:

      Have always wondered why there was no mention of the US in the Bible-maybe it’s because we aren’t gonna be here.

      • what are you talking about, doesn’t the bible say that the anti-christ’s number is 666? That number is clearly Obama. The liberal media is trying despartely to hide the fact that Obama’s number is 666. It is really simple. First multiply the number of letters in his first middle and last name together, then add the numbers that associate with each letter. Then add 44 for being the 44th president. Add 47 for his age at the time he was sworn in, then add 111 for the 111th congress. (For those keeping count that is 662 so far). He is the first black president, the first president from hawaii, and the second president from harvard Law school. Thats right, plain as day, 666!

  22. v. Holland says:

    Dang I’ve getting depressed -need a pick me up

  23. It us just unbelievable to even watch. It’s like seeing a crime being committed in front of you and no one even cares.

    I wonder what it felt like in Germany when people finally figured out what was going on?

    • v. Holland says:

      Probably not a whole lot worse than how some of us feel right now. Hate to even contemplate how I’m gonna feel if this passes come Sunday.

  24. v. Holland says:

    It made me laugh-he’s plotting because he has knowledge of the system-what are they doing-what are both sides doing-other than destroying our country.

    DNC ad aims at ‘plotting’ by McConnell
    Posted: March 19th, 2010 10:43 AM ET

    From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
    A new ad is taking aim at McConnell.
    A new ad is taking aim at McConnell.

    (CNN) – With the expected House vote on health care reform days away, the Democratic National Committee is launching a new ad Friday that blasts Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for “plotting” to block the sweeping legislation.

    The 30-second spot, which is set to air in the Washington, D.C., area, highlights a recent New York Times report that McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has long planned to use his “extensive knowledge of Senate procedure” to slow or even stop passage of the final bill.

    “Even before President Obama took office he was plotting his obstruction, and Senate Republicans stood with him, playing politics and protecting their special interest allies. Mitch McConnell and Republican games, that’s what’s wrong with Washington,” the ad states.

    McConnell told the Times on Tuesday that it is “critical” Republicans maintain their opposition to the health care bill.

    “If the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is OK … it’s either bipartisan or it isn’t.”

  25. Not just Damacrat but also everyone will be doomed as a result of this Healthcare bill.

    Basically, government Health care is a death sentence to you, me and our children.

    • Yes, I frequently associate health care with imminent death for myself and my (yet to be born) children…

  26. v. Holland says:

    I would laugh but the manipulation of our whole system is so sad and has lead to our current situation

    “Redistricting and the Health-Care Vote
    Lost seats in state legislatures and unfavorable congressional boundaries could hurt Democrats for a decade or more.


    Lose the battle but win the war—that is the redeeming hope congressional leaders offer to their rank-and-file members on the coming votes on the Obama health-care plan.

    While diehards still insist that a government takeover of health care will be a net winner this fall, more and more Democrats understand this is a career-ending vote. And so their leadership presents them with the following proposition: Do the right thing and over the long run the power of our party will be stronger as the workers in roughly one-sixth of the U.S. economy will behave more like public employee union members. The sacrifice won’t be in vain. While that prospect may be comforting, it is far from certain.

    As to whether the 2010 elections will be gentler or harsher than the 1994 elections on the congressional majority for pushing health reform in spite of public opposition, top Democratic pollsters Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen have issued their warning in a March 12 Washington Post op-ed. If Democrats fail to pass health care, they “will face the brunt of the electorate’s reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls.”

    No doubt exists that other critical domestic problems are far more grave than in 1994. Back then, the deficit was $200 billion or about 2.9% of GDP. Today, the president projects a deficit of $1.5 trillion or 10.6% of GDP. The unemployment rate of 9.7% today stands half again as high as the 6.1% rate of 1994. The economy and jobs far outpace health care as the top issue.

    So based on domestic issues alone, the political storm of 2010 should exceed that of 1994. Many elected officials won’t survive. But will their health-care reform be saved? Democrats do believe that once the full plan kicks in, it will score as a net winner over medium to long term. Yet for every popular reform—guaranteed insurance issue and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions, for instance—unpopular burdens such as the individual mandate exist.

    Further, such a view is static, ignoring the dynamics of the deficit and the slow economy. After the deepest recession in the postwar era, our economy is experiencing one of its weakest recoveries. Together, these two facts present a fiscal landscape where deficit reduction must turn to federal spending reduction. No meaningful program of federal spending restraint can avoid health care.

    But if all the new spending might be at risk, should Democrats feel secure about the crown jewels of the health-care plan: insurance mandates and other regulations that are sure to make it unprofitable and nonviable and open the door to a full government takeover?

    Of all the political consequences that could flow from the national health-care effort in 2010, the potential of the fall elections to shift 2011 redistricting to the Republicans’ advantage may be most important. That puts the long-term viability of the president’s health-care reform in serious jeopardy, no matter the outcome of the 2012 presidential elections.

    While the election of 1994 did signal a political realignment, none of that alignment translated into the much more permanent benefit that redistricting could provide in 2010 if the GOP takes over state legislatures across the country. In 1994, Republicans took control of a majority of the state legislatures for the first time in half a century. They took control of a majority of governorships for the first time in almost a quarter-century. Republicans picked up 12 governor seats, almost 500 state legislative seats, and gained control of 20 state legislatures. Yet virtually none of that power shift translated into a longer-term benefit of redistricting.

    What advantage might Republicans have preserved if redistricting occurred after the 1994 elections? Consider the state of Washington. In the 1994 election, the state’s eight Democrat and one Republican congressional delegation swung to two Democrats and seven Republicans. Yet after the 2001-02 redistricting, the Washington delegation shifted back to six Democrats and three Republicans. What if redistricting had enhanced the prospects so that one or two of those Washington State seats were now Republican? A gain of just one seat out of nine statewide may not seem like much, but applied to a national level, that alone would wipe out the current Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

    As Democratic legislators consider their choices, many are missing the impact of an electoral wipeout in 2010 on the redistricting of congressional seats as well as those in the state legislatures. The electoral advantage gained from 2011 redistricting would extend the short-term pain of 2010 at least through the redistricting of 2021. Democratic sacrifices may be for naught.

    Mr. Solon, a former policy adviser for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is the principal of Capitol Legistics. ”


  27. Richmond Spitfire says:

    To the Democrat House Members:

    I cry fowl on you —

    Chicken $hit
    Chicken Little
    Chicken Noodle
    Rubber Chicken

    What you’ll be come November —

    Roasted Chicken
    Chick on a Stick

    Why did the House Chicken $hit cross the road? Because the chicken was told to and got some free eggs. Chickens just don’t have a brain.

  28. Judy Sabatini says:
  29. Judy Sabatini says:
  30. Down here Buck,

    I’m not confusing progressivism and socialism. There are two sides of the same coin.

    Twice, I have given you the opportunity to answer a couple of very basic questions about a movement you claim to be a part of. The fact that both times you failed to answer the questions and attempted to divert my attention to something else, tells me you are unable to respond in a thoughtful manner. So, at the risk of stirring up the brown-n-stinky yet again, are you still offended that I assign you to the ‘mindless middle’?

    • Buck The Wala says:

      And yes, I am still offended at your ‘mindless middle’ comment. You seem to believe that because I don’t agree with you I have not given thought to my own positions and reached my own conclusions on matters. My interaction on this site should be sufficient to prove otherwise. You may not like my answers, and sure, sometimes I will not be able to articulate my thoughts as well as I would like (typically a function of low coffee and busy days, not leaving enough time to fully gather my thoughts), but that does not make me ‘mindless’ in my views. You refuse to believe that you could be wrong in your own views, instead casting mine aside for failing to conform to yours.

      Let me ask you this: What makes you so certain? Why do you believe the free market is the answer to everything? Can you provide an example of such a society where pure free market reigns? If not, why not? What would such a society really look like? Why do you believe providing universal health care (which I am assuming you are against, correct me if I’m wrong here) is a bad thing?

      I don’t mean to come across as snide, and I truly hope I do not. But in all honesty, can you describe your ‘utopia’ and how we can get there and how doing what you believe will result in that society?

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Actually its quitting time for me, so hopefully we can get to continue this later on, though doubtful I’ll be around this weekend.

      All the best this weekend Cyndi.

      • Buck,

        My thanks and apologies that you responded above, and that I was not able to reply. I respect you for stating and standing by your position. And damn, did you have some explaining to do today.:lol:

        Also a salute to my kindred VDLG’ers, for giving you hell.

  31. Too squishy up there….

    That’s a good start. Now tell me WHY you believe universal health care is better than a free market system? BTW, I don’t believe it is any better than what we have now. Its not even equally bad form what I can tell.

    Can you answer the rest of my questions? Can you show me one progressive society that has come close to achieving progressivism’s goals? What about that high standard of living for every human? What’s that look like?

    • Buck The Wala says:

      I think you are a bit confused as progressivism and socialism are NOT “two sides of the same coin”.

      The US remains a society where progressivism has had important impacts, for the reasons stated above. You ask for a purely progressive society assuming there is some ascertainable goal. In reality, there is no end goal for progressives, as there will always be some cause to fight for, some injustice to correct. I don’t think you can treat progressivism as a pure political philosophy; I see it as something a bit different – progressivism at its core promotes pragmatism and equality. There is no end political ‘goal’ so to speak.

      As for health care — universal health care represents a progressive ideal because progressives see health care as a RIGHT.

      What about that high standard of living? It’s not about making everyone equal. Its about ensuring that everyone meets some basic standard. There will always be differences among people and that is fine, so long as no one falls below that basic standard.

      • You’re still not answering my questions, Buck. You’ve had three opportunites to convert me and you haven’t convinced me that my assessment of progressivism and socialism are not two sides of the same coin, is incorrect. You’ve had several opportunities to enlighten me by answering very basic and specific questions about the progressive movement.

        From what I gather, progressivism has no defined objective that can be meausred by any metric at all; no basic standard of living that all are entitled to, and no list of definate injustices to correct. Progessivism then, is just ‘whatever’. So, as an adult, did you get to where your are today professionally, financially and personally by doing ‘whatever’, or did you have specific goals? Did you plan your course of action, impliment that plan, measure your performance, make adjustments and then contiue on toward your goals? I’m pretty sure you did, otherwise you’d be functionally illiterate, living in public housing, collecting welfare, and probably alot of other things generally none productive and possibly self destructive. So if a politcal movement has no specific goals and objectives, no way to measure progress toward stated objectives, and means in impliment corrections to course, what can we expect the end result to be?

        I’ll leave you with those thoughts. I’m done here.

      • PapaDawg says:

        Rights come from God . . . Do you believe in God?

        When government assigns your rights, then you become a slave to that government . . . Do you advocate slavery?

        Government provided health care is not a right, it is in fact a government entitlement . . . all government entitlements are paid for by government taking away something from others. What are YOU willing to give up so that someone who is too lazy to work for their own health care can have his/her government entitled health care?

        • v. Holland says:

          Alright guys I agree with most of your points but to be fair it isn’t always people being unwilling to work-You can have insurance and have money saved and still go bankrupt because of major medical problems- I sympathize with people who have this problem I just don’t believe that the government has the right to bankrupt this country or force people who were able to afford insurance on the government ticket or people who don’t want to buy insurance to buy it. etc. -in order to save these people, there has got to be a better way to be a compassionate society.

          And no offense Papa, even though I agree that God gives us our rights-it really isn’t any of our business whether Buck believes or not.

          • PapaDawg says:

            I really do not care if Buck believes in God or not, I just want Buck to understand that once we decide that government gives us our rights then we become slaves to that government.

            We have always been a compassionate people, it is what makes us Americans – we are unique in this world because of that compassion. We Americans donate so much more to charitable organizations than any other country, we are always the first to respond to natural disasters anywhere in the world – and we usually contribute the most.

      • I don’t think you’re part of the mindless middle because we disagree, its because you can’t answer specific and simple questions about a political movement you claim to support.

        My Utopia (not that utopia is possible) but since you asked:

        Objective: Personal freedom for everyone to pursue life and happiness. The right to reap the conseqquences of my labor, or lack thereof. A just and transparent means to deal with grievences.

        Metirc: How often I’m thwarted by government regulations (including right down to what lightbulbs I use). How much of my property (money) is conficscated by government? Am I treated fairly under the law (hate crimes legislation anyone?)?

        Free Market Example: Any black market on the face of the planet. Black markets thrive in spite of or BECAUSE of excessive government regulation. Just imagine what could happen if government butted out.

        • Buck the Wala says:


          I agree — capitalism and free markets have done a lot of good. No argument here. However, government regulations have also done a lot of good.

          I don’t agree with all government regulations either in principle or scope. Government should butt out of certain things. In other things government regulations should be more limited than it has become. Entitlement programs have grown to be unsustainable and need to be reviewed, addressed, and limited in certain regards. I don’t agree with the entire Democratic platform in the least.

          I do believe though that absent any sense of progressivism in this country we would not be where we are today.

          As I said I don’t view progressivism as purely a political movement with a specific end-goal to obtain. I’m not sure what you are looking for in my answers to your questions. I laid out the basic principles that guide me.

          Hope this helps some.

          • “I do believe though that absent any sense of progressivism in this country we would not be where we are today.” You say that like its a bad thing. 😉

            Personally, I can tolerate SOME government regulation, but we’ve gone well beyond ‘some’ and into ‘too much’, with ‘WAAAY too much’ on the horizon. YOU personally may not believe that progressivism has an end goal, but I believe that it does and there is plenty of evidence to show that. My God, just look at the word ‘progressivism’. What does it imply? Constant movement in some direction. I see what the direction is and I don’t like it. You yourself have already said this will never stop. That tells me that no matter what they are given, it will never be enough. Why would I want to try to please someone who can never be pleased? When is enough enough? So unless we’re ready to lay down our lives, our children’s lives and everything we own, the progressive movement will keep coming at us. They’ll use that ‘too many humans on the planet arguement, and the next step of exterminating all those surplus humans. This tells me there at irreconcillable differences here. In marrige it ends in divorce, in politics, it ends in violence. Are the progressives ready for that? How does the fit into their greater good arguement? Will they kill everyone who disagees with them and then declare they’ve accomplished world peace? See how this progresses?

      • Buck!

        I have to give you credit where it’s due. You stepped up and explained you position very well, and it was very educational for me.

        You stated: I see it as something a bit different – progressivism at its core promotes pragmatism and equality.

        I’ve read your statement over and over, to try and understand how that can become reality, and have come too the conclusion that it is impossible to achieve. It’s the last word “equality” that is humanly impossible, and I can use this site as an example. A small amount of our society we are, but yet we all have our individual differences in many areas, education, experience, age, sex, far too many to name, that makes the Progressive idealogy a fantasy.

        Based on your great comments, and the reality called life, you are asking for a miracle! Equality will never happen, even by violent force, it’s not achievable. If you can explain how it is achievable, I want to hear it!

        Peace my Friend!

        • Buck the Wala says:

          That’s exactly right, in a sense. There can be no ‘end-goal’ of progressivism as the fight will always continue. But as a progressive I will continue to strive for equality, for a basic standard for all people in all walks of life. Note that this does not mean ‘perfect equality’ that all people have the exact same education, income, etc. It means that all people are treated equally under the law, that all people have access to the same opportunities, and that all people meet (or exceed, of course – I am not arguing for socialism where all have the exact same) a minimum standard of living.

          • While you claim there is no end goal, you strive for equality? Which is an end goal.?.

            Your contradicting yourself rather quickly Quote: There can be no ‘end-goal’ of progressivism as the fight will always continue. But as a progressive I will continue to strive for equality, for a basic standard for all people in all walks of life.

            Your entire quote is a contradiction. Can you not read this?

            • G-Man,
              There’s no contradiction is Buck’s statement. I think you’re focusing on the word equality) and missing the meaning of the entire statement:

              progressivism at its core promotes pragmatism and equality.

              You’re right, “equality” for everyone is impossible, but the idea is to promote equality so everyone has the opportunity for a better life.

              Pragmatism is also an important part, and may be part of the reason you have a hard time understanding this. Progressivism is not an ideology – it does not have hard and fast rules like conservatism does. It uses pragmatism to look at the issues we face and work on how to improve things. The solutions include a mixture of capitalism, free markets, charity, and government, trying to find the best mix to promote a free, safe, and prosperous society for all.

              I can use this site as an example. A small amount of our society we are, but yet we all have our individual differences in many areas, education, experience, age, sex, far too many to name, that makes the Progressive ideology a fantasy.

              This site is a great example. We’re all different, and USWeapon has instituted pragmatic and progressive rules the promote equality. It doesn’t make us all equal, but it gives us all an opportunity to promote our ideas on a level playing field.

              Without those rules and the threat of evil violence to enforce them, we all know what a political blog like this can devolve into…

              I think those rules are a good thing!!

              PS – progressivism is not an ideology – or a fantasy! 😉

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Thanks for the support Todd!!

                To add to your post below (no time at the moment for mutliple posts…) Singapore is an example of one FORM of a progressive society. I’m not advocating for that extent of government control in the least. The US, in my mind, remains the best example of what progressivism can accomplish.

                Remember, progressivism is about pragmatism. As Todd stated, there are no hard and fast ideological rules.

              • Good example Todd 🙂

                You make it sound like such a nice thing, but :

                In the 21st century self-styled progressives continue to embrace concepts such as environmentalism and social justice.


                Sounds much like Communism, Socialism and any other bad ism one can come up with.

                Kudo’s on your explaination, very well written!


                • G-Man,
                  Did you read the entire article you linked to? Or even the next few lines?

                  Social progressivism, which states that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.

                  One historian defined progressivism as the “political movement that addresses ideas, impulses, and issues stemming from modernization of American society. Emerging at the end of the nineteenth century, it established much of the tone of American politics throughout the first half of the century.”

                  It’s not at all like Communism, Socialism and any other bad ism one can come up with. It’s about society that strives to provide the best combination of freedom, safety, and opportunity for everyone.

                  • Todd,

                    A defining characteristic of progressives of all stripes is a burning desire to impose their own preferences on individuals in society.

                    This is evident in their lexicon, where they systematically replace nouns: ’needs’ for ‘preferences’, ‘happiness’ for ‘utility’, ‘privileges’ for ‘rights’, ‘obligations’ for ‘responsibilities’.

                    It is evident in their choice of adjectives: ‘irrational’ for ‘rational’, ‘bounded’ for ‘unbounded’, ‘prospect’ or ‘regret’ for ‘expected’. It is evident in their choice of penalties for bad behavior: ‘bail-out’ rather than ‘bankruptcy’, ‘rehabilitation’ rather than ‘punishment’, ’support’ rather than ‘discipline’.

                    It is evident in their choice of the appropriate response to success: ‘redistribution’ rather than ‘reward’, ‘fair trade’ rather than ‘free trade’, ‘level playing field’ rather than ‘entrepreneurial advantage’, ‘exploitation’ rather than ‘gains from trade’.

                    Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, progressives could express their prejudices openly through the litany of ‘communism’ or ’socialism’, ‘fascism’, or ‘national socialism’, each a term of approbation by comparison with the vile notion of ‘laissez-faire’.

                    Since the atrocities of communism, fascism and national socialism became too evident to be denied, the progressives have retreated to the use of the term ’socialism’ (in Europe) or ‘liberalism’ (in the United States) to signify their contempt for the decision-making capacity of free individuals, and to emphasize their faith in the benevolence of democratic government (well as ‘democratic’ as it has to be when ramming legislation through a divided chamber).

                    Progressives are evil clothed in soft white, carrying a lexicon of a perverted dictionary and promoting the slavery of all men – all for the aggrandizement of the State.

                    • Thanks Black Flag. I’m late to the party.

                      As I was reading Todd’s post, I was thinking “Nazis”.

                      A rose by any other name is still a rose.

                    • Black Flag:

                      Very well stated. I wish I could articulate my thoughts and remember facts as well as you do.

                      Progressives are evil. They have fooled too many people but they are as bad as any other ism. Give them time and they will show just how evil they can be. Soft tryanny will turn to hard tyranny.

                      Democrats (Progressives) are now using water to gain votes in California! Stalin starved his own people while exporting grain. Evil is Evil and what is happening in our country will not be good for anyone.

                  • Todd,

                    Yes, I read everthing to the point my eyes are are threatening me with a lawsuit for assault 😆

          • BUCK

            EQUALITY. The greatest “rationalization” for theft ever invented by mankind.

            If I take all you have, you will be equal to the man with nothing.

            See you were busy digging big holes today. I also offer Kudos for the effort.

            Best to you and your bride

    • Cyndi,
      First, I agree with Buck that the USA is a fine example of a progressive society. Not perfect, but it’s not a bad place to live in my opinion.

      Singapore is another example of a fairly prosperous progressive society:


      • From the leader of Singapore: “To lead a society, the MM says in his precise Victorian English, “one must understand human nature. I have always thought that humanity was animal-like. The Confucian theory was man could be improved, but I’m not sure he can be. He can be trained, he can be disciplined.” In Singapore that has meant lots of rules—prohibiting littering, spitting on sidewalks, failing to flush public toilets—with fines and occasional outing in the newspaper for those who break them. It also meant educating his people—industrious by nature—and converting them from shopkeepers to high-tech workers in a few decades.”

        What are you Todd? A man, or a pet?

        “We’re not North Korea, but we try,” said one observer, commenting on the rolling tanks, zooming Apache helicopters, and earsplitting 21-gun salutes.”

        Would you force all of us to live in a place like this? Are you living in Singapore now? If not, why not?

        I wouldn’t live there. To me, life is more than prosperity. Money and ‘stuff’ ain’t everything. Being able to think my own thoughts and discuss them with others; deciding how I will spend my time, who I will associate with; and what direction my life will take, are much more important to me. Did you notice that none of those things requires anything from government?

        • Cyndi,
          Yes, the government control in Singapore is quite extreme!! We actually agree on something – imagine that! 🙂

          I’m not suggesting the USA follow the “Singapore Model” and no, I don’t want to live under that kind of control. But you asked for an example.

          But there are also much worse places in the world, where there is a complete breakdown of society and the rule of law…

          • YOu’re right. I did ask for an example and you provided it. Between you and Todd, I’ve been convinced that progressives are dangerous and should not be accomodated in the least or even tolerated since there’s no satisfying them.

            You said: But there are also much worse places in the world, where there is a complete breakdown of society and the rule of law…

            Up until recently, America wasn’t one of them, or even close. If something isn’t broken why would anyone want to fix it? When the current crop of radicals got going in the 60s America wasn’t broken. It wasn’t perfect, but it worked. Now look at it. Think its not so bad now? Give it a couple of years, and that’s assuming we don’t descend into violence. BTW, I blame the Woodstaock Generation for this.

            • Cyndi,
              A little nostalgic for the 1960’s?? 🙂

              Per G-Man’s link – http://www.ask.com/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States – the progressive movement was at it’s peak in the first half of the 20th century and started to fade in the 1960’s. Labor unions were also at their peak in the 1960’s, as were progressive tax rates. Maybe we need a new progressive movement to get back to all of that and fix what’s wrong with the USA! 😉

              If something isn’t broken why would anyone want to fix it?

              Well you have to maintain it, and the world is a changing place. If you’re not moving forward, you’re moving backwards. Sitting still is not an option!!

      • v. Holland says:

        Todd-Did you actually read this article or do you just not believe in freedom at all?

        • My thoughts exactly! 😆

          Or worse yet, maybe he thinks we should all live like that. 😦

      • Cont…

        “You know that won’t fly in a world where the MM (“minister de-mentor” in Beng speak) has advocated “assortative mating,” the idea that college graduates should marry only other college graduates so as to uplift the national stock.

        Perhaps the most troubling problem facing the nation is a result of its overly successful population control program, which ran in the 1970s with the slogan “Two Is Enough.” Today Singaporeans are simply not reproducing, so the country must depend on immigrants to keep the population growing”

        So, nothing like a little Eugenics and Population Control for Utopia.

        “But there is an upside to all this social engineering.”….the Liberal ‘tell’. I can just imagine what horrors were glossed over or ignored.

        “Last August, a wide-ranging speech by new NMP Viswa Sadasivan created a lot of buzz on the blogosphere: “I do lament our lack of freedom to express ourselves, and the government’s seemingly unmitigated grip on power and what appears to be an inconsistent willingness to listen to public sentiment that does not suit it,” Viswa said before parliament. “Accountability requires the government to go beyond lip-service in addressing the call for greater democracy. If not, people are likely to feel increasingly alienated.”

        Even they know it doesn’t work.

        “Singapore can be a disconcerting place, even to the people who call it home, though they’d never think of leaving. As one local put it, “Singapore is like a warm bath. You sink in, slit your wrists, your lifeblood floats away, but hey, it’s warm.”

        Looks like America does have something in common with Singapore.

  32. Judy Sabatini says:

    This is a good laugh. Enjoy.

    > For some time many of us have wondered: who is Jack Shit? We find ourselves at a loss when someone says, You don’t know Jack Shit. Well, thanks to my efforts you can now respond in an intellectual way. Jack Shit is the only son of Awe Shit, who married O Shit. In turn, Jack Shit married Noe Shit.The couple had 6 children: Holie Shit, Giva Shit, Fulla Shit, Bull Shit, and the twins Deep Shit and Dip Shit. Deep Shit married Dumb Shit, a high school dropout. After 15 years, Jack and Noe Shit got divorced and she married Ted Sherlock and became Noe Shit Sherlock. Meanwhile, Dip Shit married Lota Shit and had a son with a rather nervous disposition named Chicken Shit. Fulla Shit and Giva Shit married the Happens brothers in a double wedding. The newspaper invited everyone to the Shit-Happens wedding. Bull Shit traveled the world and returned home with an Italian bride, Pisa Shit.

    So from now on, no one can tell you that you don’t know Jack Shit….Keep this shit going.

  33. Réfugiée says:

    If you have been calling your congressperson about the health care bill, I would be interested to know what response (if any) you have received. The author of this article relates a disturbing tale.


  34. Off topic but interesting to contemplete…


    • v. Holland says:

      Interesting article-This statement brings Israel to mind(Globalization is no longer on the march, but on the defensive. Economic nationalism is rising. Across the Third World, we see an upsurge of ethnonationalism and fundamentalism, especially among the Islamic peoples.) Especially among Islamic people-makes one question why, if this is true-that Israel going for the same thing is bad.

      • You said: ” Especially among Islamic people-makes one question why, if this is true-that Israel going for the same thing is bad.” Because its ISRAEL, you silly goose. HELLOOOOOO!

        Just kidding. Actually that’s a very good observation and question; one worth exploring. That said, a certain pirate will be roused. Do you have the stamina to go there?


        • v. Holland says:

          Maybe I should change the subject 🙂 It also seems to be saying that we are guilty of ethnonationalism because we don’t want open borders. Think the question change will save me. Oh crap, probably not-he thinks closed borders is bad too. 😉

          • Yeah….you’ve stepped in it now, girl! 😆

            As to the ethnonationalism, I think America’s problem is more due to identity politics than anything. When both branches of my family came to America, they came to be Americans. Not Peruvians, not Italians; Americans. They wanted the dream, the freedom, the HONOR. When they arrived, they adopted American customs, the language, the people, as their own. They didn’t buy into the America-as-evil-and-racist crapola. It seems to me, that identity politics is being used to manipulate voters who would not otherwise support whichever party. It is also key to the divide and conquer strategy of the political elites. The more time, money and energy we spend fighting each other, the more opportunity they have to grab our power and wealth. I wish more poeple would see it.

            • Hey CP!

              The war is with understanding, not with money. We are being killed because they can attack our emotions and “lead” us in their direction. We are victims of this and most don’t know it. I can explain if you’d like


              • v. Holland says:

                Cyndi can answer for herself but I feel pretty sure she will say yes and I know I would like to hear it, you may not have noticed 🙂 but I am sometimes susceptible to my emotions.

                • Yes, My friend you are emotional. That’s OK, if it works for you. As a person who has had to elliminate emotions from his work in the past, I can say that your emotions are being used against you everyday! 🙂


              • Hey G-Man,

                Please do. I’m interested. I’m headed out to a small party later, but I have some time.

            • v. Holland says:

              We were called the melting pot for a reason and there is no doubt that race, religion and anything else that makes us come together in shared beliefs or experiences are used to separate us. And by all means if anything offends you-go to court and have it outlawed. I am I have to say real tired of people insisting that we change our customs and traditions to satisfy there likes and dislikes.

              • V.,

                Let’s get clear here.

                America was a melting pot – not to create a shared belief at all.

                It existed because those that came to the country were abandoning their home land – they had already tossed away the dogma and beliefs of the old country.

                They were outcasts running from a system, not people running to a system.

                It was the lack of a system of belief that attracted them.

                • v. Holland says:

                  I don’t think I said that -I think immigration back in the day was more a mutual respect and tolerance for our differences and a natural blending together of our cultures (Melting Pot) through the years. I just think people used to appreciate coming here, now I think most just think its their right.

  35. V.H. ! 🙂

    When you are hearing someone that get’s you emotional, it’s for a reason, not because your emotional. Take T.V., Beck says something that evokes your emotions, do you ever think or ask if what he said is true? Away from you for a moment, Obama says that people are dying cuz they don’t have insurance. Emotions of many want action, but do not look at the facts. Nooone seeking healthcare are denied healthcare in this country, period, it’s against the law. I could go on and on about how emotions are used to BS people, and know how to stop it.


    • v. Holland says:

      I agree G-Man that people purposely use emotional triggers to get an emotional response and your right that we fall for it a lot but the reason we do in my opinion is that usually, not always but usually there is a grain of truth in the trigger-it is just exaggerated.

      • Most emotional appeals are lies! I’ve benn studying this for some time, using past facts and results. If you are being attacked, emotionally, it’s likely untrue. I have developed a test for this, and my boss was not to happy today when I laid it on him, and he could not look me in the eye with an answer, BUSTED!


        • v. Holland says:

          Are you gonna give more details are do I have to wait for the article?

          • Funny thing VH, I’ve been posting all the premise (the article) and it’s purpose for two weeks. Slowly and patiently, it will get there. The Article is very deep and took over a month to write. Waiting on the boss to make move, no hurry on my part.


            • v. Holland says:

              Reckon we will have to wait and I have noticed that you’ve made a few references to this topic lately.

  36. Hey Yous, excuse me for jumping in but emotions jump out when people CARE.

    V, my goodness, you have a lot to talk about lately. Good job keeping BF in check

  37. You ladies bring me great JOY!


  38. Anyone see this?


    Personally, I think charges of treason should be considered, and not just for Dear Reader but many others.

  39. I am not going to be able to spend much time for a while on this site. Broke a pipe in the basement Thursday morn and ended up with 2″ of water everywhere. All the carpet and other flooring is gone. Some wallboard and panelling wet so will need replacing. Lost a few boxes of scientific journals and books. Most everything else survived including my computer. Right now am using my wife’s PC as I need to get a wifi for mine and move it to another room. I need to get it setup as I have to file my annual government extortion papers. Got oodles of fans a dehumidfiers running downstairs so it sounds like wind tunnel in the house. So it looks like I will be remodeling my basement most of the summer.

    As for the discussion above, what do moms always say? “If it doesn’t feel right, don’t do it.” Maybe we should be calling Congressmen’s mothers.

  40. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello People

    I have a question that I don’t recall ever having an answer to, and I hope some one can help me.

    If this administration is going to force us all into this health care plan of theirs and require everybody and their brother to get it, my question is this.

    How the heck are the people who don’t have jobs, or lost theirs, or the elderly who just barely make it now going to be able to afford any monthly premium payments? Yes, I know, if you don’t get any, you have to pay a fine. I never did hear what they plan on charging for monthly premiums anyway, and for what I read in the paper yesterday, insurance companies are already raising their rates because of this wonderful plan.

    Thanks to anybody who can answer my question. I will check back later have a few things to do and places to go this morning.

    Hope you all will have a good day.


    • Good Morning Judy! 🙂

      First, let me say that in my opinion, government cannot force the people to buy health insurance, and it WILL be challenged in court. They do not have the Constitutional authority, and if anyone can quote the language in the Constitution that gives them that authority, I challenge them to provide such language. My guess is noone can.

      Yes, premiums will go up, and everybody may have access to health insurance, if they can afford it, which is the very problem we all have today. I’m positive this is not about providing healthcare, but about control. I will not be controlled by these whackballs, and IF they can find me, bring it on!

      Hope your day is a good one!


      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi G

        Thanks for answering. Haven’t left yet to do my errands. I read in the paper this morning that a couple of states will sue the government if they force this. Can’t remember which 2 states they were though.
        But I thought you can’t sue the government, that it’s a lost cause, or am I wrong on this?

        Day is going okay so far, but it’s too early yet to tell. Was going to send you an E and let you in on the latest at what’s happening on this end here, but didn’t have a chance to yet. Things aren’t getting any better here, in fact getting worse than before. Will fill you in when I get back.

        Talk with you then.

      • Good Afternoon G-Man:

        I’ve been working all day in my garage, barn and yard getting things ready to move. I start my new job on the 29th so I only have a week to get things done. We will not be moving anytime soon but I will not get back home for a while and need to do things that the movers will not do.

        I think this country is close to a 2nd civil war. According to Fox News, they have the votes to pass the bill. The people are against it but they will pass it anyway. You are correct, this is all about power and control over the people.

        I’m moving to Illinois, the most blue state in the nation. They will not allow you to carry a handgun in IL. It’s one of two states that do not allow citizens to conceal and carry. I contacted the NRA and they are doing what they can to change it but I don’t think things will change anytime soon.

        Long live VDLG!!!

        • Birdman,

          My Hopes and Prayers are with you on this journey you are embarking on. Those who spent many years in the miltary are all to familiar with it, and it is not easy, for an individual, and harder for a family. I’ve always made myself available to my fellow vets who need someone to talk too when their lives are in tough times, whether it be PTSD or just life in general.

          I’m about to embark on a similar journey, as I have written you, but mine is by choice, not by what is dictated to me by outside entities. You are a great American, you have my e-mail address, and I can share my Phone # if you request.

          You have my sincere support, and I hope that everthing works out well for you and your family. Anything I can do to help, I’m here and will do what I can.

          Peace Brother!


          • I second that Birdman. You have the email address for me. I am always here if you need an ear. Good luck.


    • Good question Judy. Another I have is how can they say no one will be turned down for pre-existing conditions? How will that work exactly? Will the fine be greater than the govts premiums or why would anyone insure themselves when they can buy it last minute?

      Have a heart attack? Sign up for a plan on the way to the hospital – or while sitting in ER for 10 hours waiting to be seen, since all the docs will be bailing.

      • Hi Kathy!

        Some info on the pre-existing condition language in the bill. Yes, it will be illegal for insurance companies to deny insurance because of pre-existing conditions. The problem is the bill does NOT say that the insurance policy must pay for treatment of those pre-existing conditions. It’s assumed that pre-existing conditions would be covered, but is not actually a fact.


        • The question G, is whether that is a good thing or not? Perhaps it is a good thing if they cannot deny you coverage for everything else because of a pre-existing condition, but don’t have to pay to treat the pre-existing condition. As demonstrated by some of my examples in the past, treating the PEC would bankrupt the private insurance companies. This might be a way that people can be covered but not force insurance companies to pay for a losing proposition. Just thinking out loud here.


          • v. Holland says:

            I’ve never thought of it that way-I can see where in some cases it might be hard to determine whether or not a problem is a complication of the PEC but in my personal situation having everything else covered would help a lot. We already have a supplemental policy which pays a percentage of specific types of charges- the problem is that’s all we can get and it has a small maximum.

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Hey V

              Hell, I heard ol Pelosi herself say, that being a woman is a re-existing condition. I’d like to know how she came up with that conclusion. Guess she doesn’t qualify for anything if that’s how she feels and thinks.

              • v. Holland says:

                Ms. Pelosi is the emotion queen and she does garner an emotional response from me-a tightening in my stomach whenever I see her face.

  41. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hi back for a couple minutes. I also heard yesterday, that if this bill passes, then they are going to turn it over to the IRS and they will go list by list name by name and see who has it and who doesn’t. In other words, that the IRS is going to take over the insurance companies. Heard Joe Biden say that they are going to take over all insurance companies and let the IRS handle it. And if you don’t have it or get, then you’re looking at some pretty steep fines.

    Anybody else here hear that? Also heard yesterday that our wonderful ( cough, cough ) Senator Harry Reid admit he didn’t care if he gets re elected or not, just as long as this bill passes. See, they don’t give a crap about their jobs, or what we the people feel or think about what they’re doing as long as they can pass it. Even Pelosi said she doesn’t know what’s in it, as long as it passes, that you can find out once it does.

    Can’t wait for November to shove up their arsses, since they’re shoving it down our throats now.

    • Hi Judy,

      I have seen figures of 12,000 to 16,500 new IRS agents that will be hired to enforce the bill.

      Also heard they will have access to all our bank accounts, 401K, pension, etc.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hey Dee

        Well, if they can get access to all bank accounts, the I will withdraw all money out, no way am I going to let the biggest thieves ever take a look and see how much money I have in my account. It’s none of the freaking business.

        I thought I heard somewhere in the neighborhood of 117,000 new people they were going to hire. Maybe I misunderstood.

        Where is it written in the constitution that the IRS can look and check on how much money you have? And speaking of the constitution, they might as well throw it away since they’re not abiding by it.

        Hope you’re doing good today.

        • That may be true of the total new people, I was just referring to the IRS agents.

          The government already knows what we have and could take it, the IRS does it all the time.

          We are seriously considering not putting much in 401K anymore, cause you can’t get it out if you need it, and if we could get it out, we pay a penalty.

          I have seen a number of postings that folks are going to stop EFT deposits of paychecks and get a check and cash it to pay bill with money orders.

          Another reason you hear talk of a cashless society, so the government can track and control every penny, that will be next, I’m sure.

          • Hope you’re having a good day, too!

            BTW, I am watching our Liar Pig in Chief on Fox, totally nauseating, especially after the ones that spoke (squealed) before him.

            • What a manipulating piece of SH**!!!!

              If and when this thing ever kicks in, none of the carnage will be THEIR fault, somehow it will be Bushes fault.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                Oh, now you know everything is Bush’s fault.

                We were talking last night about this fiasco, and my husband said that the next president can remove this bill, and that it can’t be binding, or something to that affect, that it would be unconstitutional to let it stand.

                Something about being able to use his executive power and remove it. Can’t for the life of me remember exactly what he said, that damn CRS is kicking in.

                • 38 states have introduced or passed legislation that will prohibit the federal government from requiring their residents to purchase the insurance. There has been some talk of a constitutional convention to overturn it if it passes.

                  What a mess.

          • Hi Dee,

            I subscribe to a couple of investment newsletters. From what I gather, people of means are making for the exits while they still can. That says something to me. If you have enough money, you can buy dual citizenship in many other countries. Folks like me can’t. I’ll have to figure out another way.

            • Cyndi,

              Someone has to stay and fight, guess that’s us.

            • The time to fight is now. I don’t mean with little pieces of paper, either.

              Most Americans believe this is politics as usual. I don’t. By the time enough Americans figure that out, there will be no way to succeed. A corral is being built around the herd and the herd refuses to notice. That tells me that most Americans are okay with it, in which case why would I want to fight them, or, they just aren’t worth the trouble. I’m hoping the economy collapses completely before the grand plan can implimented. Of course, there are DECADES of Leftist indoctrination that must be overcome very, very quickly. I don’t know how that happens. To be honest, I don’t see anyway to save the Republic short of violent revolution NOW. But, that’s just me. Given the chance, I will resist with my little piece of paper but I don’t think that will have any effect. The GOP, for the most part, is Democrat lite, so at best we slow it down a little, with the destination being the same.

              • Cyndi,

                Can’t agree more, this is not good.

                I can’t figure out the libs on this one bill, though. They seem to have blinders on, and cannot see anything but the health care carrot being dangled in front of them, they can’t see the other hand of the government reaching for their throat.

                Health care has just been a tool for the progressives, they don’t give a rat’s butt about anyone’s health care, why can’t even libs see that? Why?

                • Agreed, Dee. The reason Libs can’t see that hand reaching for their throat is because they’ve been indoctrinated to believe that hand is a good thing.

                  Should violence break out, you can bet the majority of citizens, and ALL libs, will support the government. There will be less concern for the rights of Americans than for muslim terrorists at Gitmo. Look at how the political opposition has been demonized. Its been done deliberately to dehumanize us to masses of left leaning voters. Leftists already view the opposition as The Enemy. They’d like the citizens to see the opposition in the same light. Its working and that’s pretty sad.

                • Check this out Dee…


                  I voted for John McCain for president, (did I have a choice?), but I’m wondering whether the senior senator from Arizona has taken leave of his constitutional senses.

                  Ten days ago, McCain and his might-have-been 2008 vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Ct), introduced a bill entitled the “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.”

                  A close reading of the bill suggests it would allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely in the United States based on suspected activity. Read the bill here and then continue reading…

                  • Run Cyndi Run…they’re coming for you first. 🙂

                    • I’m hardly worth the trouble because nobody listens to me anyway. Well, almost nobody. Most people think I wear a tin-foil hat while I’m sitting at the computer boning up on my right-wing brainwashing. Besides, if they arrested me, they’d just prove my point. They have much bigger fish to fry than me right now. By the time they get around to frying guppies like me, it won’t matter anymore.

                  • I voted for McCain, too, Cyndi, had to hold my nose to do it, though. He is nothing but a RINO progessive pandering old fool. Goes to show you what too many years in Washington can do to a good man.

                    As for the McCain-Lieberman bill, that sounds like what that dimwit Lindsey Graham was promoting and there was some comment on Fox News awhile back addressing those same issues.

                    If it passes, first stop should be the White House…the shoe sure fits!

                    If they start sending the military after people exercising freedom of speech, they best watch out.

                    • They won’t do that until the herd is fenced in. There’s still time to get out but eventually we’ll run out of time.

                      I work with a guy who’s in his 70s. Really nice fellow and politically involved, but he’s convinced that the next election will stop this and the government WILL respect our vote and wishes. I asked him why he was so sure. He just said they would and that if they didn’t, that there are 300 million guns in America that’s says they will. I pointed out that 300 million handguns are no match for the government arsenal. He got really upset and left the room. I let him go because he was really upset. I genuinely like this fellow and don’t want to upset him. I think he’s in denial about the gravity of our situation.

                    • Cyndi P:

                      We are in really deep s_ _ t when this bill passes.

                      We are now over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and debt without this bill. This will only hasten the collapse of our economy.

                      We are witnessing the death of freedom and liberty in the USA. We may see the collapse of western civilization in a few years. Scary times.

              • Judy Sabatini says:

                I think people are finally waking up from their coma’s and realizing at what’s happening to this country and are ready to take them on, no matter what.

                In all my years, all 58 of them I have never, ever seen any administration do what this one has done to it’s people and country, never.

  42. v. Holland says:

    The Congressional Budget Office late Friday released some new figures pertaining to the health care reform bill that suggest Democrats were able to dodge creating a deficit by removing a section of the legislation that they will have to pass later.

    The $940 billion health care bill excludes a provision that would prevent automatic, steep cuts in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients. Such a provision would cost $208 billion over the next decade and if it were included in the Democratic health care plan, would end up increasing the deficit by $59 billion over ten years.

    Democrats left the provision out of the health care bill in order to keep the plan from costing money instead of saving money. As currently written, the bill would save $138 billion over the first ten years, the CBO determined.

    But Republicans argue this does not provide a true cost for the bill, since everyone knows the costly “doc fix” will have to be paid for somehow.

    Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who is the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, sent a request to the CBO to provide the cost of the bill that includes the fix. Ryan asked the CBO to produce cost estimates for other scenarios as well, including one in which Congress fails to implement an excise tax on expensive insurance plans or create a special Medicare advisory panel aimed at cutting the programs costs. These scenarios would also produce a deficit, the CBO found.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/With-Doc-Fix-Dems-health-plan-would-increase-deficit-by-59-billion—88720687.html#ixzz0ikG2gQgo


  43. v. Holland says:

    First I’ve heard of this.

    Will Dems add the “Dog Ate My Homework” Act to reform?
    By: Timothy P. Carney
    Examiner Columnist
    03/20/10 2:39 PM EDT

    Plenty of special interests have won favors in the health-care legislation, and late deals are still being cut. Until we see the text of the budget reconciliation bill, we won’t know just which special deals will be part of this “reform.” Here’s one to keep an eye out for: The Dog Ate My Homework Act.

    This is a provision allowing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to accept late applications for patent extensions. Such a measure has appeared in various incarnations on Capitol Hill over the past few years, the fruit of a $13 million lobbying effort by Medicines Company (MDCO), whose anti-coagulant drug Angiomax would be the only one affected by this law. [Here’s my October 2009 column for more details.]

    Because of a clerical mistake by MDCO’s lawyers back in 2001, Angiomax is set to lose its exclusivity — that is, generic competitors would be allowed — this coming Tuesday, instead of in 2014. That’s good news for the generic companies and for anyone paying for anti-coagulants (usually Medicare), but very bad news for MDCO.

    MDCO went to court to try to block the generics from hitting the shelf, but yesterday the court ruled against MDCO. So, come Tuesday, MDCO’s government-granted monopoly on this drug will expire — unless Congress intervenes.

    It’s reasonable to think Congress will intervene. After all, in the pre-Scott Brown House-Senate-White House negotiations, Democrats stuck the Angiomax provision in “reform.” This bill could be signed into law on Monday, just in time to block the generic versions from hitting the market.

    If this provision is stuck in — which would be tough, considering it will add to Medicare’s costs in 2010-2014 — it would a final a nail in the coffin of President Obama’s claim that this bill is about “standing up to the special interests.”

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Will-Dems-add-the-Dog-Ate-My-Homework-Act-to-reform-88729402.html#ixzz0ikH7mbBW


  44. Down here Anita,

    Kathy gets to go too. Judy too. Matt, & Todd too 🙂 Hi Cyndi 🙂 🙂

    Sorry. Girls only 😉

  45. Alrighty then… Hen party it is :mrgreen:

  46. Judy Sabatini says:

    The Health Vote and the Constitution—II
    The House can’t approve the Senate bill in the same legislation by which it approves changes to the Senate bill.


    In just a few days the House of Representatives is expected to act on two different pieces of legislation: the Senate version of the health-care bill (the one that contains the special deals, “Cadillac” insurance plan taxes, and abortion coverage) and an amendatory bill making changes in the Senate bill. The House will likely adopt a “self-executing” rule that “deems” passage of the amendatory bill as enactment of the Senate bill, without an actual vote on the latter.

    This enables the House to enact the Senate bill while appearing only to approve changes to it. The underlying Senate bill would then go to the president for signature, and the amendatory bill would go to the Senate for consideration under reconciliation procedures (meaning no filibuster).

    This approach appears unconstitutional. Article I, Section 7 clearly states that bills cannot be presented to the president for signature unless they have been approved by both houses of Congress in the same form. If the House approves the Senate bill in the same legislation by which it approves changes to the Senate bill, it will fail that requirement.

    Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), chair of the House Rules Committee and prime mover behind this approach, has released a letter from Yale Law School’s Jack Balkin asserting that a “rule which consolidates a vote on a bill and accompanying amendments, or, as in this case, a reconciliation measure and an amended bill, is within the House’s powers under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.”

    But that does not actually address the point at issue. No one doubts that the House can consolidate two bills in a single measure; the question is whether, having done so, it may then hive the resulting bill into two parts, treating one part as an enrolled bill ready for presidential signature and the other part as a House bill ready for senatorial consideration. That seems inconsistent with the principle that the president may sign only bills in the exact form that they have passed both houses. A combination of two bills is not in “the same form” as either bill separately.

    Defenders of the Democratic strategy say that a self-executing rule has been used many times before by both parties. But never in this way. Most of the time a self-executing rule is used to incorporate amendments into a pending bill without actual votes on the amendments, where the bill is then subject to a final vote by the House and Senate. That usage may be a dodge around House rules, but it does not violate the Constitution. I am not aware of any instance where a self-executing rule has been used to send one bill to the president for signature and another to the Senate for consideration by means of a single vote.

    Self-executing rules have also been used to increase the debt ceiling by virtue of adopting a budget resolution. That procedure is questionable, but because budget resolutions are not laws, this usage does not have the feature of using one vote to send a bill to the president and at the same time to send a different bill to the Senate. There may have been other questionable uses of self-executing rules, but not often enough or in prominent enough cases to establish a precedent that would overcome serious constitutional challenge.

    Whether the courts would entertain such a challenge is a harder question. The “enrolled bill doctrine,” announced by the Supreme Court in Marshall Field v. Clark (1892), holds that the courts will not question whether a bill certified as having passed both houses of Congress was properly enacted. More recently, in United States v. Munoz-Flores (1990), in a footnote, the Supreme Court stated that Field concerned only the “evidence” the courts would consider in such a challenge and that when “a constitutional provision is implicated,” the enrolled bill doctrine would not apply. These holdings are not easy to reconcile. The D.C. Circuit, in a 1995 case, essentially said that it did not understand the Munoz-Flores footnote and thus would not follow it.

    The Supreme Court might well hold that Field governs only questions of historical fact, while Munoz-Flores governs questions of constitutional interpretation. In Field, the question was what text passed the two houses of Congress; there was no doubt that only what the two houses passed could be treated as law. Here, by contrast, there will be no dispute about what occurred in the House; the question will be whether using a self-executing rule in this way is consistent with Article I, Section 7. It is one thing for the Supreme Court to defer to Congress on questions of what Congress did, and quite another to defer to Congress on the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, in United States v. Ballin, decided the same year as Field, the Court ruled, “The Constitution empowers each House to determine its own rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints . . . .”

    One thing is sure: To proceed in this way creates an unnecessary risk that the legislation will be invalidated for violation of Article I, Section 7. Will wavering House members want to use this procedure when there is a nontrivial probability that the courts will render their political sacrifice wasted effort? To hazard that risk, the House leadership must have a powerful motive to avoid a straightforward vote.

  47. Judy Sabatini says:


    Ok,this is worth every MINUTE (ONLY 4) to watch this! THIS HITS IT OUT
    OF THE BALL PARK ! AND IT ONLY has HAD 24,048 views


  48. Judy Sabatini says:

    I hope this works, if not I’ll let you know what was said and who said.


  49. Good article from Kent McManigal:

    Consensus and ‘need’ are not sufficient
    March 20, 1:28 PMAlbuquerque Libertarian ExaminerKent McManigal

    Government may be an effective way to get some things you see no other way of getting, but it is still always wrong to use coercion. In the same vein, rape may be an effective way to “have sex” or to “feel strong and dominant” but it is always wrong, no matter how powerful your need and no matter the circumstances.

    Even if you would die unless you use government to steal on your behalf you are not right if you do so. This is a harsh reality, but it is still reality. Just like you may not like the fact that if you try to walk across the surface of the moon without protective equipment the realities of the Universe will cause your death. You may think it is “not fair” but the Universe does not care.

    “Fair” is not a part of reality, except when people with ethics intervene. Intervention can go either way. People can intervene for good or for evil. Coercion, theft, and fraud are forms of intervention that are always on the side of evil and any “good” that can come from them is nullified by the harm they cause. Both to the aggressor and to his victim.

    If everyone- every regular person, every philosopher, every scientist, and every other expert on earth throughout all of human history- agreed that aggression and theft were OK as long as you wear the silly hat of government, and not even one person ever questioned this premise, they would still all be wrong. That is enough for me.

    This has a connection with the traffic camera news from my previous column.

    The Albuquerque City Council is upset that this new law could end the entire traffic camera program in Albuquerque. What a shame. Look, Albuquerque City Council, theft is wrong even if you think the city really needs the stolen money. And to attempt to justify those profitable cameras by saying their loot pays for your entire camera system is completely twisted. If you (or your program) can’t survive without stealing from travelers you don’t deserve to survive. Go find an honest job somewhere, hope for charity, or starve.

  50. v. Holland says:

  51. v. Holland says:

    So we are fixing to have an “Historic vote” I’m not sure if historic is the right word-but I will say that I find it amazing that anyone could back what the democrats are doing-first they manipulate the use of reconciliation by taking things out of the bill that they know will have to be passed later but even with this manipulation they still couldn’t get this passed by their own party needing only 51 votes so they had to write letters committing themselves to pass these changes and now they have to throw in an executive order on top of everything else. If this passes and it looks like it will, it may be Historic but it’s an example of historic SHAME for the democrat party.

  52. v. Holland says:

    The definition of Hypocrite is Stupak-he kept stumbling over his words-I guess it’s hard to face the public when you know every word out of your mouth is BS.

  53. Thanks for nothing STUPAK !!! Does he really believe the EO. A govt big enough to give an EO is big enough to take away the same EO.

    • v. Holland says:

      He knows-maybe I’m being to hard on him-because I find it suspicious that those who speak the loudest against something always seem to be the ones brought to heel -wonder why that is?

      • I’m somewhat surprised. Stupak is from the UP of Mich. It’s very conservative up there. Only explanation I can come up with is he caught the Washington fever. Great.

        • Caved to the pressure. Who knows what else they promised him in return for his vote. If he loses his seat, they will find him a cushy job in government that pays him whatever he wants.

          What Obama does with an Executive Order can be undone with an Executive Order. This allows Stupak to save face and change his vote.

          Stupak is a Democrat and believes in big government.

          • v. Holland says:

            Don’t discount the possibility of threats-cookies aren’t necessarily the only inducement that may have been used.

            • Dang V..You’ve been hanging around Cyndi too long..Me too though. Anything is possible these days.

              • I AM the person your mother warned you about….BWHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA.


                • Quiet down out there. Get to snoring on that beach.. Bah hahahaha!

                  • Beach as been closed ALL weekend! Some poo-head screwed up and spilled some treated poo-poo into the lagoon, so now, no playing in the water. What’s the point of going to the beach if you can’t go in the pretty bluewater and watch the pretty fishes?

                    I’m checking the Force, and I’m not feeling any sympathy coming my way. 😉

  54. We all knew this day was coming. Congress will do whatever to get the votes to pass this bill.

    Black Flag and Kent are correct in their beliefs.

    The future is dark and getting darker.

    I hope we can survive whatever happens in the future.

    • Knowing this day has been coming doesn’t make it suck any less than does now that its here.


      • I will not watch any news this evening. Let them do what they are going to do. I am interested to see what the people do in the future.

        Yes, this day sucks.

    • v. Holland says:

      I’m angry Birdman but not that angry, I believe in VDLG-but no government has its own pitfalls. Although I admit today that VVVVDLG sounds right.

      • V. Holland:

        In time you’ll get to the point where no government sounds good.

        You should check out Professor Rowley’s blog today. These are the types of people we have voting in Congress. Scary!

        • Randal Scamardo says:

          Government should protect the citizens, not put them at the mercy of big business. Look at what happen in the gulf. Should government have allowed that to happen? Should they stay out of it now? Let me ride in the back of a pickup truck, grow what I want and have a gun. Business should not be allowed to trample on personal freedoms either.

  55. Judy Sabatini says:

    Obama to America — I Win, You Lose

    By Jon Kraushar

    – FOXNews.com

    “Give me tyranny and give me debt” has replaced “Give me liberty or give me death.”

    With his health care holy war, President Obama is sending America at least 10 messages since taking office:

    1. I win; you lose.
    2. My will; not the will of the people.
    3. Government of Obama, by Obama, for Obama; not government of the people, by the people, for the people.
    4. Corrupt House rules and autocracy; not play by the rules and democracy.
    5. “I’ll tread on you” now steps on “Don’t tread on me.”
    6. “I, the president”; not “We, the People.”
    7. “All men are created equal” but I am more equal than others.
    8. “The dissent of the president” overrules “the consent of the governed.”
    9. “Give me tyranny and give me debt” replaces “Give me liberty or give me death.”
    10. “That government is best which governs most” supersedes “That government is best which governs least.”

    • I like it. This is true. The American People, with the help of the MSM, elected a Communist to be President of the USA.

  56. Judy Sabatini says:

    It’s totally unconstitutional what they’re doing, and I hope these idiots who voted for this corrupted administration are kicking themselves all the way off the cliff.


    They’re all hypocrites, every last one of them. They’re turncoats. They’re liars and thieves and nothing but complete control freaks.

    Time for an uprising, time for revolting. Time to take this country back to where it belongs. TO US, THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA. It’s we the people, not we the government who take control of your lives.

    Hope they all get what’s coming to them in November, if not sooner. Time to impeach them all, every last one of them. Nothing but a bunch of thieving maggots.

  57. Interesting information on debt saturation. I’m not sure if the graph will copy over so I will also place a link to the original article at the bottom.

    Black Flag, if you are out there I would like your opinion.

    Nathan’s Economic Edge says that this is The Most Important Chart of the Century, and until we see another chart with as much impact, we’ll tend to agree:

    The latest U.S. Treasury Z1 Flow of Funds report was released on March 11, 2010, bringing the data current through the end of 2009. What follows is the most important chart of your lifetime. It relegates almost all modern economists and economic theory to the dustbin of history. Any economic theory, formula, or relationship that does not consider this non-linear relationship of DEBT and phase transition is destined to fail.

    It explains the “jobless” recoveries of the past and how each recent economic cycle produces higher money figures, yet lower employment. It explains why we are seeing debt driven events that circle the globe. It explains the psychological uneasiness that underpins this point in history, the elephant in the room that nobody sees or can describe.

    This is a very simple chart. It takes the change in GDP and divides it by the change in Debt. What it shows is how much productivity is gained by infusing $1 of debt into our debt backed money system.

    Back in the early 1960s a dollar of new debt added almost a dollar to the nation’s output of goods and services. As more debt enters the system the productivity gained by new debt diminishes. This produced a path that was following a diminishing line targeting ZERO in the year 2015. This meant that we could expect that each new dollar of debt added in the year 2015 would add NOTHING to our productivity.

    Then a funny thing happened along the way. Macroeconomic DEBT SATURATION occurred causing a phase transition with our debt relationship. This is because total income can no longer support total debt. In the third quarter of 2009 each dollar of debt added produced NEGATIVE 15 cents of productivity, and at the end of 2009, each dollar of new debt now SUBTRACTS 45 cents from GDP!

    This is mathematical PROOF that debt saturation has occurred. Continuing to add debt into a saturated system, where all money is debt, leads only to future defaults and to higher unemployment.

    We’ve pointed out in the past what mainstream news sources refuse to publish, and this is no exception.

    The mathematics, even for those of us who are not expert economists or mathematically inclined, is quite easy to understand. Once you take on more debt than you have the capability of repaying, you have a problem.

    We have this problem in America, and the end result is going to be a massive devaluation of the US dollar or a flat-out default.

    If you subscribe to the theory that “two plus two equals four” than you understand basic math and have some common sense, and taking the above chart into consideration, you probably have a good understanding of what will eventually happen to the US economy, the US dollar, unemployment, consumer spending, consumer credit, and wages.

    Link to site:


  58. Judy Sabatini says:

    I’d like to slap that smug look right off their faces right now. The arrogant looks they have, that holier than tho look they have.

  59. Judy Sabatini says:

    I heard Reid say the other night on the news, that he didn’t care if he got re elected this November, just as long as that bill passes.

    Well, guess what Harry, you can kiss your job goodbye after making a statement like that.

    • Not so fast Judy– They could rig it to where he wins!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        There are a lot of people here that want him out, and the sooner the better. They or we, are not happy with the way he treated his fellow Nevadans. He has turned his back on Nevada, and not has done anything for this state even though he says other wise. He claims to have created some 36,000 jobs here, and yet people are still looking for work. He makes a lot of claims here with everything he’s supposedly has done, but yet we can’t see it.

        If they rig it where he wins again, then there is something definitely wrong with our voting system here.

  60. My name is Jesse Holland and I am a candidate for the United States Senate to replace Harry Reid in Nevada. I am a running as a NonPartisan candidate. Apparently as people tend to recede from the party systems that have damaged our country ruthlessly, the media cares not for the people and drives opportunity for the truth, or honest candidates, under the airwave radar. The Democrats are remodeling under a guise of care for the poor and the Republicans are ironically molding themselves as a party of change. In the meantime, Republicats are spending millions of dollars to convince the public of their deceptions. There is nothing official about my request, but to ask if you would view my websites, watch my videos and decide if you could forward my drive as a valid option to those you may know in the country? What ever happened to voting for what is right and not from the best of a few bad apples?

    I am a conventional man. My name is Jesse Holland and I am a NonPartisan Candidate for US Senate. I am not a simple guy standing in the corner waiting for direction to move. I am a guy running forward and diligently working to restore our country and state. You can verify this by checking my websites HollandforSenate.com Holland4Senate.com VoteNonPartisan.com and see for yourself!

    • Hi Jesse,

      Ok, I checked out your first website listed and it sounds as though you are pretty well grounded in your principles. It all SOUNDS good. Now.. can you walk the walk? I like the sounds that you are influenced by your faith. Can’t hurt, right? Good luck on your campaign.

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        I can’t say if I ever heard of him to tell you the truth. The only 2 that I know of who are running, is Sue lowden, and Danny Tarkanian.

      • Hi Anita,

        Thank you for your kind words that support foundational principles for freedom and a government ‘of the people, for the people and by the people.’ More importantly, thank you for actually taking the time to investigate candidates rather than just parroting an overused and abused name. Yes, some candidates toss money around like confetti and then continue to squash our voice. Is not the government the people? This might interest you as well – http://elkodaily.com/articles/2010/04/24/opinion/editorial/doc4bd27eedc1241948936319.txt

  61. TexasChem says:

    Watching the Healthcare coverage on Fox and Hannity is interviewing Representative(R)Nunes from California and he says “The crazies are in control!” in referance to a democrat on the rules committee saying they are trying to accomplish something and they (the Democrats) make the rules up as they go along to accomplish what they want! Holy smokes I was rolling with laughter.It was hilarious.

  62. Calm Down V…Please dont harm you TV

    • v. Holland says:

      I guess the bill passed -I turned the channel and watched a movie awhile back -got tired of the democrats repeating ad nauseam how principled they are.

      • Yep, sickening.

        Steel the GOP chairman is telling people to go to the GOP site and there is petition to recall Pelosi. I couldn’t take a look, must be busy. Seems like only her own voters could do a recall? Maybe he meant impeach.

        • What a crock! I finally got on the site and there is no damn petition, just a place to donate and elect enough Repubs to take away her speaker of the house status. Micheal Steele is full of it.

      • I can’t bring my self to turn on the TV. I’m sure my O-bot boyfriend will high on Hopeyium. Crap….

        • USWeapon says:

          Beyond all the madness of this night, your Hopeyium comment was the one thing that made me laugh. I am going to start using that if you don’t mind. Just like Opium, only changier.

          • By all means! 😉

            Do you mind if I use your “Just like Opium, only changier”?


            • USWeapon says:

              Absolutely you can use it! LOL

              Hope all is well in your world Cyndi. Sorry your beaches were closed. Should be an interesting discussion around the right to vote.

        • Cyndi,

          Good term, Hopeyium.

          I don’t know how you stand it, though, I’m afraid it would come to physical violence if I had to deal with a lib. I wonder if I would still get my govt health care in jail?…lol

          • It ain’t easy, LOL! This site is a God-send for me. I discuss my politics here instead of with him! On the occanssions we do get into it, look out!

            He seems to think that Obama is finally going to turn America into what it should always have been, wherever that is, and that I’m just brainwashed and negative. I think that when Obamaland is complete, he’ll be penniless like millions of other former middle class folks and he’ll have no one to blame but himself. As for my course of action, should I make it out and into another country, he’ll be welcome to join me, or not. I’ve already done it to him once, LOL! Around the end of 2006, I saw the writing on the wall for Brevard county FL where we lived. I knew that with the Dems in both houses, the economy would just get worse including the ending of the space programs. Brevard county relies heavily on that industry and I felt it wouldn’t survive. Barry was very unhappy with me for taking this job out here, but eventually he came around to my way of thinking and got a job here too. Being here is great. I love my job, the island, and have turmed my finances around for the better. I’ve decided that if something happens to the jobs out here, I’ll take up the invation to from my auntie in Peru. Barry can do what he wants. That’s why I can put up with his being a lib. Eventually, reality will bite him in the butt. I don’t have to do anything.

  63. Just in case you’re not depressed enough already…sheesh, this is disturbing.


    Crashing Towards a New World Social Order 2012

  64. v. Holland says:

    I can’t believe this man is our President-he knows that a large portion of this country is against this bill but does he speak of coming together-NO-he bit#@s about bad press and lectures about common sense-He is either the most petty person in the world or he really doesn’t care if he tears this country apart.

  65. Well now the real fight starts. How do you keep doctors from quitting? Where are the NEW MEDICAL PERSONNEL GOING TO COME FROM?? 30 million more people going to ER’S.

    California should be pushed in to BANKRUPTCY!! by this bill, even faster.

    • I can’t wait to see how the markets react to this. The rest of the world KNOWS America doesn’t have the money for this, not to mention they also know we’re lead by a mere mortal, unlike a third of Americans who think he’s a god.

      This is what happens when you allow Marxists into the highest levels of power. And just think, they’re only just gettin’ started. The immigration bill should be REALLY popular, but they’ll ram that through too. I wonder when Americans will put their collect foot down on this crapola?

    • Thanks. I’m not going to hell.. I’m already in hell… See how that ties to the Agenda 21 crowd?

  66. Told ya.

  67. PapaDawg says:

    Mistake or not . . . . . . The United States House Of Representatives just sealed the fate of this country. We are no longer a free nation. We are no longer citizens. From the moment they passed “Obamacare” we became SUBJECTS!

  68. I thought this was a well written article:

    If you weren’t sure before, this should pretty much close the deal for you. You are now living in a socialist country. Neal Boortz discusses what we can expect from our now socialized health care plan in Game Over…Let Me Tell You What Happens Next:

    Taxes, of course, go up immediately. How much in new taxes? Try one trillion dollars. A huge portion of these taxes will hit America’s small businesses … our jobs creation machine. There will be increases in Social Security Taxes and Medicare taxes. There will be new taxes for something called CLASS … a long term in-home health care program. Then there will be a new 3.8% (What the hell … call it 4%) tax on investment income. Just what our economy needed at a time when unemployment is rampant … new taxes on the very sector of our economy that creates jobs.

    Businesses will hunker down even more than they have been. Business planning is a long-term affair .. and businessmen will know that in a few years 50 will be the magic number when it comes to government health insurance mandates; and this includes part-time employees. So you will see businesses with just over 50 employees starting to cut back. People will lose their jobs so that the business can stay under the threshold. New business start-ups will alter business plans to make sure that they don’t meet or cross that threshold when the mandates kick in.

    Younger Americans with health insurance will drop their policies. Sure, they know that they will have to pay a penalty when they file their taxes, but that penalty will be much less than the cost of a health insurance policy … costs that will be going up. Besides … because insurance companies can no longer discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, there is absolutely no reason in the world to go out there and buy an insurance policy until you really become ill.

    Since health young Americans will be dropping insurance, or staying out of the market if they never had insurance in the first place, the insurance companies will find more and more that their customers are among the unhealthiest of Americans. This means more benefits paid, of course, which will result in higher premiums. What’s more, there will no longer be a lifetime cap on benefits. Even a government-educated ObamaSycophant could understand that this, too, will lead to increased premiums. But wait! There’s more! Children will be able to stay on their parent’s policies until age 26. What does this mean? Increased payouts on their parent’s policies. How can you not see where this is all going?

    With so many more people added to the insurance rolls – people who are not paying for their policies out of their own pockets – there will be a huge increase in people seeking medical care they don’t really need. Just check Boca Raton, Florida and the Medicare recipients down there. Do you remember the investigative report which showed the Boca Medicare crowd treated their weekly doctor’s visits as a part of their social life? They didn’t necessarily need care, they just wanted to see their friends and the doctor’s waiting room was the meeting place. Now that each and every American will have a medical care entitlement, not just the Boca Biddies, you can look for a huge increase in the demand for medical services. And guess what? This huge demand will hit at a time when doctors are deciding to hang it up. They didn’t sign on to work for the government, and the passage of ObamaCare is their signal to start making their escape plans.

    As the demand for medical services increases exponentially, the money to pay for those services will dry up, even with the increased taxes. The inevitable result, then, will be the rationing of health care. There are no words to adequately describe the base ignorance and stupidity of any American who does not realize that rationing is on the way.

    As health insurance premiums rise – as people start clogging doctors offices – as the quality of care gradually declines – there will be more and more cries from the dumb masses for the government to “do something.” The political class will be ready to do something all right. Politicians will start telling the dumb masses that the private insurance companies have shown themselves not to be up to the task. They were given the chance, and they blew it. So now it’s time for the government option … its time for the government to offer its own health insurance product.

    The new cure-all – the so-called “public option” – will not have any of the constraints placed on it that private insurance companies have to deal with. The government insurance plan will be able to draw from an inexhaustible supply of government grants and bailouts. Instead of raising premiums to cover benefits, the government plan will simply borrow more and more money. Net result: Slowly but surely government competition will force private insurance out of the marketplace. You simply cannot compete with an entity that can lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year without ever having to go into bankruptcy.

    Politicians have always known that the government option would work this way. It has never been anything less than a method to be used to destroy the private health insurance marketplace. What’s next? The magic Democrat wet dream … “single payer.”

    Single payer simply means that one entity will write all the checks. Whether it’s for a doctor’s visit, a prescription, physical therapy … whatever, the payments come from one source, and that source is the government. If the government is the only entity that is legally permitted to render payment for health care services … then that puts the government in complete and absolute control of all healthcare. If you don’t think that the person who controls your healthcare controls YOU … then you’ve never been really, really sick.

    Welcome to the new America.

    Author: Mac Slavo
    Date: March 22nd, 2010
    Visit the Author’s Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/

  69. Randal Scamardo says:

    Our ridiculous healthcare system is going to collapse faster this way. Bleeding people of their financial resources so that they can have what every doctor takes an oath to provide will not float anymore. Maybe one day we can catch up to countries that function on commonsense rather than greed. At the moment we have been left in the dust in many respects, not just ethically. Our culture is finally outgrowing this hypercapitalistic naivete. It is not sustainable. People will always moan and groan about change, especially when they are forced to share. Just like children.

%d bloggers like this: