Tuesday Night Open Mic for March 23, 2010

Tuesday night comes and it couldn’t come a moment too soon. I have never hid the fact that I like the open mic nights. Not only can I talk about topics in a short form without a lot of research, but I get to see all the stuff that everyone else wants to talk about. And as an added bonus, we come off a day where there was lots of discussions around the health care situation. During the day Wednesday I may weigh in more on health care (if I do decide to do this I will move it to this thread). But I also wanted to address some other topics, such as the one that JAC began towards the end of Monday that I promised I would post tonight. Meanwhile, Canine Weapon decided tonight that our couch was a pillow, and a pillow was a toy, so he literally tore open the couch and deposited stuffing throughout the living room. There is a move that will cost us a couple grand to rectify. Fortunately, it was the old couch, not the new one. Took him all of 15 minutes to completely destroy it. The joys of puppyhood.


  1. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #1

    Cyber Attack on U.S. Firms, Google Traced to Chinese

    The cyber attack on Google and other U.S. companies was part of a suspected Chinese government operation launched last year that used human intelligence techniques and high-technology to steal corporate secrets, U.S. government and private-sector cybersecurity specialists told The Washington Times.

    More worrying is the likelihood that the cyber attacks that led Google this week to end its cooperation with Beijing-controlled censorship and move its search engine service to Hong Kong included planting undetectable software on American company networks that could allow further clandestine access or even total control of computers in the future.

    An Obama administration official said the U.S. government was able, with some confidence, to link the attack, first discovered last summer, to Chinese government organs. However, the official declined to provide details to avoid making future Chinese cyber-attack identification more difficult.

    “The attack was very targeted. It targeted engineers and quality assurance developers, people with very high levels of access into the organization,” said George Kurtz, chief technology officer for computer security firm McAfee who investigated the attack for several of the affected companies.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/24/cyber-attack-firms-google-traced-chinese/

    As I have longed expected, the real threat that America faces is not from suicide bombers attacking cities in the United States. The real threat is technology attacks that work to cripple the US from within. We have all heard the claims about our power grid and its vulnerability. And we watched as Obama also reached too far in that arena, opting for the ability to shut down the internet rather than simply revamping the system so that it wasn’t accessible from outside the network. Genius.

    But this is a bit different. Obviously this is coming from a US news source. Which is probably getting its information from the US government. Which means that it is suspect information at best. I don’t think anyone will dispute at this point that the government will tell whatever lie they have to in order to get the American public to go along with what they want to do. But let’s first take this story at its word. Let’s say elements of the Chinese government are responsible for this. I have a question for BF…

    How do you classify this in the realm of national protection? There is no physical threat that I can see from this. But it could obviously do dramatic damage to our economic system. Taken a step further they could be accessing secret information, gaining control of US defense networks, or any number of other things that could be done through a computer. How do you deal with it? How far do they have to go before we take physical action against them, in a purely hypothetical world (in other words I don’t want to get into specifics of what China is capable of militarily or any of that hoo ha, pretend it is any country, doesn’t matter who)? Or is there never a time when attacks such as these warrant any type of action by us to protect ourselves from this? Just want you to offer your take on it.

    Now to the bigger issue as I see it. I personally am skeptical of this report. I believe that the government will do anything in order to make a case for what they want to sell the to the American people. Planting big stories in the media about foreign attacks on the cyber level could be the first step in what is nothing but a propaganda campaign aimed at swaying public opinion. They have lied to make a case for the Iraq war, health care reform, the Patriot Act, stimulus spending, bank bailouts, auto takeovers, cap & trade, and god knows what else. So what are the chances that this is nothing more than the first step in convincing the public that the government needs far reaching power over the internet in order to protect us from these threats? When in reality they want nothing more than control over the one communication medium they cannot currently control.

    • Hey US Weapon,
      No responses to this?? Do I get the first and last word??

      You kinda waffle around here. You acknowledge the threat of cyber attacks, but then accuse the Obama Administration of making this stuff up??

      You have to pick a side and stick to it!!! 🙂

      And we watched as Obama also reached too far in that arena, opting for the ability to shut down the internet rather than simply revamping the system so that it wasn’t accessible from outside the network.

      How would you “revamp the system so that it wasn’t accessible from outside the network”? Most large US companies have international operations and IT contractors working from all over the world. Commerce is global. You can’t “cut the cable” at the US border…

      Obviously this is coming from a US news source. Which is probably getting its information from the US government.

      So now Fox News is a mouth piece for the Obama Administration??? 😉

      And Goggle is taking action at the request of the Obama Administration to make the threat seem legitimate???

      I don’t think anyone will dispute at this point that the government will tell whatever lie they have to in order to get the American public to go along with what they want to do.

      I’ll dispute this. This is statement is just a little to generic…

      How do you classify this in the realm of national protection? There is no physical threat that I can see from this.

      This is a HUGE physical threat. Bring down the power grid, disrupt companies and our economy (and everything else you mentioned). Cause mass fear, panic, riots, etc. Really big, well planned cyber attacks could cripple or disrupt the US military all over the world…

      Lots of really bad possibilities…

      These types of attacks can also be intell gathering missions. How far can they get in? How do we respond? What weaknesses can they find that they can exploit later?

      It’s just like small military incursions where you see how your enemy responds and plan future attacks accordingly…

      The response to this is not military. It is better network security and redundancy. It is economic, like Google pulling out of China.

      If China wants to be an economic power, they have to act like one.

      Now to the bigger issue as I see it…

      Sorry, I don’t share this vision…

      • USWeapon says:

        Sure Todd, you can have the first word, but not the last.

        I didn’t waffle around. I acknowledge that the threat of cyber attacks is real. I specifically noted that this was a different scenario. In this case the US is directly saying that a major foreign power’s government is the culprit. I am not sure that I am buying that notion. If it is true, then by all means go to the UN and get some action taken.

        How would you “revamp the system so that it wasn’t accessible from outside the network”? Most large US companies have international operations and IT contractors working from all over the world. Commerce is global. You can’t “cut the cable” at the US border…

        Pay attention, I don’t want to lose you 😉
        What I was talking about was the power grid. That was the premise used to forward a bill giving the President the power to shut down the internet in an emergency. Our power grid doesn’t need to be connected to the outside world. In fact, it doesn’t have to have anything other than a very local network for control and monitoring. There is no reason why the simple solution of keeping the power grid on a closed local network shouldn’t be taken rather than giving broad power to shut down the internet.

        So now Fox News is a mouth piece for the Obama Administration???

        And Goggle is taking action at the request of the Obama Administration to make the threat seem legitimate???

        Fox News is a mouthpiece for the federal government just like every other major news provider. They report what the government gives them. Fox just also finds ways to annoy Democrats, just like MSNBC also finds a way to annoy Republicans and people who can think. As for google, perhaps they are making their decision based on the government’s word that they traced the source to China. I can’t speak for Google.

        I don’t think anyone will dispute at this point that the government will tell whatever lie they have to in order to get the American public to go along with what they want to do.

        I’ll dispute this. This is statement is just a little to generic…

        Dispute it if you want. But I don’t think it is too generic. And I don’t think it is an exaggeration either. The federal government, both parties included, will lie about absolutely anything and everything in order to get the public to go along with whatever they want to do. I wish it weren’t so, but history doesn’t lie. You can find more than enough evidence to prove this theory.

        This is a HUGE physical threat. Bring down the power grid, disrupt companies and our economy (and everything else you mentioned). Cause mass fear, panic, riots, etc. Really big, well planned cyber attacks could cripple or disrupt the US military all over the world…

        Lots of really bad possibilities…

        Let’s be clear that this question was directed at Black Flag. So in framing it for him, we must be clear that no physically violent action has taken place. Do I personally see it as a physical threat? You bet. I full understand the physical threat that these types of attack pose. But I have a feeling that BF will say that no animals were harmed in the making of this attack, therefore no one has the right to “defend” themselves. I was framing it based on my perception of how he would view it. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t welcome answers from everyone. That was the long way of saying I agree with you here.

        Now to the bigger issue as I see it…

        Sorry, I don’t share this vision…

        I wouldn’t figure that you would. You are far too trusting of these jackals in Congress and the White House. I have worked with them, and know the depths they will go to. Doesn’t mean I am right.

        Doesn’t mean I am wrong either.

        • US Weapon,
          Sorry, I missed your direct power grid connection. Since the article was about internet attacks and security, I was focusing on that.

          Our power grid does need to be connected to the outside world – we get large amounts of power from Canada.

          The entire power grid is inter-connected because that’s the most efficient way to distribute power, so the network that controls the power grid can’t be a very local network. Distribution networks have to know about power supply and demand around the country so the power can be generated and consumed efficiently. The control and monitoring network has to match the supply, distribution, and demand networks.

          A very local network for control and monitoring would cause brown-outs in some areas and unused power in other areas.

          You can’t keep the power grid on a closed local network. That simply won’t work.

          The Washington Times article lists two private security firms as well as Google’s own investigation. It’s ridicules to think that Google, or any other large company, would take the government’s word as to the source of these attacks. You just hear very little about the private-sector efforts because companies do not want to admit to the public that they were hacked.

          • USWeapon says:


            All fair points. I was unaware that the power gird was set up that way. I guess I am too old school and not up to date on how the power grid works. Could the grids themselves be set up on local networks while the information sharing needed is on global networks. I understand that a solution like this would be more work and tougher to do, but is it possible. The key thing to do here would be secure the grid. I would think a solution like that would be better than the idea of shutting down the internet.

            Perhaps that is why no one responded but you! Everyone else just said “stupid USWeapon” and left it alone so as to not make me feel stupid.

            You still should not trust the jackals.

        • Hi USW,

          I’ve noticed that many people are VERY trusting of the jackals. I don’t get it. If someone in my personal life, jerked me around and lied to me like the aformentioned jackals, there is no way I’d trust that person. I just don’t understand why so many Americans trust the politicians like they do. It doesn’t make any sense to me.


          • USWeapon says:


            No one in either party has given us any reason at all to think we should trust them, yet American still does. Baffling.

            • A number of years ago I saw a program on TV about how the UK was using a computer app.to track the flow of money “to” an “from” criminal organizations or individuals.
              At the start of the app it looked like a big ball of twine rolled up. They put in one name and slowly the ball start to unroll, showing bank accounts,phone #, amount of money and where it came from account numbers, an names.
              The old adage is follow the money!!
              At the end of show people came on and said that
              the app was able to do in about an hour what would have taken 5 years to do with out it.

              There are registries which issue domain names and most IP addresses you can do a host look-up.

              Now most people are still using ipv4,which is 32 bits in length, when ipv6(128 bits) has wide usage it has almost unlimited ip addresses. Now if some where they have a couple of super computers crunching ip addresses, they know where the attacks originate from.

              On a boring night in the 60’s we would try to entice North Vietnam radars to come up. If they did we lock on to their frequency and dump 7 mega watts of power to their front ends an burn out the receivers. Do not tell me technology has not come light years from that medieval time

              Unless they are using an onion router it is very easy to trace. Right now an ip look-up of my address it says I am in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, several thousan miles from land, which I am not.

    • I agree with the suspect nature of the report, in similar fashion and for similar reason that I am suspect of the investigations into Toyota. More importantly, however, I see it as a power grab based on an attack on the US. Shutting down the internet to control an attack on our power grid is like closing the highway system to prevent carjacking.

      Shutting down the internet in a way that would effectively protect our power grid without taking any other measures would also effectively shut down all communications with other countries. That would cut us off from our allies and, more importantly, would cut off any intelligence gathering we could do on our enemy. It is the most strategically unsound concept I have heard in years.

      An effective means would be to shift to manual control while leaving the sensors in place. In other words, the controls are currently automated to coordinate with national and international power flow according to the sensory system that is in place. The fix is to put in a manual override for the controls while leaving the sensory grid in place so that in the event of an attack the system could be switched to manual control.

      Another effective means would be to keep the automated system in place but insulate full shutdown on any sector of the grid. For safety, this would require a bit of infrastructure upgrade with capacitors and grounding systems to prevent overloads. That type of sensory system would not be required to be internet based. A mix of the two might be ideal, but the first is significantly cheaper and could be implemented within a few months.

      The other aspect of the whole thing is that an attack on the grid would only really be effective in combination with a physical attack. The effect of a power outage would not be long lasting or financially debilitating unless they were able to take down the entire grid at once. That is not as easy as Obama is making it sound. The more damaging financial impact of all this is the corporate espionage. Technology and trade secrets of US companies being stolen and used against us is far more damaging than threats to our power grid.

      I am glad google is not cooperating with China, they never should have. There is no excuse for cooperating with a country whose government wants to control what can be found on the internet. I don’t have a huge issue with rules about having disclaimers and age requirements on certain sites, but actual restriction is not acceptable. I feel the same way about “shutting down the internet”. If our government pulls that crap there will be no measure to how swiftly American hackers will bring down the government system and get us back online. And they should have the full support of the American people in a case like that.

  2. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #2

    Fox News Poll: 79% Say U.S. Economy Could Collapse

    Most American voters believe it’s possible the nation’s economy could collapse, and majorities don’t think elected officials in Washington have ideas for fixing it.

    The latest Fox News poll finds that 79 percent of voters think it’s possible the economy could collapse, including large majorities of Democrats (72 percent), Republicans (84 percent) and independents (80 percent).

    Just 18 percent think the economy is “so big and strong it could never collapse.”

    Moreover, 78 percent of voters believe the federal government is “larger and more costly” than it has ever been before, and by nearly three-to-one more voters think the national debt (65 percent) is a greater potential threat to the country’s future than terrorism (23 percent).

    Who has a plan for dealing with the economy?

    Overall, 35 percent of voters think the Obama administration has a clear plan for fixing the economy, down from 42 percent last summer (July 21-22, 2009).

    At the same time the number saying the White House doesn’t have a plan for the economy has increased from 53 percent in July to 62 percent in the new poll. That includes almost all Republicans (88 percent), two-thirds of independents (67 percent), as well as a third of Democrats (33 percent).

    Even fewer people think Democrats in Congress (24 percent) and Republicans in Congress (16 percent) have clear plans to fix the economy.

    There is a large gap in party support, as Democrats (46 percent) are significantly more likely than Republicans (25 percent) to think their party has a strategy for the economy.

    Read the rest of the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/23/fox-news-poll-say-economy-collapse/?test=latestnews

    I found this poll interesting for a couple of reasons. The first big thing that jumped out to me was the fact that a vast amount of Republicans do not believe that Republicans have a plan to help fix the economy. But heck, even the majority of Democrats don’t think Democrats have a plan. One of the interesting things is that people had a real differentiation between the different factions of a party. For example, Democrats have differing numbers for different parts of government. 46% of Dems think their party has a plan. 24% of Dems think their party members in Congress has a plan. 66% of Dems think the Obama administration has a plan. Do people not realize that Democrats in Congress, the White House, and the DNC are all the same party and they all share information and goals? Why aren’t the numbers uniform for all three parts of the party?

    But the real question is whether the major result of the poll, the headline, is accurate or simple hysterical fear. How many of you at SUFA believe that the economy has a good chance of collapsing? How many of you don’t think it is a good chance but it could happen? I personally believe that it is inevitable at this point. They have pushed off economic consequences for a very long time and I think that the gig is almost up. They doubled the amount of currency in circulation. They are increasing debt far too fast with no way of paying it off.

    I would say that short of a major war being started to jumpstart manufacturing, and subsequently the economy, that we will see the United States economy completely falter before the end of the century. I know many here feel it will be next week, next year, or in the next few. I don’t know yet if I am buying that. But I don’t see a way around it eventually happening. And if it does happen I am interested in hearing thoughts on why and what you think it will look like.

    For me personally, I think economic collapse will happen quickly when it does happen, taking less than a year. And I think that the result will be the immediate secession from the union of states that are more economically stable. When the collapse comes, states like New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois, Michigan, and Washington will immediately be offered more support from the federal government because they will be in the most trouble. As a result states like Texas, Pennsylvania, Montana, and Wyoming will decide that they are not interested in sacrificing in order to save states that were less fiscally responsible. So they will secede and go it alone, knowing that they can survive because they planned for a rainy day when the federal government couldn’t save them.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I think for most of us it can be hard to fully accept that we are headed for economic collapse. Most of us have lived lives of security and even though we may logically think we are headed for economic collapse it is hard for us to truly believe it in our hearts.

      Congress proved they don’t believe it by passing this expensive health control bill.

      It is probably unpredictable as to when or how extreme ‘collapse’ might be. If we are lucky it will take a long time and be so drawn out we will have time to adapt to third world standards. Or it could happen tomorrow all at once.

      We should all be preparing for the worst, but how do you prepare for something like that? One little oversight and all your plans are for nothing. There is no upside unless you fantasize being the last person standing.

      • I’m concerned that Dear Reader and his crew, will/want to make it happen FAST. That way they can use the ‘crisis’ to ‘do things you wouldn’t normally be able to do”. Rahm Emmanual has been caught on tape saying these words. Look at what this bunch as done since they assumed power. Everything is a crisis and they have the solution. Why should I believe an economic collapse wouldn’t be used to further the agenda? I think the Wrecking Crew would LOVE violence to break out and that they are in fact preparing the battle field even now. Look at the plans, the EOs, the military prepartion for ‘civilan’ dislocations, that are being made, the dehumanization of the political opposition as ‘haters’ , right wing extremists, and the false accusations of ‘racist’ comments. The big picture is coming into focus, for me at least, and I’m not liking it.

    • USW

      I do not see COLLAPSE.

      I see a very prolonged period of sickness with a heavy dose of Blahhh and Yuuuuuk for good measure.

      It will not change until new tech development launches the next big growth. Then it will be good until the govt figures out how to mess it up, or until the speculatiors destroy it with another Bubble.

    • Absolute economic collapse is possible. Economic decline is unavoidable. Spiraling government debt and the printing of money has consequences that can only be glossed over for so long. At some point it all comes due, when who knows. A wise person is one that is prepared for whatever may happen. Now is the time to prepare. You never know what the future holds, recession, depression, job loss, illness or a natural disaster.

    • I see a collapse of the economy. I am not sure when it will happen. I believe there is a chance that it could happen within 2 to 5 years (worse case). I am also trying to prepare by purchasing supplies like food and water. I will continue to do that no matter where I live.

      The problem is debt, unfunded liabilities, printing of money and 2 wars. We all know social security is going in the red this year but we also have medicare, medicaid, welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, CHIP, SCHIP, and now the Healthcare Law. We are a bankrupt nation. We will start to default on our obligations sooner or later. Inflation and/or hyperinflation will probably occur sooner or later.

      I think the collapse will come quickly when it starts (6 months to a year). The collapse of the economy does not mean the government collapses. Government will try to hang on and find enemies to blame. There will be chaos. I believe that Black Flag is correct that the major cities will bear the brunt of the collapse but it will be felt throughout the country. People will turn to the government but they will be unable to do anything except declare marshall law in the major cities. Everything will be rationed in major cities.

      I agree that some states will seceed from the USA. Too bad for me because I am moving to Illinois and that is one state that will stay in the Union. I envy those that live in Texas, Montana, Nebraska and other sparsley populated states.

  3. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #3

    Why Is AG Rob McKenna Suing the Federal Government to Stop Health Care?

    But even before President Obama could put pen to paper, Washington Attorney General Robert McKenna announced that he was hell bent on tearing down all of this progress.

    By announcing that he would join a partisan group of Attorneys General from states like South Carolina and Texas in suing the federal government to stop health care reform, he’s made it clear this isn’t about people — it’s about scoring cheap political points with the extreme right wing.

    This is unacceptable. My colleagues and I fought over 2,000 insurance lobbyists in Washington DC to get health care reform passed — and now we have to fight Washington State’s Attorney General too?

    While I was working until 3am Saturday night to negotiate a solution to longstanding inequities in Medicare and cobble together the votes to pass the bill, I was doing what was right for Washingtonians.

    Meanwhile, all weekend, right-wing Tea Partiers attacked our efforts and stopped at nothing to try to kill this landmark bill. I knew we’d be in for more of these attacks — but I didn’t expect it to come from our own Attorney General.

    We have fought too hard and have come too far to give up now. This legislation delivers critical reforms, like providing health insurance for an additional 32 million Americans, eliminates discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, and corrects reimbursement disparities that have been costing Washington families for decades. That is a big win for all of us, and I won’t let Rob McKenna take it away.

    If you agree that we can’t give up critical reform that was 30 years in the making for one politician to try to win the support of right-wing extremists, then sign this emergency petition right now.

    Read the rest of the article here (and by god enjoy the ridiculous comments): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jay-inslee/why-is-ag-rob-mckenna-sui_b_510602.html

    You know, I almost couldn’t go on to the Huffington Post simply because of the craziness that passes for discussion in their articles. And this is on top of the fact that the political articles deal with nothing but health care. Interestingly, none of the articles are negative on the health care reform. They either spend paragraphs praising Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic party in general for what they have done. If they are critical it is because they wanted more government control, a public option, or they spent their paragraphs outlining the next steps in order to create a socialist state of health care. All emotion. Zero Substance.

    Take this article written by Washington Representative Jay Inslee. He is so upset that the Attorney Generals of the states are challenging the constitutionality of this legislation. And what killed me about this was the tone that he is taking. They worked SO hard to get this done, why would these evil AG’s attack their beautiful health care bill?

    Well I got have some news for you Jay. You don’t have to do a damn thing. “Now we have to fight the Washington AG too?” No, you don’t. In fact you don’t have anything to do with it at this point. The AG’s are suing the federal government because they don’t believe that what you did was permissible according to the Constitution. The federal government lawyers will be taking this on, not you.

    And I find it interesting that you are circulating a petition that requests that this action be stopped. In other words you are working a petition aimed to ensure that the constitutionality of what you have passed is not challenged. If you think what you did is right, and you believe that you didn’t defy the Constitution in passing this bill, then why on earth are you worried about these AG’s proceeding? If it is Constitutional, they will lose and you will be deemed as doing the right thing (no matter how flawed that conclusion would be).

    The only reason to oppose a Constitutional challenge to what you have passed is if you believe that once put up against the Constitution, your bill will not pass the test. And if that is the case, you should not have passed it in the first place.

    I absolutely applaud the AG’s from these states filing suit. This bill puts massive financial burdens on the individual states, and the bill further violates the Constitution, in my opinion. It should be challenged. But it isn’t lost on me that only a day after it was passed, they are already getting into a mode that is aimed at ensuring their disaster of a bill doesn’t get challenged in a court. Lord forbid you actually believe that what you did was right and you don’t have to worry about it.

    I guess the worry tells us that even members of Congress know that what they did was out of line.

    • Good Morning 🙂

      If the mandate to purchase health insurance (or anything else) is deemed Constitutional, then the people no longer run their country. This could be the straw the breaks the Camels back, leading to any number of things, succession, civil war, revelution ect. This could also speed up the economic collapse if states would withhold federal taxes from D.C. Interesting times indeed.

      Peace and Live Free!


      • Buck The Wala says:

        Yesterday I hope I didn’t come across as implying that the mandate is obviously constitutional. I was more playing devil’s advocate than anything else. To be perfectly clear, I am on the fence. There are strong and valid arguments I can see on both sides on this issue.

        • Thanks for that clarification Buck. There will be no argument…big brother has spoken…just wait and see.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            No – definitely an argument. It will be very interesting to follow and see what happens.

            The VA AG is proceeding steamily ahead on the commerce clause issue and on a state issue that VA state law conflicts with the mandate (the latter issue doesn’t make much sense to me given the Supremacy Clause, but am unsure of the specifics here). Other AGs are proceeding a bit more cautiously on a 10th Amendment avenue — much safer bet in my opinion. Seems the VA AG just wants to make a name for himself rather than joining in on a united front with all the others.

            • I know, I reside in Louisiana and we are in on it. I am simply saying that no matter how good or right the argument, big brother will win out…do I agree the argument has merit…absolutely…just not feeling too optimistic since Sunday.

    • USWeapon:

      of course you do. Sematics is a perfectly logical reason to discount the opinion of someone who disagrees with you. And you wonder why no one takes folks like you seriously.

      Ah ahahha.. It’s not really fair to use logic against the good folks on HufPo

      • Hey Matt…my intrepid raptor fearing friend….how are you today? I actually agree with you for a change…logic. Wow…to impose logic in politics is….well….like a computer virus…it might get in and ramble around and change things…and….. maybe a real bill will emerge?

        Naahhhh…I sometimes have fever with these fits….sorry.

        • I’m good, and you?

          Just for the record, I don’t fear raptors. They fear me. But I know that I can’t let my guard down around them. I found one just this morning in my basement when I went to check on the flooding. I couldn’t use my katana in the cramped space so I had to put the darned thing in a sleeper hold.

          Got it chained up in my yard – don’t suppose it’s one of yours? It’s got a weird sort of D-shaped logo branded on its hind-quarters..

          • You found him. I have been looking for him. He does not do well in cold weather in flooded basements.

            • Sorry, it’s too late, I’m afraid. He tried to eat my neighbor’s weimaraner. I had to take him out to the woodshed.

              On the plus side, this may surprise you, but raptor backstraps are delicious.

    • USW

      I think this is more about using the “moment” to undo a Republican AG in a predominantly Dem State.

      • USWeapon says:

        Agreed JAC. Reading the comments and attempting to discuss it with them, they cannot comprehend that if the bill is constitutional, they have nothing to worry about. They also cannot understand how an AG could possibly do his job and challenge something that could bankrupt his state. There was literally a comment there where someone said McKenna has no right to challenge this bill in a state where both Senators and 6 of 9 Representatives are Democrats. Imagine that bit of a logic.

        • v. Holland says:

          Most of the people you are talking too, don’t care if it’s constitutional-if they feel that people have been discriminated against in some way-then the action is justified.

    • I think the bill is unconstitutional. The federal government cannot impose healthcare on the states without an ammendment to the constitution. Second, forcing the purchase of healthcare. Third, the 10th ammendment and states rights.

      Now, having said that, the bill will probably stand. I don’t expect anything from the Supreme Court. When they failed the bond holders over the GM deal, law was turned upside down. If the Supreme Court does find the courage to find it unconstitutional, I will eat my words and enjoy eating them. Remember, FDR had some of his new deal legislation declared unconstitutional and then FDR started attacking the court and wanted to stack the court.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        The best argument can probably be found in the 10th Amendment. I’m actually really looking forward to seeing this argument laid out in full. But then thats just the geek in me.

        Commerce clause is pretty much a non-starter as it is clearly economic activity. Not to mention tax clause can pretty easily step in to ‘save the day’ based on the argument that its not mandatory insurance per se – its a mandatory tax for failing to have insurance. See how easy that was!

  4. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #4

    JAC’s Summation on the Right to Vote


    I hesitated to post my personal view on Voting as a right because Black Flag presented a good argument against and I needed time to work it out against my on defense.

    My conclusion is that Voting is a natural right.

    I have struggled with this concept for several years partly because the founders did not mention anything to protect the right to vote until amendments were issued later. After general political philosophies started to change. With regard to BF’s argument it is not the act of voting that creates a burden on others. It is how the vote is used. This can be said of many of our natural rights. If carried out in the wrong manner they can result in imposing on others. It is our ethical standards that govern how we exercise our rights. It is ethics of do not impose that prevent us from speaking or taking other action that imposes.

    Furthermore, man has a right to use reason and logic to identify the world he live in and to take action needed for his continued existence and to achieve a flourishing life as best he can. This requires the right to defend himself not only against physical violence but the potential violence of government itself. And we all know that man just seems to have this affinity for government.

    Thus man has a natural right to vote as he deems needed to control the power of government, with regard to his pursuit of a flourishing life. But what should govern how we vote. Here we fall back to the ethical standard of do no harm to innocent people. This means that the ethical exercise of our right to vote should be carried out so that we do not knowingly create harm to others.

    Voting for someone who will use govt to provide us with free cookies is unethical, and I argue immoral. It is a decision to empower govt to do legal violence against others, on our behalf.

    Government is part of the natural world in which we live, because it is a human invention and humans are also part of that world. Like many things in this world we can manipulate it to our advantage but only within the rules of nature itself. That old adage that in order to conquer nature you must obey nature. The only mechanism we have to harness or conquer government is by voting. This is the only way we have to establish government in a form that will not impose upon our rights. Any other means will result in violence against innocent people in some manner.

    The ultimate challenge is how to use this right in a way that does not also cause violence against the innocent. Herein lies the alternative of Not Voting when we determine that any vote could be used to legitimize unethical or immoral action against innocent people. Our natural right to vote includes the right to use it or not use it, as long as both are done in an ethical manner.

    I now stand, facing into the wind. Watching the dark clouds approaching with great force. Ready to defend myself against the blows of the great pirate concealed within the storm. Or, to embrace him as friend and sit down to a cold adult beverage as we plot to overthrow the mighty cutthroat trout living not far from my village.

    USWeapon Says: I understand your points JAC. I really do. If you attempt to view a vote as nothing more than an extension of free speech, then you obviously come to the conclusion that the vote is a natural right. After all, in your view of this you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that the vote is the voice of the people, thus free speech, thus protected as a right.

    But there is a flaw in that thinking. I think that is what BF is attempting to articulate but is doing it in a way that took me a bit to understand, and obviously correct me on this BF if I am wrong. The problem is that free speech carries with it no mandate. You are free to say screw Obama, burn the flag (so long as it is YOUR flag and not mine), or claim that the Montana muskrat is the strongest animal on earth. All of those things as free speech qualify because they do not require anything of anyone. You are free to say what you like. But your words do not require action once you express them. It is nothing more than your opinion, informed or not.

    But when we talk about the vote, there is required action as a result of the vote. That is the only thing that the vote is, a mandate to do a certain thing or to crown a certain king. The result of the vote is that the winning side must be done. That is not true of free speech. Because the vote requires action by others who may not agree with your vote, I don’t believe that it can possibly qualify as a natural right. Without a demand for action, the vote is nothing more than opinion poll that can be disregarded like every other poll. But the vote is not like that, once the vote determines a decision, that decision must be applied to all. Burning a flag is a free speech issue and therefore a natural right. A million people demanding that because they agree with burning flags that I must burn flags too is not a matter of free speech, it is a mandate that I do something I don’t agree with because a certain percentage want me to.

    So long as there is an action required as a result of the vote, and that action must be accepted regardless of how you personally vote, then the vote cannot be a natural right. I don’t want to over emphasize the point because I think that you at this point probably get my argument. So I am still open to debate on whether voting should be limited to certain people, but I don’t feel like the argument that says it is a natural right holds water, based on what I said above. I am open for debate on this as well. Hopefully this will be the beginning of an enlightening conversation for both of us!

    I will be back on the computer around 1:00 EST and then checking in periodically.

    • Flag: qui tacet consentire

      I promise I’ll try to keep it in English from here out..

    • I am bringing forward the discussion BF and I have had up until now on this topic. I will also be out until afternoon, eastern time so this will help get folks thinking.

      Black Flag said
      March 23, 2010 at 10:21 am


      To paraphrase your argument – a man has a right to use violence immorally.

      Do you agree to this statement?

      Just A Citizen said
      March 23, 2010 at 12:45 pm



      A man has a right to act in any way he chooses to his own advantage = Right

      except that he may not impose on others in doing so = Ethic of non violence.

      Man has the right to use violence = Right
      in self defense only = Ethic

      Black Flag said
      March 23, 2010 at 1:09 pm

      “Man has the right to use violence = Right”

      I think you have crushed together the concepts of:

      ABILITY with RIGHT They are not the same.

      Just A Citizen said
      March 23, 2010 at 9:25 pm


      I don’t think I am.

      What I am doing is separating the thing (right) from the outcome (good vs evil) which is the realm of ethics.

      I have a right to free speech. There are ethical standards that cause me to use that speech in a truthful manner.

      Black Flag said
      March 23, 2010 at 11:02 pm

      Then we are back to nothing more than an opinion poll – and leaving out the essential component of the vote – it’s force.

      When people vote, it is to create a justification for action.
      IF there was no need for such justification – such as a preservation or exercise of a human right – that act would be done without the paper work.

      But obviously it cannot. There exists no such justification of action on its own merits. The action needs “cheer leaders” – something the actors need to point back at to (1) initiate the action and/or (2) justify the the consequences of the action.

      So we see that in all examples.

      Why do you vote on a new business plan? To initiate it.

      If it goes sour, what happens? The actors point back to the vote as the JUSTIFICATION for the action that caused the consequence “See, we did vote for this – it was a majority decision”.

      These voting actions are not opinion polls – they are force.

      Compare to asking my opinion “Well JAC I suggest this – but in the end, IT’S YOUR DECISION”. That is an opinion. A vote does not do this. A vote says “This IS the WAY! Do it!”

      Just A Citizen said
      March 24, 2010 at 12:31 am


      Yes, a vote could be used to rationalize a certain outcome or to escape blame. That does not eliminate it as a right.

      The rationalization of failure could be applied to other rights as well.

      You limit the role of voting. A vote is not to “initiate” necessarily. Nor is it to “justify” some action. It is a decision to do something that could for example be to authorize or delegate certain authority to the govt.

      That is what a “political vote” really is. It is in essence an opinion but carries to power to authorize something if there are enough opinions that agree.

      Stay with the government version, it is after all the context in which these “rights” were conceived, and the topic.

      Is not a vote connected to the right of self defense, the right to speak against or for the govt? It is how we humans make decisions as a group on matters affecting the group.

      I fully understand the potential trap that voting presents for those who use it to legitimize an evil govt. I simply do not see how voting can be anything but a right, whether evil men use it to legitimize their actions or not.

      I have a right to participate and express my preference in those decisions that could affect me. To claim this is only a privilege is to grant someone else sole control over those decisions, including my ability to participate in the decision itself. That seems to be an irrational position to take for one who supports freedom and liberty.

      If I have a right to liberty then I must have a right to vote in order to protect that liberty.

    • Black Flag said
      March 24, 2010 at 12:46 am

      Just A Citizen

      “Yes, a vote could be used to rationalize a certain outcome or to escape blame. That does not eliminate it as a right.”

      A right does not violate another persons rights.

      So using voting to justify violation makes voting not a right.

      “The rationalization of failure could be applied to other rights as well.”

      I don’t need to rationalize my rights – that’s my point. If I act with a right – the act itself holds merit without anything necessary to support it.

      A right is self-consistent.

      A vote is not.

      “You limit the role of voting. A vote is not to “initiate” necessarily. Nor is it to “justify” some action. It is a decision to do something that could for example be to authorize o delegate certain authority to the govt.”

      That is the example I used. It creates “force” – it is not an opinion.

      If it is voted for, and there is resistance, there exists an overt standing that violence is justified to enforce the vote.

      “Is not a vote connected to the right of self defense, the right to speak against or for the govt? It is how we humans make decisions as a group on matters affecting the group.”

      I do not disagree that vote can be used to express other rights – but that doesn’t make it – of itself – a right.

      I can use a pen to write my words, expressing my freedom of speech – but a pen is not my right. I have to buy it or trade or make one myself, as an analogy.

      “I fully understand the potential trap that voting presents for those who use it to legitimize an evil govt. I simply do not see how voting can be anything but a right, whether evil men use it to legitimize their actions or not.”

      Again, I do not degrading voting! You know my reasons why I believe voting in government is pointless, worthless, wrong and dangerous – but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in voting if used in the correct context

      I sit on numerous boards of non-profits and charities and we vote. I don’t always win nor do I expect to (but almost always, as a good board really never makes a firm decision unless the director’s issues have been properly dealt with and the vote is can be unanimous – we’re all supposed to be rowing the ship in the same direction). But the vote is not my RIGHT – it is a GRANT, conditional on my office.

      “I have a right to participate and express my preference in those decisions that could affect me. To claim this is only a privilege is to grant someone else sole control over those decisions, including my ability to participate in the decision itself. That seems to be an irrational position to take for one who supports freedom and liberty.”

      I do not claim my freedom on your land. I must acquiesce to your primacy. I can speak my mind and you can toss me out.

      If I want to build on your land and plant my garden – I must get your grant. With that grant what I plant is mine (minus fair and free trade for the use of your dirt).

      Same with vote. It is a grant. After that grant, one can do things with power. But that power can be removed, the grant revoked.

      Your rights can never be removed or revoked. That’s why the are a “Right”.

      Vote does not pass this critical test.

      Black Flag said
      March 24, 2010 at 12:52 am

      I often wonder if what I felt dealing with JAC some days is what Jefferson felt dealing with Adams.

      Just A Citizen said
      March 24, 2010 at 8:33 am

      Probably more like what Jefferson felt when debating with himself.

      Your latest deserves more careful response which I will do later. But for now:

      Who Grants me this Vote and Who has the authority to revoke it?

      And by WHAT authority does Who grant or revoke it?

      Please stay within the context of govt. Examples of BOD votes don’t apply because we are not (ARE) talking about the relationships of self determination and governance

    • USW

      I am not claiming that Voting is an extension of speech in itself. It is part of many other rights, as those rights can be part of others as well.

      Our right to defend our property and our lives is tied to a right to life and property, for example.

      I got a little off track with BF above, I think but not sure, because the root goes to self determination and the relationship we have to this thing called govt.

      BF and your argument want the rigthts to stand alone. But whenever we talk about rights we always place some condition upon them.

      I have the right to own guns “as long as”. I have the right to own property “as long as”. I have the right to speak, “provided that”.

      These conditions involve ETHICS in my view.

      Now BF and you say a right stands on its own, including noun and verb. I say a right is an entity, a noun. How we exercise our right is ethics, a verb.

      It is true that a right can not impose or negate another right. Voting does not negate anything because it totally depends on what the purpose of the vote is. I vote for VDLG or Anarchy is not a vote that requires violence to enforce it. The ethic of non violence is used to guide the way I exercise my right to vote just as it does my right to defend my life or property or speech.

      So I leave you with the last question I asked BF.

      If voting is a privilege, then who has the authority to grant this privilege?

      And who gave them/it the authority to issue such a grant?

      See ya back here later.

      • Depends on where you are JAC. In a nation that still has a monarchy, the “vote” would be granted by the government. In this nation, it was a concept developed by the framers of the constitution (not implying they thought of it first) and then approved by the people who had just fought to break out from under the rule of British Monarchy. In a country like ours, on the path it is, I could see a “crisis” become a call for martial law and freezing of leaders in office, denying the vote. Both Lincoln and FDR did some things along this line, not to all citizens, but certainly to some of them. I don’t think the Japanese-Americans were free to vote form their internment camps.

        So the government has the ability to take the vote away or grant it. Does that make it not a right? Not necessarily, the government has the ability to take free speech as well, but not the right or authority to do so.

        Now the thing is, the way I see a vote, it is a part of a certain governmental structure. A democracy or a representative government utilizes the vote. A theocracy, oligarchy, monarchy, anarchy, socialist, or fascist government do not. Depending on the definition, communist governments might. So perhaps to decide which side of this argument I am on, I need to know exactly how you define a vote. Is it a vote for a representative who as a vote on your behalf? Is it a democratic vote wherein you have a say in all things about society and government? If so, then we are being denied that right even now, and have been since the founding of this country.

        • Jon

          The vote could be of any kind in my view. That would not affect whether it is a right.

          Govt can and do impede our ability to exercise our rights, as you say. So that fact govt can prevent voting or set rule about who votes and doesn’t can not be used to decide what is a right vs a privilege. We must find another defense or argument against to settle the matter.

          I see voting at its core as an expression of making a decision about something in the context of a group. No need to vote if it is only me. Unless of course I am debating myself and I.

          When I vote I am hoping that my decision is shared by others so that my decision will prevail. That could be for selecting a representative or for approving a new bridge.

          Yes, we are being denied our rights today, by our own government. But that does not mean those rights do not exist. Only that we can not act upon them or on their behalf. Thus the action is immoral because it violates our basic rights.

          I do wonder sometimes if we really only have one natural right. That is to be Free. All other so called natural rights all flow from this one concept of individual freedom. Even Liberty itself flows from freedom. We have a right to be free because it is required for us to live according to our nature as human beings.

          When I was asking where the authority to grant comes from I was asking where the “govt” gets that authority in the first place.

          • There is the rub tho, what if it is not shared? Then you are not free, you must bow to the will of others because there are more voting they way they do. I think you may be closer in your thinking that “to be free” is the only natural right. But then, if that is indeed true, then BF has been right all along. 🙂

            If society has any rights at all, then perhaps the vote is a part of that, because, as you say, there is no need to vote if you are alone. So can we truly have a society and respect all the rights of the individual? Does the “birth” or forming of a group or society come with its own set of natural rights? If so, then what are those rights, what ranking do they have versus the natural rights of the individual? If the society has rights of its own, then maybe there is a responsibility to that society, in which case, maybe the socialist idealists have a point.

            I tend to think that a vote is a right afforded to all participants in a society. Those who choose to not participate in that society, however, do not have the right, nor should they be bound by the results of the votes of others. As I have said before, it is a citizen right.

            • Jon

              There is no reason to speak when alone either. The right still exists.

              The right becomes important in the context of living with other humans, which is our nature to do.

              I see no rights of a society, except the cumulative rights of the individuals, which by definition are not in contradiction with each other.

              I agree, that if I should lose the vote I then have a choice to participate, basically give my consent, or to remove myself.

              My argument is that ETHICS is the manner in which we control how our rights are exercised. It is the moral ethic of do not use force on the innocent that allows me to exercise my right to vote for government, but only to the extent that govt does not use force against the innocent.

              Here is truly where BF and I differ. He argues that if such a thing existed it WOULD NOT be called govt, because govt by definition uses force against the innocent. I argue that govt is only what we the people allow it to be. If we do not give it authority to use force against the innocent then it is in fact a moral and ethical govt.

              And as you indicate, this means govt can not bind anyone with force, only by persuasion and thus their own free will.

              • It sounds, then, like we are on the same page, but it still does not solidify for me whether the vote is a right because it is a construct of society. Altho, as you say, the fact that it is not used or necessary does not remove the right. It may be that voting is a natural right that is only needed in the context of a society.

                Where BF and I differ is that I do not think government is force against the innocent by definition. Where we also differ is that I believe that there is a need for a government in order to exercise force against the guilty. I suppose that I could consider voting a right that need only be used in a society, and only able to be properly used in a free society.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              If “government” is the entitiy which claims the monopoly of the right to initiate violence upon the non-violent (thereby claiming a monopoly of the right to VIOLATE anyone’s individual rights), and you VOTE…

              All you are doing is ADDING TO THE ILLUSION OF LEGITIMACY of the government.

              Voting cannot be a RIGHT, because the entity that you are voting for CLAIMS THE MONOPOLIZATION OF THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.

              One “right” (e.g. “voting”) CANNOT supersede the natural rights of individuals.

              Ergo, voting =/= a right, in fact, it is quite the opposite. Voting is essentially AN AGREEMENT BY YOU TO ABDICATE YOUR RIGHTS.

  5. USW: Food for thought-Rawhides are cheaper than couches 🙂 What kind of beast do you have?

    • USWeapon says:

      That is the worst part Anita. He has tons of nylabone chew toys, which he chews all the time. He has no less than 4 of those extra large ropes with knots in them which he chews all the time.

      He is a pit bull/Lab mix. A beautiful dog with a brindle coat, dark brown with orange tiger stripes. And the sweetest dog I have ever owned. It isn’t often that he does something like this, but he is only a year old. We have lost a remote control, a couch, and he decimated a corner wall (literally chewed the drywall on a corner).

      Frustrating indeed.

      • Alone too much
        Needs lots of running / playing
        Needs alpha dog – YOU –
        Bite his/her nose gently – with plenty of saliva LOL worked for me with several dogs.

        • USWeapon says:

          Never tried biting the nose. But I am a very experienced dog owner. We do a lot of playing and running. Plus four walks a day for a mile or more. And he definitely knows I am the alpha. He is actually VERY well behaved the majority of the time. Won’t go through a doorway ahead of me. Won’t cross a road without sitting and being told it is OK. Just a few instances like this. The wall chewing was on the last day of our Alaska trip, he hadn’t seen us in a week and the person watching him wasn’t enough for him. I understood it. This time, not so much.

      • PapaDawg says:

        Okay, here comes my two scents worth.

        Pit Bull = Naturally aggressive and somewhat unpredictable, can turn on its owner and anything else within range seemingly without reason. Was originally bred to be a sport fighting animal hence the unpredictable aggressiveness.

        Labrador Retriever = Very intelligent as an adult dog, was initially bred to retrieve fowl and other small game hence the love of chewing as puppy (with patience and training will grow out of the destructive stage).

        My advice (which was never asked for and most likely won’t be followed) = Pay out the $$$ for professional dog training and you might wind up with a dog that will not turn on you sometime down the line. Both breeds are a high maintenance animal which will require 28 hours of human contact and control during a 24 hour day.

        We (the Dawg family) have had German Shepard’s all our married life. A very loyal animal that understands and adheres to the “alpha” dog and person. They watch over youngsters and protect your family with their lives. Easily trainable as pups and somewhat low maintenance as adults, but MUST have a purpose – i.e., protecting the home territory, children and other family members and animals.

        I predict that the Weapon Family will lose other various pieces of furniture within the next 18 months. Good luck! 😉

        • USWeapon says:

          On the contrary, we both believe that extensive training is a must for any dog. I have owned labs my whole life. Also have had Great Danes, Dalmations, and Rottweilers. Always well trained. This was our first dog from the shelter. Abused previously, but just about over that as we have used training to re-build confidence.

          More training is coming for Canine Weapon. And I don’t think we will lose more furniture. We are in firm understanding that it is our fault not his. We won’t make the same mistakes. As for the pit bull in him, he doesn’t have an aggressive bone in his body. He sleeps with the cat curled up next to him. Love everyone, always happy. He’ll be fine with additional training. We were well aware of the responsibilities that come with getting a dog, especially from the shelter.

          And I love German Shepards. When we move to a home with more land to run, we plan to have at least one of them along with several other dogs. I love having dogs.

          • PapaDawg says:

            My experience with the Pit Bull breed has been a bad one. One of my former partners had one that he and his wife raised from a puppy. The dog attacked and seriously mauled his first child, a girl of 8 months. He shot the dog four times before it released the child. The three of them went through years of therapy, but I don’t think they ever got over it. They never had another animal in their house since, not even a fish in a bowl, although they seemed to not mind their kids playing with our dogs.

            I do hope you are right about not losing any more furniture. I read Anita’s comment below about the ball launcher and think it is a good idea. Our kids taught our dogs to catch frisbee’s. Had many hours of fun at the park.

          • Heh heh….Canine weapon sitting in the corner quietly chewing on the foundation…thinking….I have him right where I want him….and as to Feline weapon…..heh heh…you just think you are in charge. you have my human benefactors fooled but not me….you are still a snack when the time comes…..meanwhile………………………………………………………………………………………..

        • I have 2 female labs. 1 yellow 1 black. We have always been a lab family. I have the room for them to run here and at my lake. Never had any maintenence trouble with them. Just got a ball chucker for Xmas. Best gift I ever got. You can throw the ball 100 yards if you want to. Labs: a mom’s best friend!

  6. As I have said before, the “health care bill” was not about insuring the uninsured or only about reducing insurance costs to the progressives in charge. In there continued celebration they reveal the underlying values, goals and objectives.


    • ????

      That we all get a free night at the Washington Regency? What am I missing?

    • Scratching my head on this one JAC…can you clue in this dumb ole country boy?

    • I did find Dingell’s (how’s that for an appropriate name….) response more honest than most:

      Dingell: It will take a while for ObamaCare to “control the people”


      • I believe hs is the most senior member of the House as well…I wonder if his nickname is Berry!

    • I have no idea what happened to the link I gave you this morning. It was the following:


      Have no idea where the regency link came from.

      This should make more sense.

    • USWeapon says:


      I read the NY Times piece finally. What a disturbing article. It is an outright attack on the idea of becoming wealthy. The author continues to pound on the idea that before tax income for those in the wealthiest 1% has doubled while in the lowest bracket it has only risen 15%. I fail to see where this is a problem. I see it as a mark of a successful society. The more the lower classes have in the way of discretionary income, the more those that offer a good can benefit.

      Overall, the article is basically a veiled attempt to push forward the idea of economic equality for all. That people accept that the closer we get to everyone having the same amount, the better we are, is downright criminal.

      I read one line about 10 times to make sure that I was reading it right, and clicked on the link in it but there were too many long reports for me to read them all and find the fact referenced. If true it is an astounding number. The line in the article was:

      On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group.

      So on top of the fact that those making more than a million already pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country, this bill will take another 46k from them. These are staggering amounts of money. It speaks directly to the attitude of liberals in America who so despise the rich that they will not stop until the rich are made to live like the poor.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        The more the “rich” are taxed, the less they will strive to make money.

        The less the rich strive to make money, the fewer jobs they will provide for everyone else.

        The fewer jobs they provide for everyone else, the more people will be poor.

        The more people who are poor, the more the government will either need to subsidize their existence or become their employer.

        The more people the government subsidizes and employs, the more the government goes bankrupt, but the greater control that same government has over the people.

        Hey wait… hasn’t this ALL already been happening for… I dunno… like 150 years now at least?

        • USWeapon says:

          Do we have evidence to support your claim of what the rich will do? It seems to me that despite the relentless attacks on the wealthy in this country they continue to do the exact opposite of what you claim they will do. They continue to find ways to make more money. They simply do a better job of sheltering it, which I agree with completely, and they find ways to make it in a way that it is not subject to the US’s continuing move towards a socialist/fascist state. On many things we agree Peter, but we have to be careful to not assume that the “producers” of the world will react as they did in Atlas Shrugged. Some very principled ones will, but most won’t, at least I don’t think they will. Just a thought.

          • Many of them are quietly leaving America with as much of their wealth as they can take, according to a paid financial newsletter I subscribe to.

  7. Along those same lines I urge you to immediately go to HuffPo and simply Read the Primary Headline above the main photo of Reagan.


    I think that pretty much sums up their feeling towards what was the American Dream.

    • USWeapon says:

      I went and looked for it JAC, but couldn’t find it. What did it say?

      • USW

        Tried to find it in their archive to no avail.

        It was a very large picture of Reagan giving a speech.

        Bold Headline was something like ITS TIME TO MOVE ON, or perhaps it was just MOVE ON.

        Any way you get the message.

        When you clicked on the headline it took you to the NY times story I linked to above @#6

        • USWeapon says:

          Yes I do get the message. Man I dislike the mindset of the modern progressive. They will ruin the world, all in an effort to improve it. Is it just me or do the progressives in America seem to fit that crooked villain stereotype in every movie. They do horrible things and once cornered tell you how they did it for the right reason, they had to work against the people because the people needed protecting, saving, etc.

  8. v. Holland says:

    I would really love to have a truly Independent President voted into office-would be very interesting to see the effect it would have on the parties. 🙂

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Friedman’s column in the NYT today actually delves into a few things that should be done to really allow a third party to emerge.

      Basically he argues for two things:

      1) Redistricting based on an independent commission
      2) Alternative voting (vote for #1 and #2 choices; if #1 loses, your vote counts for #2)

      Here’s the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html?hp

      • Not sure that what he describes is actually the center.. more like the pragmatic left..

        I like the idea of run-off elections. In game theory, we studied all sorts of different election setups and established that they all have benefits and problems depending on the makeup of the candidate fields. But I agree, I would like to see something where I don’t have to vote Democrat for fear “wasting my vote.”

      • v. Holland says:

        I like #2, #1 would need an explanation on how they were going to make sure the commission was neutral. Friedman not neutral. Of course no one is.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Given any commission runs the risk of delving into partisan politics and calling for redistricting in its favor. However, a ‘neutral’ commission (even if you are being cynical) should run less of a risk than having the state legislature make these changes by purely partisan vote.

          • v. Holland says:

            Perhaps, but I’m not sure that it would-look at the Supreme Court-politics plays a huge role in their decisions-seems like there could be guidelines laid now that they had to follow-something simple like the districts had to be square and all had to be the same size, to start.

            • v. Holland says:

              Okay-stupid alert-delete the all have to be the same size-would defeat the purpose of having the size based on the population.

        • Use math. District things by a mathematical median between geographical grid and population distribution.

    • USWeapon says:

      Unfortunately V, the Presidency is unattainable for a third party candidate unless he or she had OVERWHELMING support. And I mean legally unattainable. The basic gist is this: In order for a third party candidate become President, they would have to gain not just more votes than each of the two major party’s candidates, but they would need to get more votes than both of the two major party’s candidates…. COMBINED. Any candidate that wins an election must have one more than half of the electoral college. So a three way race would give each candidate only roughly a third of the EC. Then the process of choosing the winner goes to the House of Representatives. Do you think they would allow that third party candidate to win?

      • yes, there are a ton of issues with the voting process that block third parties. It will take a number of elections to get a third party any traction. I am all for that battle tho, its worth it.

  9. This about sums it up….

    World economic System

    You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

    You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

    You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.

    You have two cows. The government takes them both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

    You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

    You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

    You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

    You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

    You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

    You have two cows. Yours neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

    You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other one and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows. In triplicate.

    You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors take the cows and kill you.

    You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

    You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.


    • Canine Weapon says:

      Q. How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
      A. Fish

      • I am surprised you did not get your computer rights revolked after your fight with the couch!

        • Canine Weapon says:

          The couch started it.

          • @ Canine Weapon —- Carpe Diem….when the new couch arrives….”mark it”….if USW reacts violently….remember…you now have free medical care. I am sure there is a canine clause in the new bill somewhere.

            • Canine Weapon says:

              Of course there’s a canine clause in the bill.. that bitch* added it. She wanted to be sure she was covered too.

              *haha, get it? Pelosi’s a bitch? I kill me.

          • I understand that you definitely finished it!

        • Canine Weapon says:

          Also, computer use is not a “right”.

          • Give it time…on the current course it will be soon. Then you can sue US for incanine treatment!

            • Canine Weapon says:

              Feline Weapon may have an entitlement mentality, but I most certainly do not. You offend me, sir.

  10. In the end we all die.

    • BF… you are not allowed to die BEFORE your taxed…I am sure there is a premature death tax in there somewhere as well.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Don’t worry…we’ll get our money after death too.

        • If it moves: tax it.

          If it still moves: regulate it.

          If it stops moving: subsidize it.

          • v. Holland says:

            Are you suggesting that we should tax and regulate everything till it dies and then try to resuscitate. 👿

            • Naw.. I was just repeating something I head a long time ago.

              I don’t like subsidies (except in rare cases). So really I’d just tax and regulate everything.

    • Canine Weapon says:

      I have no plans to do so. My generation will see the elimination of biological exhaustion (aging). It will see a cure for cancer and, in time every single other physical malady. Given another hundred or two years of technological progress, I plan to have an off-site data backup of my brain. If and when anything happens to “kill” me, I will have a health care plan that grows me a new body and loads in my mind.

      • SQUIRREL!!

      • Some scientists say the first 1,000 year old man is walking the earth right now.

        • I’m sure (assuming you meant to say that the first person who will live to be 1,000, not that he is currently 1,000).

          • Correct, Matt.

            He is approx. 50-60 years old today.

            • Naw.. he’s 26.

              • Mathius,

                There will be lots of 26 (now) 1,000 year old people.

                It is the FIRST.

                Much older than 60, you won’t live long enough to make it to the life enhancement technology.

              • Then I hope you’ll invite me to your 1,000th’s birthday party.

              • I hope so, and if my wife has her way, I may make it.

                But I live a dangerous life. True, a lot less dangerous then I did 10 years ago – but… I’ll have keep up my lucky streak for quite awhile.


              • I love my life, but I’m not sure either of us would survive living with eachother for 1,000 years. We’re both far too strong-willed.

                Imagine: “I have been asking you for 900 years now to help make the bed!”

        • Adding, if someone makes it to 1,000, odds are good they’ll be able to make it to 100,000 and beyond. The only limiting factor left in 1,000 years, in my estimation, will be the desire to live that long.

          If you have the time for a quick 600-ish page novel, I strongly suggest Robert Heinlein’s Time Enough for Love. (recall, not incidentally, that Heinlein was a ardent Libertarian)

          • Two brief quotes I think you’ll appreciate:

            “A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain”

            “An elephant: a mouse built to government specifications”

          • We will still die by accident or design (murdered).

            If you read “War of the Gods” – it is interesting to read about the society of Gods who are biologically immortal, but can be killed.

            They completely avoid dangerous activity and war and violence are very rare – why fight when you have a millenniums to convince the other guy?

            • See, I would be insanely paranoid. I would have a 100 off-site backups run by independent systems (with previous backups saved in case of corruption). No one would know how many there are or where to find them. To kill me, you’d have to destroy the solar system (assuming we hadn’t figured out how to get to another solar system by then, in which case you’d have to destroy multiple solar systems). War, dangerous situations? Bring it on.

              Still book sounds interesting, I’ll take a look.

    • Early in the day, but some music to help us out!

      Bon Jovi has proven himself to be another duped performer when he opens his mouth other than singing (although he is a very nice looking dupe – has he been to see you D13?), but he got it right here:

    • Ah, first you have to find the wealth to seize it.

      When it does not look like wealth, it attracts no attention.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      “Oh! We’re all gonna die! We’re a-a-a-ll gonna d-i-i-e!”

      (Randy Quaid plays Loomis in Quick Change)

      • 1-2-3-4- what are we fighting for….don’t ask me. I don’t give a damn….next stop is Viet Nam….5-6-7-8- open up them Pearly Gates….take no time to wonder why….wooopie…we are all gonna die…..

        I remember singing that song sitting on a perimeter bunker making bets on where the next incoming mortar round was gonna hit…..

  11. I'm learning! says:

    On the subject of taking control of your health… This might get a bit long – lots of information I have read, and this is only a few of the highlights.

    I am also reading one more book by Byron Richards called The Leptin Diet. Leptin is a hormone discovered in the early 90’s that is a message transmitter in our bodies. If our bodies are resistant to Leptin, messages such as when you are hungry, full, where thyroid hormones should function for optimal oxygen use, how energy is to be stored, etc do not transmit through the body correctly. It results in a wealth of health problems. There is no pill to increase or reduce Leptin. The reason our bodies are confused is because we now live in a society where food is always available. Our bodies are not designed to function that way. There are 5 simple rules to their diet. 1. Eat a high protein breakfast, 2. Eat 3 meals per day and not snack between meals, allowing 5 – 6 hours between meals 3. Don’t eat between supper and breakfast – leaving 10 – 12 hours between the meals, 4. Do not eat large meals, finish before you are slightly full, 5. Reduce the amount of carbs eaten.

    I bought this book because he swears that this routine will help people with thyroid disorders (like me), food cravings, and diabetes (like my husband), blood pressure, cholesterol problems and many other conditions. He even has some explanations of Fybermiolgia and how to lessen the effects of that. But while this routine will help our bodies metabolize our foods in the way we were designed, we have one other issue we need to deal with. The extreme amount of toxins in our bodies from such things as plastics, cooking in Teflon, exposure to chemicals – from medicines, cleaners, clothing, etc is building in our bodies so badly we some people can’t clear them out fast enough and eventually you are overloaded. Most prescription medicines contain toxins and poisons that affect us also. Keep in mind, he isn’t saying never take prescriptions, but they are seriously overused which makes them harmful.

    Here is an example: all the fluoride that is added to our water to protect us from cavities is also suppressing thyroid function, increasing joint damage and increasing our risk for bone cancer. Fluoride is actually a poison. It’s approved to be used both as a pesticide and rat poison. Actually in WWII the Russians and Nazi’s used Fluoride as a means to make prisoners both apathetic and controllable. Their studies showed it was an excellent mind-control drug. And studies in countries or regions that do not fluoride their water shows no difference in the amount of cavities compared to those that do. But our government is protecting us by feeding us fluoride daily!

    I heard him speak at an expo and decided I had to find out how this helps diabetics because my husband is one. In diabetes training, they encourage healthy snacking to feed your metabolism instead of just 3 regular meals. Actually, most diet plans encourage healthy snacking also. Why don’t the Leptin diet encourage snacking? Here is the explanation: Your pancreas builds up the insulin used for processing the sugars that you eat at a meal. It takes about 3 hours to do that. Then your pancreas needs about another 3 hours to rest some and then store up for the next meal. If you eat in between the meals, your pancreas is trying utilize what it has already processed to metabolize what you eat and never gets a chance to build up supplies for meals. Over the course of time it becomes overworked and wears out (one cause of type 2 diabetes). As for needing a snack to feed your metabolism, that comes from sugars stored in your liver – that covers the hours of 3 – 6 between meals. If you don’t use them, they will clog your liver and it won’t function properly. The reason you need 10 – 12 hours between supper and breakfast is because after 6 hours, your body will get the energy from stored fats – causing you to burn up excess fat. But, if you try to starve yourself, after about 24 hours it will start to gather energy from your muscles and you will become weak. My type 2 diabetic husband tried this method for a while to see what happened. His blood sugar levels dropped. I don’t think this will cure him because he has too many years of an overworked pancreas, but it helps to control it from here on out. My dad and grandpa were diabetic. I am not yet, but I am hoping this will help prevent it from happening. I may be wrong but I rarely crave foods between meals and eat a healthy mix. I have in the past suffered from moments of hypoglycemia – low blood sugar. If I eat using his methods correctly, I don’t have any issues with it. My blood sugar maintains itself quite well. Actually, a couple of times when I was gone for the weekend and ended up with a high carb breakfast, I felt my blood sugar drop before lunch and needed a snack to bring it in line. My next thing to study carefully in the book has to do with thyroid function. He claims people have ended up stopping the use of Synthroid if they quit doing the things that suppress the thyroid.

    The government’s food pyramid is not helping healthy eating habits. All these medicines, all the eating guidelines, all these low fat, carb, whatever diets, and what has happened the last 20 or so years? More obesity, more diabetes, more high blood pressure, shorter life expectancy. Maybe if what we are doing doesn’t work, we should try a different method? Read what he has to say before it is shut down by the government (part of that 10 year plan). You can decide for yourself, but I have seen some of what he says, and things that I read make a lot of sense! http://www.truthinwellness.com. Check out the website. Yes, he does sell supplements, but when I heard him speak, he even encourages you to try and use them the least amount possible. But he tries to create supplements that won’t hurt us.

    • I second that about the government’s food pyramid! I gained lots and lots of weight by eating ‘healthy’. I have yet to lose it all. Since I gave up on ‘healthy eating’, I’ve stopped gaining weight and slimmed down a little. I still have a ways to go but at least I feel better than when I ate according to the BS food pyramid. The bad part is the the Amazon Queen Michelle would like all of us to eat like she thinks we should and that’s accdording to the food pyramid. I hope she loses interest in obesity soon.

    • Learning and Cyndi.

      Fluoride = evil. As a Halogen, it displaced Iodine in your thyroid.

      Chlorine = evil. It is a halogen, too, and displaces Iodine.

      You NEED iodine to build cells. Interestingly, iodine is under study for being the element that caused bacteria to form into more advanced life.

      I distill my water to eliminate both of these (and other nasty) compounds.

      I also take Lugol’s Iodine Solution to maintain a healthy thyroid.

      Please watch this video

      Fructose is killing us. It is probably the single reason for all the aliments that Learning raised.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Some flouride in your drinking water is good for you – strengthens those teeth!

        Oh, how I miss my wonderful NYC tap water…sigh.

        • Buck,

          There is no significant statistical evidence to support this theory that fluoridated water does anything for your teeth.

          It a dentists office they soak your teeth in fluoride for minutes.

          There is no effect of a the traces in water rushing by when you drink that makes this effective.

          But it is very effective in poisoning you.

          Fluoride and Chlorine are among the most poisonous substances to life and man.

          • I'm learning! says:

            Actually they say that fluoride has a very moderate cavity fighting ability. But it is damaging to tooth enamel, collagen and the bone. Seems like a bad trade for moderiat cavity fighting ability!

      • BF,

        I can’t usually get video, especially if its more than two minutes, and that’s if the connection doesn’t drop out. 😦

        Can you give me a link about the Lugol’s Iodine Solution that I can read? Where do you buy it?

        • http://www.jcrowsmarketplace.com/lugolssolutionofiodine.aspx

          It can be found in many North American drug stores – overseas (shrug) – but you can make your own (Google it).

          Synopsis of the video:
          Fructose metabolizes the same way alcohol does in your liver – and causes the same diseases as abuse of alcohol would cause in your liver.

          High Concentrated Fructose Corn Syrup is doubly bad – it is a chain of two fructose – so is a double hit in your liver.

          Fructose also creates an enzyme that blocks the Leptins, so it inhibits the hormones that let’s your brain know you’re “full” and to stop eating. Thus, you have a continuing urge to eat, even after your full – compounding the stress on your liver. Of course a coke and a burger leaves the eater still hungry (but bloated).

          To put into perspective, the caloric intake of a Big Mac meal (Mac, coke and fries) exceeds the average requirement for daily calorie needs. It would take a person mountain biking for 10 hours to burn off a Big Mac.

          Since corn is less than a quarter the price (and twice as sweet) as cane or beet and thus is in almost all processed food (and in your salt too!) It costs more to pay for the packaging around the corn sugar then the corn sugar itself.

          Kids, who pump up on “Energy drinks” and juice (with added fructose) are now experiencing the same diseases as decades-old alcoholics – minus the brain damage.

          • PS:
            I put one drop per day in a tall glass of pure water.


            Iodine reacts with the metal – it’s not dangerous in that concentration but tastes awful.

            • I'm learning! says:

              I was looking at that link. Do you use the 5% or 2% solution?

              • 5%, with ONE drop in a tall glass of water per day until “normal”, then one drop every two days.

                You can test normal by putting a small drop on the bottom of your wrist.

                If it disappears in less than 6 hours, you are quite deficient.

                6 – 12 hours, you deficient, but not acute.

                12 hours+, you’re good. P: of course you don’t want to over do it either, so 12 hours is good enough.

          • v. Holland says:

            Those energy drinks are really bad-I thought my daughter was drunk one night-but she hadn’t left the house so I knew she wasn’t-she had just been drinking one of those huge energy drinks-they have since been banned-at least from the house anyway-I think the kids are actually drinking these things to get a high.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              Ask Mathius – we know how he loves his Red Bull!

              • They are delicious..

                But I have never gotten “high” from one.. buzzed maybe..

                If you drink too many, it’s like everything is moving in slow motion.

              • That’s the caffeine.

                It is so bitter that to mask the huge amount in the drink, they pack it with fructose.

                Mathius will suffer liver disease at this rate.

              • v. Holland says:

                Your a real kill joy today BF-We’re all gonna die and now you are ruining Matt’s enjoyment of Red Bull. 🙂 Need to get you some sugar.

              • V.,

                I’m munching on a real sugar cane stock as we speak!


              • Nothing can ruin my enjoyment of Red Bull. Screw my liver, I have 5 siblings for transplants.

              • Mathius,

                I think you confused kidneys and liver.

                You have two kidneys, so you can lose one, and be fine.

                You can’t lose your liver – you’re dead when it dies.

                Liver transplants are very risky and rare. You have to wait for a dead person, who has a useful one. Very rare.

              • Perhaps I wasn’t clear…

                if I need a new liver, my older brother will meet a pretty girl in a bar one night and wake up in a bathtub full of ice.

                And I will have a new liver.

                Completely unrelated events, I assure you.

              • And, if memory serves, you can take a piece of someone’s liver and it will grow back, no?

              • Mathius,


                Maybe in the future with the advance of stem cell regeneration.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Yes – the liver does regenerate. I believe even if you are left with 25% of your liver it will regenerate.

              • Buck,

                I’m a scientist, not a Doctor, Man!

              • Buck The Wala says:

                And I’m just a lawyer. (Google is my friend!)

              • Damnit, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a scientist!

              • v. Holland says:

                buzzed-high what is the difference 🙂

          • I'm learning! says:

            Artificial sweeteners do the same thing (ie – splenda). Actually the Leptin diet says absolutely no diet pop and no artificial sweeteners. For anyone diabetic, the newest thing is Stivia. Actually that come from a plant and they feel that it is OK for you.

            • Stevia has been around in health food stores for years. It is a phenomenal sweetener without calories. The only reason it has not been released as a sweetener until now is that the FCC sat on it until so many people made a fuss and pointed out all the evidence that the only reason the FCC did not like it is that they had no control over it (My mom has some growing in her kitchen) and no big company that they can tax is required to refine it, meaning that, unlike artificially created sweeteners, it does not need an expensive lab to develop and produce, so even a small company could make and distribute it. Anyway, under all that pressure and the evidence that their other “approved sweeteners” were very very bad for you, they finally caved and approved the stuff, finally allowing it to be called a sweetener on the label and not just a “supplement” with no description on what it does. Ridiculous, we have known about stevia since before they came up with nutra-sweet.

          • Thanks! Fortunately, I don’t have much of a sweet tooth. I have very little sugar stuff in my diet, however, I do like to have a Fresca once a day during the week, two on a weekend. I mix it with a teaspoon of apple cider vinegar and a teaspoon of pomegranet juice. YUM! I don’t consume alcohol, either. I’ll have to take another look at the labels and see if I can eliminate it altogether. 🙂

            • I'm learning! says:

              Mmmm love pomegranet anything. And a very good anti-oxident. Have an occasional pop that is sugar sweetened. They are starting to make a comeback. Not good to overconsume, but still an occasional treat…

      • I'm learning! says:


        Not somthing I have looked into yet, but maybe you know. We use reverse osmosis water. Will that remove fluoride?

    • I'm learning! says:

      Did you know that osteoporosis medicines make your bones appear denser, however they are actually swollen and the actual bone is lacking in mineral content and isn’t nearly as hard as it should be?

      Do you know that 3 of the 4 most commonly prescribed medicines for ADHD are narcotics and a version of speed? The only one that isn’t that way still messes with neurotransmitters in a way that makes people taking it have increased occurrences of suicidal thoughts.

      Do you know if your cholesterol is too low, your chances of cancer go up? And people that have not had a heart attack and only have moderately high cholesterol that take the standard statin medicines actually have a much higher percentage of cancer occurrences?

      • Learning,

        You raised a big sore point for me.

        My mother has been on Actinol for a decade.

        It works by killing the osteoplysts that remove the microscopic bone fragments that occur every time your bones take a shock, like normal walking.

        So your bone builds up fragments of broken bone – appearing “denser” in X-rays, but of no benefit – and worse – is extremely painful.

        So they put her on heavy duty painkillers that were killing her liver. The symptoms was loss of feeling in her finger tips, replaced by a feeling of tingling akin to hitting your funny bone.

        Mrs. Flag convinced Mom to drop Actinol, and the pain went away, so she didn’t need the drugs, and the tingle went away and feeling returned.

        Mom went to the doctor to tell him what she did, and the Doc said:
        “Yeah, that’s a good idea”.

        WHAT!!!?!?! He had been prescribing this poison for 10 YEARS! Now, it’s a good idea to quit! He couldn’t tell her about the problems?!??!?

        Welcome to Health Care of the Incompetent. It will get worse.

        • I'm learning! says:

          Those were the exact same words I have been reading on how that medicine affects our bones. The osteoplysts (he referred to them as osteoclasts) removes those bone fragments Then osteoblasts reconstructs bone in its place. The meds eliminate the work of the osteoclasts thus making our bones larger or appear to be more dense. But it’s bad bone structure.

          Our medicines, eating habits and living habits are the cause of most of our ailments. I wish I grabbed my book with me today, I forgot it. But he has explanations for why we crave things such as chocolate, sugar, cheese. I always had a cheese craving – love sharp cheddar cheese and crackers. But now I don’t eat them so much. He suggests you have the same amount of protein (around 4 oz for women, 6 or so for men) and carbs in a meal and fill in with veges to round it out. It helps to normalize what you are taking in.

      • That’s good to know. I’m going to my coerced physcial next week. I’m pretty sure my cholesterol is a bit elevated. It was last year when I have a physical done by my own initiative. I wonder if statins will be pushed? My employer is working on a program of mandatory physicals paid for by the employee and their insurance, if they want to remain employed. That said, if you don’t meet the standards, your gone from the island. Alot of people are suspicous about this. I’ll admit that there are people who have serious medical issues that can’t be treated here but many of us wonder if that’s where it will stop.

        • The video shows how Fructose interferes with the Cholesterol.

          It is not LDL/HDL that is a problem. You need these compounds to stay alive.

          IT is when the HDL turns from homogenized into Large Fatty Globules. Fructose metabolizes enzymes that cause this to happen.

        • I'm learning! says:

          Try and avoid Statins as much as possible. They also mess with your natural immunities. Cholesterol does have a benefit in your bodies. LDL will help remove toxins from your bodies. It will cling to them and process them out. Cholesterol is needed in every cell in your body. LDL brings it to the cells that are requiring it. HDL will remove excess from cells and bring it back to your liver. They are vital for cellular function. There are times when you may need higher cholesterol and you don’t even know it. If you are fighting an infection for example. Get his book and read it. Stay off of prescription meds as long as humanly possible, and keep as many organs as you possibly can (ie gallbladder). There tends to be a “root cause” for most problems.

          • Thanks! I’m almost 48 and don’t take any prescription meds. I plan to keep it that way. If they try to force me in order to keep my job, then I head to Peru that much faster……

            I’m over weight, but have good blood sugar and blood pressure levels, with my cholesterol a litte high. As of last year anyway. I had blood work done the other day, so I’ll see what that looks like next week. I feel better than I have in years.

  12. Owwwwwww…….. AP just reported that there is a…ummmm…snafu with the health care bill…..the pre-existing conditions for children accidentally “left out of the bill”. But it will be fixed under reconciliation and made effective….2014. A P said it….not me. Wonder if it is true?

    MSNBC – Nancy Pelosi was on tv just awhile ago saying ” that any insurance company that raises premiums will not be part of the new selection process to be effective in….2014″….

    Dateline Houston, Texas, 3-24-10…..reported on ABC….31 outraged individuals showing up in Houston hospitals asking for their free exams. When told there are no free exams, the 31 are, in the words of ABC….”perplexed”.

    and the hits keep on coming.

    • And I believe the anointed one has already been touting the fact that children with pre-existing conditions no longer have to worry about healthcare…amazing the incompetence of this administration. They have 2700 pages of garbage.

    • v. Holland says:

      “MSNBC – Nancy Pelosi was on tv just awhile ago saying ” that any insurance company that raises premiums will not be part of the new selection process to be effective in….2014″….”

      Sounds like a threat-just amazing that they introduce policies that they know will bankrupt the insurance companies-so they don’t put in a cap-but then they go around spouting their false indignation-but just out of couriosity what is this selection process-Did she say?

      • I only caught the tail end of it but the correspondent reporting it said that it would be the selection for the consortium effective in 2014. I think that is what he said. The government is going to pick the insurance companies that will supply the mandatory health measures in 2014.

        • v. Holland says:

          Oh, heard Limbaugh say the reason they gave in on the public option was because they didn’t need it-they have effectively taken over the private insurance companies, they also seem to have the added benefit of controlling them while blaming them for the high premiums.

  13. In the Editorials,

    News that the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had reached a plea bargain with David Coleman Headley, who played a key role in the planning of the terrorist strike in Mumbai in November 2008 in which 166 people were killed, has caused an uproar in India.

    The deal enables the US government to hold back from formally producing any evidence against Headley in a court of law that might have included details of his links with US intelligence or oblige any cross-examination of Headley by the prosecution.

  14. v. Holland says:

    Here’s a funny-Don’t try at home, might cause jail time! 🙂

    Subject: Sicilian Stress Test

    Sicilian Stress Test Just in case you are having a rough day, here is a
    stress management technique used traditionally in Sicily.The funny thing
    is that it really does work.

    1. Picture yourself lying on your belly on a warm rock that hangs out over
    a crystal clear stream.
    2. Picture yourself with both your hands dangling in the cool running water.
    3. Birds are sweetly singing in the cool mountain air.
    4. No one knows your secret place.
    5. You are in total seclusion from that hectic place called the world.
    6. The soothing sound of a gentle water fall fills the air with a cascade
    of serenity..
    7 The water is so crystal clear that you can easily make out the face of
    Nancy Pelosi, the person you are holding underwater.

    There!! See? It really does work. You’re smiling already. Feel free to
    forward this if you know others who might benefit from this technique

  15. Birdman

    From my paid sites:

    The Avalanche of Foreclosures Accelerates

    A national mortgage publication indicates that foreclosures accounted for 48% of all home sales in the United States in February.

    Increased government efforts, including temporary foreclosure moratoriums and a push to qualify more financially troubled homeowners for mortgage modifications, temporarily reduced the number of distressed properties coming on the housing market in the fall and much of this past winter. But now a growing number of distressed properties appear to be hitting the housing market.

    The HAMP mortgage assistance program is not working. Very few people are getting help. But it removed the properties from foreclosure for six months to a year. Now they are coming back into the market.

    The $8,000 tax credit ends on April 30. So, that leaves fewer than six weeks to go. Then the first-time buyers lose their subsidy.

    “Short sales now account for the number one category of distressed property,” commented Thomas Popik, research director for Campbell Surveys. “Losses on short sales are typically lower than for REO, and both lenders and the government are pushing programs to facilitate short sales. But as more and more people default or simply want to walk away from their properties, mortgage servicers are having trouble expeditiously processing these complicated transactions.”

    So, the market-clearing process is about to seize up. The shadow inventory will grow.

    As more distressed properties have come onto the market, home prices are again showing signs of weakness. Average home prices for all four categories of properties–damaged REO, move-in ready REO, short sales, and non-distressed–declined from January to February in the latest survey.

    The article does not mention this: the rise of Alt-A and Option ARM re-sets will continue for two more years. The home owners who got these loans now face a crisis. Their homes are not worth what they paid, so they must come up with equity — lots of it in California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada — to qualify for mortgages on depreciated properties. They have no money. They will not put in any more equity.

    One estimate is that as late as 2012, Phoenix homes actually sold will be 40% to 50% foreclosures.

    The real estate market’s decline has been on hold due to HAMP and the tax credit. The first is still stalled; the second has only five weeks to go. Now the market will begin its descent once again.

    Homes usually go on sale in May. Families want to move to a new location so that their kids can enroll in a new school. May will see the end of the tax credit. Foreclosures will hit the market just as families begin the sale process.

    We know what will happen. This will be a buyer’s market. Sellers will be facing reduced demand (no tax credit) and increased supply.

    There will be falling prices on actual sales. This will push down the prices for comparable houses in neighborhoods. This will push more families underwater in their mortgages. This will trigger more walk-aways.

    The good news in real estate has not been very good since last summer. It will get worse this summer — from the seller’s point of view. For buyers, it will be good news, if they qualify for a mortgage.

    • Black Flag:

      Thank you for the information. I am trying to decide when to put my house on the market in MI. I had one agent visit yesterday and submitted a report. Her suggested listing price is $30,000 less than what I paid for the home 4 1/2 years ago. The loss is due to the housing situation here in MI.

      My daughter would like to finish her senior year of HS in MI. She is a junior this year. If we place the home on the market and sale it, then my wife and children would rent for a year. I have up to 18 months to relocate under the Company’s relocation package. Normally it is one year but I asked for more time due to my daughter’s situation and they agreed.

      The decision I am trying to figure out is whether to place the home on the market now since it could take up to a year to sale it or wait. Renting the home in MI is not a good idea. The area I live in does not have the type of people that can afford high rent.

      I meet with another agent Thursday and I trust him. I’ll see what he thinks about placing it on the market now or waiting 6 months. This agent is very busy and had his best year last year and the first quarter this year due to the first time buyer program.

      As far as a home in Illinois, I will look for the best deals possible with some land. I don’t want to live in the city but I need a good school district. I know the area I want to live in. I used to live in Illinois and I am moving back to the same town that I left 5 years ago. I will bargain hard and walk away if I cannot get the house for the price I feel it is worth.

      • Alert in Michigan says:

        We moved a month ago from one town in west MI to a nearby one. Our 1st house had lost at least half it’s value in 18 months so instead of selling, we ended up renting out it out. When we put it on Craigslist we had about a dozen people express interest in it. Thankfully, we got what seem to be good renters. For us, we figured we’d rent it out for awhile, hoping the market recovers in 3-10 years and we can keep good renters in the meantime, and then sell it later. I don’t know what area of MI you live in (and there are lots that you probably couldn’t find good renters), but it has worked for us, so far. Just some encouragement…if you want it. Good luck.

  16. BF left this yesterday and I wanted to make sure everyone had a chance to watch and learn.

    That includes you Matt and Buck and Charlie and Ray and ……………

    • I must have missed the part where they exported iron and mafor use by the Nazi army in exchange for stolen Jewish gold. I’m sure that had nothing to do with why Sweden was so wealthy. My, what a model society.

      But wait… the golden age of Sweden was from 1870-1970, right? OK.. but funny thing.. per capita income increased 7x from 1970-2004! Exactly the time period she said that everything started going south due to excessive regulation and government intervention.. very odd.. maybe she and I have different definitions of what it means for things to go poorly..

      You’ll have to do some excel work, but data is here..

  17. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) intends to award a non-competitive, sole source purchase order to Anzio Ironworks Corporation, 1905 16th Street N, St. Petersburg, FL 33704 for two (2) Magfed 20mm Rifles and accessories in accordance with FAR 6.302-1, only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

    The FBI intends to procure the following items:

    Magfed 20mm Rifle with Belgian Camo Overcoat finish. Includes bipod, brake, handguard, free floated barrel and case (Qty: 1 each)

    Magfed 20mm Rifle with Navy NWV Camo Duracoat finish. Includes bipod, brake, handguard, free floated barrel and case (Qty: 1 each)

    Non-firing bolt assemblies (Qty: 2 each)

    Extra magazines (Qty: 4 each)

    Suppressors in 20mm (Qty: 2 each)

  18. 20mm, for penetration of material in front of target. It will go through 10″ of concrete.

    • Bama dad says:

      There currently is a .50cal sniper round that penetrates concrete then explodes on the other side, wicked.

  19. USWeapon says:

    USWeapon Topic #5

    Sarah Palin’s PAC Puts Gun Sights On Democrats She’s Targeting In 2010

    Sarah Palin is targeting — yes, with gun sights — House Democrats facing tough reelection fights who voted for health care reform.

    Palin’s Facebook page now carries a map featuring 20 gun sights, one for each of the Democrats targeted this year by her political action committee SarahPAC. Three of the gun sights, those where incumbent Democrats have already announced their retirement, are colored red.

    Likewise, Palin’s rhetoric is decidedly militant. “We’ll aim for these races and many others,” she wrote on her Facebook page. “This is just the first salvo in a fight to elect people across the nation who will bring common sense to Washington. Please go to sarahpac.com and join me in the fight.”

    Read the article at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html

    You can’t even make this shit up. The Liberals over at HuffPo are actually complaining that she uses target sites on a map and says she is taking the fight to Democrats. That is their definition of militant? You want to attack Sarah, fine. But grow up HuffPo. This is childish nonsense. I would like to think even Ray would find this to be a ludicrous article.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      Those are’nt gun sights, Sarah plays for keeps! Those are laser guided bomb sights.

    • I tend to like the “militant” attitude. Maybe the jackasses at HuffPo will wake up and see what’s heading their way. They are making many enemies, and the only thing they will understand is lead to the head, because logic sure as hell ain’t working.

    • Sounds to me like the gal knows how to make a threat.

  20. v. Holland says:

    Interesting-Have to think about this one for awhile-Sounds a lot like a scare tactic to me-which I’m sure it is but is there any truth to it?

    Successful Legal Challenge Of Health Care Reform Could Topple Medicare, Social Security: Legal Expert

    First Posted: 03-24-10 01:18 PM | Updated: 03-24-10 02:23 P

    A successful legal challenge of health care reform wouldn’t just bring down the legislation signed into law by the president on Tuesday, but could topple Medicare and Social Security as well, according to a prominent lawyer.

    Legal challenges to health care reform are focused on the requirement that starting in 2014, individuals must buy health insurance or pay a penalty for going without it. Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center, said on a conference call with reporters that a challenge of the constitutionality of the so-called “individual mandate” also applies to the constitutionality of longstanding programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

    “There are ways in which the the challenges to the validity of the mandate do implicate Medicare and Medicaid,” said Lazarus, who has written a brief arguing for the constitutionality of health care reform. “The people who are challenging the constitutionality of the mandate are people who believe that Medicare and Social Security ought to be unconstitutional also. The arguments they’re making would certainly call those programs into question.

    “Essentially, Medicare is a program which requires people to pay rather substantial taxes ultimately to be in a position to receive benefits of health coverage when they’re over 65,” Lazarus continued. “This program is a tax-and-spend program as well as a regulatory program. In order to get to the point where you could declare the program unconstitutional, you’d have to involve 200 years of precedent under the spending clause and Congress’s tax-and-spend powers.

    “You couldn’t really challenge this program without throwing some question over Medicare and Social Security.”

    Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of California, disagreed. “If [health care reform] were invalidated, I don’t think it would have any adverse effect with regard to Medicaid or Medicare,” he said. “The Supreme Court has said Congress can create any spending program it believes would serve the general welfare. I think the only question is, can Congress tax those who haven’t purchased health insurance? That’s not an issue that would implicate Medicare or Medicaid.”

    Neither Chemerinsky nor Lazarus thought a legal challenge of health care reform had any chance of success.

    “This whole campaign challenging the constitutionality of health care reform is just the latest chapter in a long pageant of conservative right-wing scare tactics designed to frighten people into thinking health care reform is a horrific change for America,” said Lazarus. “It really is a natural heir to the ‘death panels’, a natural heir to the ‘government takeover.’ These lawsuits that are being filed now, if you take a look at them, frankly they’re embarrassing from a legal standpoint. They’re totally frivolous. I’m confident they’ll be summarily dismissed even by conservative federal judges.”


    • v. Holland says:

      Ummm, under medicare and Social secutiy-they tax you and then give you something-under the currant health care bill they basically fine you for not doing something without giving you anything-still thinking but it doesn’t seem to be the same to me.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Chemerinsky is one of the most prominent constitutional legal scholars out there. I would bet on his analysis.

        I agree with you VH (and with Chemerinsky’s conclusion) – very different questions being posed and any invalidation of the health care bill based on the mandate would have no impact on these other programs.

        • v. Holland says:

          I find it laughable though that the author says the court case is a scare tactic-seems the attempt to convince people they will lose their S.S. and Med. is the scare tactic.

        • v. Holland says:

          I just don’t see where this fine, I don’t care what they call it qualifies as a tax. Course they use our tax dollars to fund welfare- don’t really see where that is constitutional either. Should have studied Constitutional Law.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            Caselaw has basically ignored the difference between a penalty and tax, so it really doesn’t matter exactly how this is classified.

            • v. Holland says:

              “ignored” well, that sounds typical 🙂 but do they have any sound legal reasoning to back up ignoring the difference or did they decide the difference was inconvenient.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                I’m not perfectly clear on this segment of constitutional law. I sort of remember there was actual reasoning involved, but can’t recall the cases where it occurred or the precise reasoning used.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Note: the Taxing and Spending Power is perhaps the broadest in the Constitution to begin with — it is the only clause, as far as I can remember, that can be used for the ‘general welfare’. This may have something to do with the reasoning.

              • v. Holland says:

                Thanks Buck, will think about what you’ve told me and try to get it straight in my mind. I can actually see where a penalty imposed because one didn’t pay a tax could be considered the same for legal purposes but this doesn’t fit that possible explanation.

              • Below, too squishy

              • v. Holland says:

                Isn’t the general welfare reference more of a general description of the purpose of the Constitution than an enforceable clause.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        Thet are forcing you to buy a Product that you may not want.

        The left wanted this bill so bad, they did anything and everything to pass it. Now it is natural they must look over their shoulders in fear of it being taken away. I know at least 4 Supreme court Justices who would just love to ruin their celebration.

  21. All is not lost. This health care “reform” is just a necessary step in the death of the State.

    • perhaps. It may be that we are past the point of no return, in which case we should hasten the reboot.

      • Hi Jon,

        I’ve wondered often, if the Progressivists were faced with a major armed revolt, what would they do? I can only guess, but I doubt they could put up much resistance.

        Get my drift?


        • Indeed. It depends on what their resources were at the time, both in money and in military that is not so disenfranchised that they are willing to disobey orders, part of which is public opinion and media control to support their actions. People do not give up power easily.

          That said, I don’t think their resistance to such a revolt would hold out for long. If you get my drift 😉

          • I don’t think its Joe Progressive you have to worry about. Its the full force of the US government, that is even now, planning to have UAVs patrol the National Air Space! As soon as I read that, I thought of what UAVs do in Afghanistan. No one can give me one legitimate reason to have UAVs patroling US airspace. I can think of only one…….BTW, Czar John Holdren, signed the plan. Well, at least we know what he’s been up too these last 14 months. I wonder what the other 30+ czars are planning?

            • CP,

              The Taliban have held off the full force of the military for 9 years. They number in the thousands at best. The American conservative gun owners number about 60 million, with many being combat vets, whose kids are serving today, the math is easy.

              Big hugs for you today!


              • That’s a good point. I also have to wonder how many of the troops would kill their fellow Americans? Still, I wouldn’t want it to come to that but I’m afraid it will. Most of the masses will support the government and might even rat out their family memebers. Also, if the government were on the ball, they’d throw the first punch, so to speak. I believe the ground work for that is being laid NOW, btw. By the time the real Americans wake up to it, they will be at a serious disadvantage.

                My source of information is the Internet. Who knows what else is being done that isn’t available to the public? When the corral gate slams shut, it will happen very quickly…..

                Hugs back at ya!


              • My dear, you underestimate the American people and the military. Neither are very happy with the government, the public polls show this across the board. The military are handcuffed fro doinf their job and they know it. The Govt has only one thing going for them, lies, and threats they can’t back up! They’ve been relying on “fear” for 60 years, when we “all” wake up to see this, they will have no power.

              • I hope you’re right. I think this bunch in power will not back down. I believe they intend to do violence.

              • I hope they do. It will destroy them

          • Military – They will be well informed, as most are the kids and grandkids of vets that would lead this! 🙂 Progressives are anti-gun, lack war-fighting skills and couldn’t handle ONE armed, pissed off redhead vet, much less a small army of them. Not to mention they are far outnumbered. Less that 12 hours, their fight is gone, that’s if they have one to start with, LOL 😆

            • v. Holland says:

              Just a little reminder-You are talking about violent war with our neighbors-not something I like to contemplate and certainly not something that I think of with any thought of anyone actually winning, we would all lose.

              • I know, not something I want, but not something I am unwilling to do. Give me liberty or give me death.

                I hope you are right about the active military G. I know you are right about the vets and about our ability to win out eventually. I just know it would not be easy, and it would not be Joe progressive, but the people in power that would be the hard part. The fact that it will be hard does not scare me, what scares me is that so many will lose heart if they aren’t prepared for it to be hard. We can’t even seem to get people galvanized enough to vote the bums out of office, what makes a revolt more realistic?

                Besides, we need to exhaust all other options, just like last time. We are not there yet.

              • I agree Jon!

                I don’t want any violence or death. But ask yourself a question, is that not the fear that the government holds over our heads today? If you say yes, then we need to remove that fear and make it known! The elites will crumble if that happens, with not a shot fired.

              • Wasn’t it Lenin who said “All power comes from the barrel of a gun”?

                Somehow, I don’t see a distaste for violence stopping the current ‘leader’. I’m pretty sure he could spin it so as to seem innocent, and was simply defending the Constitution. Nevermind that he treats it like a scrap of old paper…..

              • The power of the gun is with those that possess the most, and the knowledge to use or not use. Fear was stalin’s act, the gun was just a tool

  22. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Is he just old, or did he let it slip where he says “CONTROL THE PEOPLE” ? (when asked why wait until 2014)

    DINGELL: Paul W. (Smith), we’re not ready to be doing it, but let me remind you, this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.


  23. VH and Buck!

    Looked into the IRS role quite a lot today. It seems (I’m not a tax attorney) the the IRS has no authority to collect “fees or fines” pertaining to this law. All they could do is withhold the fee from one’s income tax return (interesting that most who are not insured, don’t pay income tax). All this provision, being well advertised by the MSM, is another big lie to scare people. It’s a “fear movement” to get people to comply with supposed government control. The “mandate”, if proven Constitutional, will be because of this. It’s really not a mandate, it’s more BS government fear mongering to steal money. The IRS moniker is used for fear, not for reality.

    Remove your fear, understand how it is used against you, and you can overcome the lies that the government has been handing you your whole life.


    • v. Holland says:

      I’m confused-IRS goes after owed taxes all the time-don’t they? What is the reason that the mandate that isn’t really a mandate could be shown to be constitutional-Maybe it’ll be like math explain it a different way and maybe a light bulb will go off. 🙂

      • The law defines it as a fine, not a tax. The IRS is only lawfully allowed to collect taxes. The poor are protected by the language, and will likely remain uninsured. Those that work will fall for this BS, and because lawyers cost so much, will not fight the IRS when they withhold the “fine” from tax returns, even though the IRS is wrong legally. Smoke and Mirrors my dear!


        • v. Holland says:

          Do you know if in the bill it is called a tax or a fine? I think it’s called a tax but not sure.

          • By law, taxes must be collected equally. It’s in the Constitution. If they collect from you, then they must collect from all. It’s a fine, plain and simple, and the language says such.

            • v. Holland says:

              You don’t have to convince me, I’m a simple person if you change someone a fee and don’t give them anything in return it’s a fine.

              • v. Holland says:

                Meant charge not change.

              • That’s correct. A fine is something you get for a speeding ticket, which, the IRS cannot collect by law. Two questions you should ask (when considering the government and the MSM), is it repeated often? Is it intended to cause an emotional response? If both are true, it’s likely a lie, therefore, look for more answers to questions that you develope. In this case, a “fine” vs. a “tax” question is relavent, because the answer is what the truth is. Govt choose the IRS because of the fear factor. Just like the rest of the law, it’s a big lie.

            • GMan

              It is described as a TAX.

              And the reason is because of the laws you described. The IRS could not impose a penalty unless it involved taxation.

              So the underlying legal question is whether the courts will deem this a tax because congress “says so” or whether they will admit it is a LIE and really a penalty for not purchasing a service they require.

              Here is my prediction. If it looks like the legal arguments are solid against this, it will be deleted and replaced with government option insurance for everyone and everyone will be taxed accordingly.

              And the Dems will claim HERO status for FIXING the problem, even though they created it.

              Ladies and Gentlemen, you are dealing with professional Carnival Barkers and Snake oil Salesmen. Nothing is as it seems.

              Much like the book of women’s rules.

              1. Women make the rules.
              2. Only women get to know the rules.
              3. The rules are subject to change at any time.

              Hope all are well this evening.

              • HI JAC!

                I won’t argue your points, other than to say the IRS has already said such to me, I called! WE, the people have got to stop fearing government, ASAP, because they only have fear as their weapon, and they know it, that’s why the Tea Party folks are “labeled” in a negative way. History will prove this, as I believe it already has.

                Peace my Friend!


              • v. Holland says:

                Looks like it may not take the court case to get the Public option in-or this might blow the whole think apart-who knows-but Joe Biden can overrule the Parliamentarian-what’s that about?

                Byrd Rule To Send Health Care Back To House, Rules Parliamentarian

                First Posted: 03-25-10 02:53 AM | Updated: 03-25-10 03:43 AM

                Byrd Rule Health Care House Senate
                Parliamentarian Alan Frumin has ruled that the health care bill must return to the House due to a violation of the Byrd Rule.

                Senate Republicans succeeded early Thursday morning in finding two flaws in the House-passed health care reconciliation package. Neither is of any substance, but the Senate parliamentarian informed Democratic leaders that both are in violation of the Byrd Rule.

                One is related to Pell Grants and the other makes small technical corrections. Why they’re in violation of the Byrd Rule doesn’t matter; the upshot is that Republicans will succeed in at least slightly altering the legislation, which means that the House is once again required to vote on it. With no substantial changes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should have little problem assembling the same coalition of 220 Democrats who passed the measure Sunday night. That’s already four more than the minimum 216 required for passage.

                But the ruling might give Democrats another option — the public one.

                Democratic leadership no longer has to worry that additional amendments would send it back to the House, since it must return to the lower chamber regardless. The Senate is now free to put to the test that much-debated question of whether 50 votes exist for a public option. Democrats could also elect to expand Medicare or Medicaid, now that they only need 50 votes in the Senate and the approval of the House.

                The question then becomes whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could pass the reconciliation changes with a public option. She has long maintained that the House has the votes to do so. Indeed, it did so in late 2009. Since then, however, two members who supported the public option are no longer in the House. But with fewer members, the House also needs two fewer votes than the 218 required for a majority in November, alleviating some of that pressure.

                Would they have the votes?

                The Huffington Post interviewed House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) on Wednesday evening and asked if he thought he could have gotten the public option back through a second time, when the House voted on Sunday, even without those members who had left. “Yes, sir,” he said emphatically. Clyburn added that the problem for the public option has never been in the House. The problem has been in the Senate. And now the upper chamber has a chance to vote on it.
                Story continues below

                Back in the Senate, after the Parliamentarian Alan Frumin had advised the leadership of his ruling, the Democratic and Republican leaders huddled on the floor and agreed to adjourn until 9:45 a.m.

                Shortly after 2:30 a.m., Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), sitting in the presiding officer’s chair, asked if there was any objection to the adjournment. “I guess we’re adjourned,” said a punch-drunk Franken, hearing none.

                Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), issued a statement saying:

                “The Parliamentarian struck two minor provisions tonight from the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, but this bill’s passage in the Senate is still a big win for the American people. These changes do not impact the reforms to the student loan programs and the important investments in education. We are confident the House will quickly pass the bill with these minor changes.”

                The bill, however, has yet to pass through the Senate. It will be taken up again Thursday morning. If no further problems are found by the parliamentarian, it can be sent to the House for an immediate vote.

                There is no indication that Democrats intend to send Vice President Joe Biden to the Senate chair to overrule the parliamentarian.


    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not so quick G-man!

      It is not ‘nothing more than a fear tactic’. Remember, legally speaking, it does not matter if it is labelled a ‘tax’ or a ‘fine’. This could easily be enforced (legally) through the IRS — provide proof of insurance as an attachment to your return; failure to do so increases your tax burden (there can be a simple line inserted on the 1040 Form for this.

      You are somewhat correct in that taxes must be collected equally, but this would probably apply no problems. The case I had been thinking of above was a tax placed on the wages of people who took bets for a living. The law was ultimately overturned but for separate reasons having nothing to do with taxes — in fact, the case specifically stated that this tax (or fine, however you want to define it) passed muster under the Taxing Clause.

      Anyway, I’m off for the night – have a good one!

      • Buck,

        The IRS can “only take this from a return that they control”, if one has no return, or has to pay, and pays minus the fine, the IRS can’t do shit. Try calling them and asking!

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Simple: everyone must file a return, even if you fall below the threshold level.

  24. JAC and V

    I left you guys a note on #43 from last night..:)

    • Anita

      As I said before.

      Roses for sure but never shit.

      Is your anger and frustration starting to come into a focused purpose yet? Or are you still just feeling overwhelmed and confused?

      Big hug your way.


      P.S. I’m a Lab guy myself.

      • Thanks JAC: Words of the day re: politics…frustration.. anger..overwhelming..bullshit!
        Bright side? Spring has sprung and lots of lake time, including today does wonders for the soul. Does wonders for doggies souls too. 🙂

    • v. Holland says:

      I read your note-thanks for reminding me-made me laugh both times. 😆

  25. SUFA

    A little something on the philosophical contradictions of the left’s view of Right to Health Care.


  26. For Judy,

    “Sen. Reid Caught Red-Handed
    Posted by admin on March 23, 2010 • Comments (0)
    When pundits talk about leaders waltzing America into a future of European-style socialism, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi get most of the attention. But their work wouldn’t be successful without the devoted support of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, D-Nev. While long appearing to be a trusted public servant, Reid is anything but. He has begged, bribed and bullied Obama’s left-leaning agenda through the traditionally more conservative U.S. Senate. Reid’s biggest victory to date is the passage of ObamaCare late last year in the Senate.
    However, Reid is the only member of this Washington power troika at risk of losing his job in November.
    He recently hit a new low in Nevada polls. In a January survey taken by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, 52 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Senator Reid; 33 percent had a favorable view; and another 15 percent said they were neutral. These are terrible numbers for such a long serving official.
    This is why Reid’s defeat has become a passion for conservatives nationwide.
    Floyd was in Las Vegas this week to release ads he created for the Republican Majority Campaign PAC. The ad condemns Reid’s involvement with casino giant MGM Mirage and their partner, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the supreme ruler of the Arab Gulf emirate of Dubai.
    Faced with financial ruin and the mothballing of MGM’s ambitious CityCenter project, James Murren, the CEO of MGM, recruited Sheikh Al Maktoum for a financial bailout. At the same time, Reid called and lobbied bankers to save MGM’s $8.5 billion project. And now Murren cannot say enough to repay Reid, recently remarking to Vegas Confidential, “I think it’s un-Nevadan, unpatriotic, to go against Senator Reid and I will call out those who try.”
    So with the supportive help of Harry Reid, the Dubai/ MGM partnership was born.
    The problem is that Dubai is a country with a terrible human rights record. Human Rights Watch, ABC News, the BBC and others have documented how workers have been held in terrible conditions, against their will, equating the practice to slavery.
    Next we learned that Dubai wasn’t as rich as they claimed. Now the partnership is troubled and many innocent Nevadans may lose their jobs. So this leaves Harry Reid’s fingerprints all over the failed partnership between MGM and an unsavory dictator.
    The RMC Pac’s new advertisement focuses on the close relationship between Reid, Murren and Al Maktoum. Taxpayers and citizens of Nevada are paying a terrible price because of their collusion. Education and other essential services are being cut in Nevada while MGM and Al Maktoum lobby against reforms that would make gaming companies pay the cost of their own regulation. While at the same time they short-change Nevada’s budget and citizens, the MGM leader and this Middle Eastern Sheikh are fighting to re-elect their favorite political protector, Reid.
    These and a multitude of other odd connections explain why Harry Reid, the self proclaimed “poor public servant from Searchlight,” is now a multi-millionaire.
    The winds of change are blowing for Harry Reid. Nevadans have had enough. They are smart people –and will no longer stand for Reid’s support of wealthy special interests as he ignores public opinion. Your gravy train is coming to an end, Mr. Reid.”


    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi Dee

      And that is why we’re working very hard to get him out of office. Right now, for what I read in the paper, his numbers have dropped a little more now. As of yesterday, Sue Lowden who is running against him has a 39% lead over Reid, even Danny Tarkanian has a small lead over him. Another one who is running against him is Sharon Angle, and even she has a small lead over him, so that should tell him something. He can’t buy his votes here in Nevada, or bribe his way back. He has turned his back on us, and it’s time for him to go back to Searchlight, and live quietly and keep his mouth shut. We’re sick of his lies and not doing one damn thing for Nevada like he thinks he has.

  27. Bama dad says:

    IMO interesting reading sent to me by a friend. I totally agree with most of what he says. I know some will look at the source and dismiss the article outright but he makes some very good points.


  28. Another head shaker:

    Amish, Muslims to be excused from Obamacare mandate?


    So a question, if its true, like this article quotes:

    Health insurance is haraam like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on ambiguity, gambling and riba (usury). This is what is stated in fatwas by the senior scholars.

    In Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (15/277) there is a quotation of a statement of the Council of Senior Scholars concerning the prohibition on insurance and why it is haraam:

    It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (15/251):

    Firstly: Commercial insurance of all types is haraam because it involves ambiguity, riba, uncertainty, gambling and consuming people’s wealth unlawfully, and other shar’i

    Secondly: It is not permissible for the Muslim to get involved with insurance companies by working in administration or otherwise, because working in them comes under the heading of cooperating in sin and transgression, and Allaah forbids that as He says: “but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment”

    [al-Maa’idah 5:2]. End quote.

    What about auto, property insurance? Anyone know?

  29. From a CNN Q&A about the health care reforms.

    “Question: What will happen when there are not enough doctors to oblige all the patients?

    Last year, the American Academy of Family Physicians predicted a shortfall of 40,000 primary care doctors, and that was before the signing of the health care bill. That will put another 32 million people into the system — with a promise of free preventive care — and insurance to pay for regular doctor visits. Some physicians have expressed concern about this. Patients could see increased wait times, as in Massachusetts, where since “RomneyCare” went into effect, residents wait an 10 extra days to see the doctor. But others say the bill will help create more community health centers, so primary care can happen at these centers instead of expensive emergency rooms”

    • Went to a forum a couple of months ago where the panel was CEO’s/Pres. of the 3 local hospitals and the clinics associated with them. It was agreed by the entire panel that the shortfall of primary care physicians will have a huge impact if this bill goes through (obviously was very uncertain at that time). One guy suggested there should have been a plan in place to incentivize people to go into primary care and that plan would take about 10 years to increase the numbers. They also agreed that under this (now passed) plan, the numbers will decrease due to doctors deciding that the pay wasn’t worth it. Similar to how we are seeing clinics dropping medicare/medicaid patients already. So a double whammy – no planning to increase numbers; existing Docs dropping out.

      • v. Holland says:

        Shoe on the other foot-Couldn’t do anything but laugh.

        Is NBC Becoming Fox News?
        What’s Your Reaction:

        Tonight I watched NBC Nightly News with growing disbelief and anger. The first three minutes or so of the newscast were genuinely fair and balanced, focusing on the President’s signing of the Health Reform bill and giving time to Republican critics.

        Then, however, two minutes were given to what amounted to an advocacy piece for the Republican lawsuits charging that the bill is unconstitutional.

        NBC’s version of Fox News then really took over, with nearly three minutes devoted to a piece on critics’ continuing fight against health care reform. Touring the offices of Republican senators, Kelly O’Donnell reported on all the outraged calls that were coming in.

        “What are they mad about?” O’Donnell asked rhetorically. On the screen flashed: “Higher Taxes; Cuts to Medicare: Mandate for Health Insurance.” Middle-class viewers were left with the impression that their taxes were going up and seniors with the impression that Medicare itself was being cut, both of which are false claims. NBC apparently didn’t deem it necessary to inform its viewers of the facts, and just treated the charges and talking points as if they were true.

        “People are sayin’, ‘What’s happenin’ to my country?'” South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint declared. “They’re not askin’ for anything but their country back.” John McCain then informed us of how angry “the people” are by legislation that will actually ease some of their worries about healthcare.

        Next, NBC’s piece went to the office of a Republican senator from Wyoming and reported that three out of four calls coming into to this office were against health care reform. Now there’s news: Wyoming Republicans have Republican views!

        Next, viewers were treated to two-and-a-half minutes about how “many Americans remain confused and angry” about the reform. This segment focused on a family in Oklahoma that “feels” “this isn’t what the American people wanted.” The piece concluded with the reporter saying, “For many beyond the Beltway, frustration and uncertainty as health care reform becomes law.”

        No mention was made of a new poll indicating that Americans now favor the health care reform by 49% to 40%.

        After devoting half of the newscast to fueling the anger and frustration by treating the disinformation being disseminated by regressives as fact and offering no counters to it, NBC directed viewers to its website, where, they were told, fact would separated from fiction.

        It would have been nice if they had done that in the newscast itself. As it was, NBC’s presentation tonight was about as “fair and balanced” as what we get from Faux News.

        We expect higher standards from NBC. Progressives — and all believers in fair and accurate reporting — should contact NBC News and make plain that the bias in tonight’s newscast did not go unnoticed and we will expect that it not be repeated.


        • USWeapon says:

          “We expect higher standards from NBC News”

          Wow…. the level of stupid is strong in this one.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            If the “level of stupid” were equal to “the force” the people at Huffington Post could blow up the Death Star simply by waking up in the morning.

    • I met with my doctor earlier this week. He is reviewing his options to retire. He would like to work a few more years but will get out before the healtcare bill fully kicks in. I suspect there are many doctors in their 50’s who will do the same.

  30. I'm learning! says:

    You were asking about what kind of reactions happen in our bodies due to our 24/7 eating cycle.

    The first thing to remember is the hormone Leptin is the body’s communicator. Leptin will function without all our other body parts, but our body parts cannot function optimally without Leptin. Leptin is stored in the white adipose fat cells (often in abdominal area). In effect, our fat cells are really a large endocrine system.

    When you eat is often more important than what you eat. Getting your body into a rhythm is a fundamental principal that will solve many problems you never thought were related. Leptin responds to the rhythm patterns and is fundamental in regulating the body rhythms.

    Example: In times of food shortage, your body dips into the reserves (fats cells) for energy. Leptin levels drop, you’re signaling your metabolism to slow down because there is a shortage and you are dipping into reserves. When food is found, you start eating more. Metabolism will rise and over the course of time, your fat cells are replenished causing leptin levels to rise signaling your brain that your are full and don’t need to eat as much and are reserves are filled up. People that are overweight actually have high Leptin levels. While that should cause your brain to believe that you are full and eat less, the problem with leptin resistance is that your brain is confused and never gets the message. You still think you are hungry and eat more.

    There is an analogy in the book I wish I could quickly find and copy, but can’t seem to locate it at the moment. But it has to do with how leptin is like a taxi cab running around your body dropping off needed fats, sugars, nutrients, vitamins, etc to our cells. Our cells know what they are lacking and open up for the passengers that the cab is dropping off. But when our cells are overwhelmed (by over eating, eating too often or eating the wrong mix of foods), they put up a “no deliveries” sign and that cab just keeps running around trying to find a place to drop their passengers off. Eventually things we don’t need build up in our liver or arteries or overfilling our fat cells, clogging them ad causing many of our diseases. Overeating, especially high carb (and specifically high fructose or sucrose carbs) increase leptin levels. Eventually our bodies start tuning out needed messages being passed around because there is just too much (sort of like deleting what you assume to be spam – and not knowing that some of those messages might be important).

    Leptin resistance can lead to insulin resistance causing diabetes, low energy, excessive build up of fats, etc. It can also eventually lead to adrenaline resistance, causing many problems with emotions and mental problems. I haven’t read this part in too much depth yet, but there is a lot in the book about it.

  31. I'm learning! says:

    I heard briefly this morning that the Senate had found things that needed to be removed from the health care bill in regards to Pell grants and it will need to go back to the house for another vote. This may be a silly question, but I am still new in actually watching this process. Would the whole thing be re-voted on or just some sort of amendment?

    I still think there should be a law – 1 bill, 1 issue. Student loans, grants have nothing to do with health care!!

    • v. Holland says:

      Hi, I’m learning-did you come over here from Huff Post-I seem to remember your name when I was posting there. And the only relationship the two have is money-money to pay for the monster bill and of course another area that the government can nationalize.

      • I'm learning! says:

        Nope, I only read the huffington post when someone here is talking about an article. This is really my first and (so far) only blog I ever posted on. And I don’t post here often. I used to read here every day, but have been busy enough to only pick and choose days to read now. But I learn a lot through all the discussions! I wish I instinctively knew 10% what people here know.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I think they just mean the ‘reconciliation bill’ would have to be voted on again. The original healthcare bill signed by Obama is now law. (They are just trying to make changes to it but certainly without having to revote the whole original bill)

      Simple, but not easy for me to explain clearly.

      • I'm learning! says:

        That’s what I was afraid of. It looks like Obama is in campaign mode trying to convince people this is really a good thing before Nov elections now. Sad thing is, many people will buy it!

    • Im Learning

      Two bills were passed Sunday by the House.

      One was the Health Care Bill that was passed by the Senate back in December.

      Second was a Bill that contained fixes that would have normally been handled in the “reconciliation process” when both houses pass bills that are different.

      The normal reconciliation process would have subjected the “newly revised” Health Care bill to approval by both Houses again. This made it vulnerable to filibuster in the Senate, thanks to Massachusetts.

      So the Dems constructed the new bill to include those fixes under the “budget reconciliation” process. But that makes it subject to certain rules in the Senate. The “Byrd” rule requires such legislation be limited to existing programs (The Bill signed by Obama) and must reduce deficits and can not add new programs (Pell grants). This process was used because it is NOT subject to the filibuster.

      Now the parliamentarian has found things in the bill that violate the Byrd Rule. So it must be sent back to the House for approval once it is cleaned up.

      Interesting thing is that some on left are calling for the Dems to include Single Payer or Govt Option in the bill once they get it back. Well that would then again go to the Senate and I am guessing would be such a large change the Senate would treat it as New Legislation rather than a “Reconciliation”.

      All of the Kubuki dance was to avoid a Senate vote that was subject to their normal rules. Reconciliation only requires a simply majority as it is not subject to filibuster.

      Hope that helps, at least a little.

      • v. Holland says:

        What I don’t understand is if this reconciliation blows up in their faces, which I don’t think it will, but for the sake of information-what effect if any can it have on the Senate bill that has already passed.

        • V.H.

          If it blew up it would have NO effect on the bill passed. It would remain the law in the same form as it was signed.

          • USWeapon says:

            There would simply be a group of Democrats that voted yes based on the ability to change aspects of the bill really pissed off that they got suckered. And they will deserve what they got.

  32. The government is protecting you!

    Regulated or Not, Nano-Foods Coming to a Store Near You

    …Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have shown that nanoparticles pose potential risks to human health — and, more specifically, that when ingested can cause DNA damage that can prefigure cancer and heart and brain disease.

    Officially, the FDA says there aren’t any nano-containing food products currently sold in the U.S.

    Not true, say some of the agency’s own safety experts, pointing to scientific studies published in food science journals, reports from foreign safety agencies and discussions in gatherings like the Institute of Food Technologists conference.

    Investigators on Capitol Hill say the FDA’s congressional liaisons have repeatedly assured them — from George W. Bush’s administration through President Barack Obama’s first year — that the big U.S. food companies have been upfront and open about their plans and progress in using nanomaterial in food.

    But FDA and USDA food safety specialists interviewed over the past three months stressed that based on past performance, industry cannot be relied on to voluntarily advance safety efforts.

    One of the few ingestion studies recently completed was a two-year-long examination of nano-titanium dioxide at UCLA, which showed that the compound caused DNA and chromosome damage after lab animals drank large quantities of the particles in their water.

    The FDA includes titanium dioxide among the food additives it classifies under the designation “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. New additives with that label can bypass extensive and costly health testing that is otherwise required of items bound for grocery shelves.

    I recommend reading the whole article.

    What would we do without these wonderful government agencies to protect us so we don’t have to think about the food we put in our bodies?

    • USWeapon says:

      Excellent find BF. I wonder how Bob will react.

      Interesting to see what the results have been in the UK and where the shortfalls are happening.

    • I wonder how Matt & Buck will react

      • USWeapon says:

        Matt and Buck will remain hopeful that the differences between the way we are attacking health care reform and the way that the Europeans did so will result in our not facing the same results. While I don’t think that they are correct, I do feel as though that is what they think. After all, I would have a hard time believing that they would support the current measures if they thought it would make things worse. Bob, on the other hand, comes from within the UK system. He has the insight of living it instead of learning about it from media sources that have bias one way or another. But my guess is that he will sugarcoat the reality a bit in order to further denounce the position of those opposed to the reform as it stands.

  33. Judy Sabatini says:

    Congressional Staffers Complain About Double Standard in Health Care Law

    By Jana Winter

    Select congressional leadership staffers — some of whom wrote the health insurance act — are not governed by new rules governing millions of Americans and the rest of their colleagues on how they buy insurance — and the special exemption has the Hill hopping mad.

    House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March 25, 2010. (AP)

    Come 2014, all 100 U.S. senators, all 435 representatives in the House and every one of their personal aides will have to go to the newly formed state exchanges for health insurance — just like everyone else in the country who isn’t covered by their employer.

    But select congressional leadership staffers — some of whom wrote the health insurance act — won’t. And neither will White House staffers and Cabinet members — nor the president himself. They will be allowed to keep their current plans, which are offered to all other federal employees.

    And now many congressional aides who like their current health insurance policies and will be forced to switch are asking: Why?

    They want to know: If an exchange is good enough for them, why isn’t it good enough for the people who wrote the plan? Why isn’t it good enough for the president and his Cabinet?

    Mass e-mails have been circulating among congressional aides on both sides of the aisle as they voice their objections to what they are calling a double standard in the health care law President Obama signed on Tuesday.

    “If it’s such a good bill, why did the people who wrote the bill exempt themselves from it?” asked a Republican aide who requested anonymity. “With this administration it’s always, ‘Do as I say, not as I do,’ just like paying your taxes!”

    “If we’re forced on the exchange, then everyone should be,” a Democratic staffer said.

    “If this health care bill is so great, then why are Obama’s staff exempt?” a GOP aide scoffed. “If we have to give up our health care, then so should every federal employee.”

    Members of Congress and their staffers currently select their health insurance plan from the pool of health care policy options that are available to all federal employees. But under the new law, unlike other federal employees, they will be required to purchase their insurance from the state-run exchanges when that part of the law goes into effect in 2014.

    But the provision appears to exclude leadership and committee staff, giving the appearance that those who wrote the bill wrote themselves out of this requirement.

    The White House is also exempt from moving from the current federal employee plan to state-run exchanges, although the White House said Wednesday that Obama will participate in the exchanges if he is still president in 2014.

    It remains unclear why the law was written this way. Efforts to understand the reasoning behind the carving out of leadership staff from this part of the new law were unsuccessful. Phone and e-mail requests for comment from the committees involved in the drafting of the Senate bill were either directed elsewhere or not returned.

    A Congressional Research Service report stated that the definition of the law as it stands now would likely be interpreted as applying only to congressional members’ personal staff, and exempting both leadership and committee staff.

    The definition of “congressional staff,” according to the CRS report, could be interpreted narrowly to refer only to staff members directly affiliated with a member’s individual or personal office. As an example, that would mean that staffers who work with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s constituents out of her California office would be classified as “congressional staffers” and have to switch over to the exchanges — but the staffers who work in association with her role as speaker of the House would be allowed to keep their current policies.

    It is still unclear if congressional offices will get subsidies to pay for their employees or if staffers with income below the pay threshold will get subsidies to buy insurance for themselves. Calls to about a dozen different offices yielded the same response: No one seems to know yet exactly how to interpret the law.

    A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged that some committee staffers are exempt, but said leadership staff will have to buy into the exchanges like other Capitol Hill employees.

    But Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he believes the current wording means that committee and leadership staff in Congress, as well as the president, vice president, the Cabinet and White House staff, will continue to access the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, while all other congressional staffers will have to find their insurance policies on the exchange.

    A Democratic aide said he thought it would be difficult enough under the new law to figure out how to navigate his insurance, but he wouldn’t mind as much if everyone else had to do the same.

    “It appears that some of my colleagues will not have to make these changes, which is annoying to say the least,” he said.

    “The president continues to say if you like the health care coverage you have, you can keep it, and it’s simply not true,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner. “This is just one example of the bad consequences of this law.”

    “Large parts of this bill were thrown together hastily and behind closed doors, I’m afraid this is not going to be the only surprise going forward,” he said.

    Grassley and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., are heading the charge to introduce legislation that would require all federal employees to have the same health care requirements and options. Both made efforts to close this loophole last year, but the Senate rejected Grassley’s amendment in December.

    “If this amendment isn’t passed, then President Obama will not live under the Obama health care reforms, and neither will the congressional staff who were most responsible for helping to write the overhaul,” Grassley said in a statement to FoxNews.com on Wednesday. “That sends a message to the people at the grassroots that the health reforms are good enough for you, but not for us.”

    But a spokesman for Reid said Coburn’s objection to the law was disingenuous, charging that Coburn himself had created the “two-tiered” status.

    “In his rush to make political statements instead of policy achievements, Senator Coburn clearly wasn’t paying attention to what he was doing,” Jim Manley said.

    “The amendment that created this committee and personal office distinction was authored by Senator Coburn. It’s WORD for WORD what Coburn proposed in Committee.

    “If he wonders why committee staff aren’t in the exchange, perhaps he should ask himself,” Manley said. “Senator Coburn’s newest complaints on health reform are too little, too late.”

    But Coburn said Reid’s spokesman has it all wrong.

    “This special deal for unelected staff underscores everything the public detests about the arrogance of power in Washington,” he said. “I tried to fix this inequity along with Senators Grassley, Burr and Vitter, but Majority Leader Reid obstructed our effort.”

    • ““If this health care bill is so great, then why are Obama’s staff exempt?””

      This is a fine example of what happens to useful idiots after they have served their purpose….

      Did they really thik they’d be treated like their betters? Morons…

  34. Judy Sabatini says:

    Obama Dares Republicans to Pursue Repeal of Health Care Law


    President Obama mocked Republicans’ campaign to try to repeal his new health care law, saying Thursday they should “Go for it” and see how well they fare with voters.

    IOWA CITY, Iowa — President Obama mocked Republicans’ campaign to try to repeal his new health care law, saying Thursday they should “Go for it” and see how well they fare with voters.

    “Be my guest,” Obama said in prepared remarks for the first of many appearances around the country to sell the overhaul to voters before the fall congressional elections. “I welcome that fight. Because I don’t believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver’s seat.”

    With emotions raw around the nation over the party-line vote to approve the nearly $1 trillion, 10-year law, Obama took the opposition to task for “fear-mongering and overheated rhetoric.”

    “If you turn on the news, you’ll see that those same folks are still shouting about how the world will end because we passed this bill,” said Obama, appearing before thousands in this college town where he first, as a presidential candidate three years ago, unveiled his health care proposals. The White House released the text of his speech in advance.

    No Republican lawmakers voted for the overhaul, a sweeping package that will change how almost every American will receive and pay for medical treatment. Many in the GOP are predicting it will prove devastating in November for the Democrats who voted for it.

    But the president stressed the notion of a promise kept, saying the legislation he signed into law on Tuesday is evidence he will do as he said. “This is the place where change began,” Obama said.

    The White House suggests it has the upper hand against Republicans politically, arguing the GOP risks a voter backlash because a repeal would take away from small businesses and individuals the benefits provided to them immediately under the new law.

    “We’ve been there already and we’re not going back,” Obama said.

    Obama spoke as Democrats in Washington raced to complete the overhaul with a separate package of fixes to the main bill.

    Senate leaders had planned to finish work on the fix-it legislation, already approved in the House, by midday Thursday. But Republican attempts to derail the process resulted in minor changes to the bill, which means the House will have to vote on it again before it can go to Obama for his signature.

  35. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello there.

    I have a couple questions here and I would really appreciate anybody’s input on it.

    I have read in the paper this morning, and if I recall, it said that some 19 states are now filing law suits against the government about this health care bill, which now, Nevada is also thinking about joining the ranks of.

    My question is, do you think these states have any chances of succeeding with these lawsuits? Or, is this a lost cause?



    • I'm learning! says:

      I really want to know that too! What “should happen” based off the constitution, and, what we think the courts would probably “end up” doing.

    • Hi Judy 🙂

      I’m far from an attorney, but IMHO, if the mandate stands, we are no longer a Constitutional Republic. There are some issues that the States have, like increasing the Medicade rolls, that would put many States into bankruptcy (like Cali). This is all bad, but maybe we’d be better off getting it out of the way and let Obama and his minions drive our economy over the cliff. I’m going to poast some excerps from an e-mail I got today about what could happen if the dollar collapses, stay tuned!


      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi G

        I think we lost that title of a constitutional republic a long time ago.

        For what I was reading this morning, our Governor said that this admin. has no right in telling and forcing the people to get mandated insurance, even he’s calling it unconstitutional and he said he’s going to do everything in his power to force this lawsuit.

        He also said that the people have a right to pick and choose who or what kind of insurance they need or want, not a government controlled one.

        As for our economy going off the cliff, I thought it went already.

        Hope all is well with you.

    • There are a few ways that this bill is in violation of the constitution, some more able to overthrow this in court than others.
      1) Virginia is basing their suit on the fact that the government has no jurisdiction to force commerce. The interstate commerce clause does not apply because:
      A) Health care is restricted to within state lines, thus all health care purchases are within each state (this is ironic since one of the reforms the opposition to Obamacare brought up was to open things up and allow more competition by removing regulations on where one could purchase health care).
      B) More importantly, when one does not purchase anything, there has been no commerce, thus there is no federal jurisdiction at all.

      2) Also, in Virginia, there is already a law that has been passed law protecting its citizens from a government-imposed mandate to buy health insurance.

      3) This bill includes taxes, and all revenue bills must begin in the House, not the Senate. This is considered a non-starter because this is not counted as a “revenue bill”, but it still is in violation of a constitutional mandate, whether the court sees it that way or not.

      4) It may be a violation of certain religious freedom rights, since people are forced to pay for insurance or accept government handouts (essentially stolen monies), and certain aspects of the bill concerning abortion, care of the dying, etc. may conflict with personal belief systems of citizens.

      5) Mandates in this bill place financial burdens on the states that they are not agreeable to, another thing violating the authority of the federal government. Not that its a first for that one, however.

      Overall, there are two good things that may come out of the lawsuits. One, is that people will begin to realize just how vile this bill was because even if the court rules in favor of the bill, the questions brought up will make people think. Two, the courts may realize just how heavily this bill violates the constitution. At least 4 of the nine Supreme Court judges are expected to vote against the bill. We will see what happens.

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Few quick points:

        1) Commerce clause is pretty much a non-starter as this is clearly commercial activity. It might be tempting to argue otherwise, or argue that everything is confined to a single state, but that goes against long-standing precedent. It falls under the commerce clause if, taken in the aggregate, it affects interstate commerce. This does.

        2) This must be the craziest argument I’ve heard in a long time — basically it boils down to the argument that state law trumps federal law. I’m amazed the VA AG is going to make this argument with a straight face.

        3) Also a non-starter. The fact a bill contains taxes does not make it a ‘revenue bill’ for this rule to apply.

        4) Doesn’t infringe upon freedom of religion in the least — its a religious-neutral law with clear motives completely unrelated to religion that only incidentally touches upon religious issues.

        5) This really represents the start to the only argument to be made — infringes upon states rights under the 10th Amendment. If you are hoping this bill is declared unconstitutional, this is pretty much the only avenue with any hope of success (needless to say, I don’t believe it violates the 10th Amendment, but I do believe this is the only real argument to be made).

        I’m not so certain 4 of the 9 Justices are so ready to declare this bill unconstitutional. I know thats the CW, but I honestly don’t see that as being so clear cut. I’ll give you 2 out of the bag, but that’s about it.

        • Buck,

          How goes it today? Good I hope.

          I’d like to ask if you know of any precedence that the Fed’s mandated the citizens to purchase a product of commerce in our history.



          • Buck The Wala says:

            As far as I’m aware, hasn’t happened (which of course is the entire reason for your question, correct!?)

            But just because something hasn’t happened in the past doesn’t make it unconstitutional for it to happen now.

            • Thanks, that’s what I thought, but a lawyer is more likely to know the answer.

              Here are my not so lawyer points LOL 😆 1. Regulating commerce would not apply as a legal means to demand engaging in said commerce. That is not “regulating” that is forcing “engagement of a portion of commerce”.

              2. It’s not a tax, because taxes are collected for specific reasons and duties of government, like maintaining a standing army. The govt. are not providing equally the service a tax would be intended. If this were a single payer, totally govt controlled healthcare bill, then I would agree that it’s a tax.

              What say you my friend!


              • Buck The Wala says:

                1) Regulating commerce does apply because its an extremely broad clause. It may not apply to demanding people to engage in commerce, but regulating health care and the insurance industry in general it would clearly apply to.

                2) Taxing clause is even broader than commerce. It is the only clause that relates to the general welfare. Also, the Courts have pretty much ignored any distinction between Tax and Penalty/Fine (regardless of how titled in a given bill).

                My thinking is it really doesn’t matter as it is very easy to classify this as a tax as opposed to mandatory insurance. I am not forcing you to purchase insurance; I am mandating that a tax be levied on those who do not have insurance.

              • I agree on #1. On #2 you stated : I am not forcing you to purchase insurance; I am mandating that a tax be levied on those who do not have insurance.

                How does this tax apply to the general welfare rule, as it is not intended to support the general welfare (eg. a standing army is for the general welfare security from foriegn invasion, for example)

                In your example a tax would not apply, a penalty/fine sure would.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                As far as I know, there really is no distinction made between a tax and fine. To be fair, I’m not completely certain on this issue of constitutional law – much have dozed through this class!

                From my understanding though, there are no real limits to ‘general welfare’ – as long as the money raised is being used for the general welfare its fine.

              • I’m sure all of us can agree that this will be interesting! 🙂

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Definitely looking forward to it.

                I’m about out — have a good one!

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Yes Buck,

              I am afraid that your argument fails.


              It IS Unconstitutional.

              Whether the courts SEE it that way or not is irrelevant.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                You seem extremely confident and sure in your answer. Unfortunately, there are shades of gray here.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Sorry, I fail to see the grey. The Constitution is a document which imposes LIMITS on the power of the Federal Government. Clearly, one of those limits is that it cannot force a person to engage in a transaction which they would not ordinarily undertake of their own volition.

                The courts may be brash enough to ignore this fact, but it is factual nonetheless.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                The gray comes in the interpretation.

        • I have not purchased insurance, therefore I have not engaged in commerce. There is no jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause to CREATE commerce, regardless of precedent and historical decisions of the courts thus far. Thus, 1 is not commerce at all, much less interstate commerce. If it is classified to “affect” interstate commerce that I am NOT purchasing something, then I could say that you are affecting commerce by not buying a plasma TV, thus making the cost higher for us all, since we would get better bulk purchase deals and have greater savings if we all got one. Ridiculous.

          I know the religious one is a non-starter, as is the tax one, even tho they are violations of the intent of the constitution.

          The second one, where state law trumps federal, is based off the 10th amendment. State law trumps federal when the fed had no right or jurisdiction to start with. And I assure you it does not.

          • Buck The Wala says:

            If the insurance mandate is OK under the Tax Clause, it doesn’t matter if it is similarly OK under the Commerce Clause. A law only needs to be valid under one clause to be constitutional.

            Regarding federal and state law – you’re correct in that state law wins when the federal law is unconstitutional. But that’s not really the argument the VA AG is making. If the federal law is unconstitutional there is no need to even mention a conflicting state law as the federal law would not be valid to begin with, with or without the state law being present.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


              Your argument that a law only has to be valid under 1 clause to be Constitutional is FALSE.

              If a law if fine under one clause, but violates another clause, then the law is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

              To FAIL to be Constitutional, all one has to do is find ONE CLAUSE that is violated. It DOES NOT MATTER how many clauses are not violated, as long as one clause is violated, the law fails the Constitutionality test.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Let me clarify, because I obviously didn’t have enough coffee in my system when I wrote that — true, it must be valid under the entire document, and if a law clearly violates one clause then it is unconstiutitonal. Where a bill is clearly valid under one clause and ambiguous under another (as is more likely the case here) then it is generally upheld.

                Thanks for pointing that out.

            • You misunderstand, the insurance mandate has nothing to do with the tax clause. The tax clause would be used against the new taxes, such as the new tax on investments for persons of certain income levels.

              If the tax clause is not violated, then it cannot be ruled unconstitutional on that basis. It could still be counted unconstitutional based on the forced insurance purchase.

              constitutional or not, I will not be buying health insurance. They can come get me if they dare.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                You don’t have to buy health insurance. But you will be taxed if you don’t have it.

                In my opinion, that’s precisely how it will be framed.

              • But I make under 30k a year, I will not be able to afford the tax or the insurance, but I will not fit into the system for assistance, nor would I accept it if I did.

                They want their “tax” they can come get that too. If they dare.

  36. From an e-mail today:

    Dear Concerned American:
    All signs point toward the U.S. dollar – which has already shed fully a third of its value relative to foreign currencies – streaking at supersonic speed for a precipitous and historic crash.
    Anyone holding dollars (or dollar-denominated assets) is sitting on a ticking time bomb with the Zero Hour fast approaching. Given the massive currency inflation generated in just 12 months by a grossly misguided Obama administration, we’ve no time to lose before a worldwide rush to the exits.

    The dollar’s coming Reckoning Day will be a traumatic, game-changing milestone in the decline of our beloved nation as a financial powerhouse.
    As I’ll detail in a moment, the sheer havoc unleashed by a dollar crisis will be nationally jolting at least on a par with the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, JFK’s assassination, and 9/11. Yes, it’s fully possible (if not likely) that the bottom will drop out in just one harrowing day.
    Here’s just a glimpse of the likely fallout as I see it:
    A PRICE EXPLOSION as Americans scramble over one another to obtain tangible assets or simply hoard basic necessities, before the dollar’s purchasing power evaporates fully.
    WIDESPREAD SHORTAGES, sparse grocery store shelves, and the return of long gas lines.
    FAILED BUSINESSES and economic dislocations far eclipsing anything we’ve seen to date.
    A BREAKDOWN IN COMMERCE, as longer-term transactions become impossible to do.
    RISING CRIME with rampant unemployment far beyond today’s “official” 10% jobless rate.
    GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS DRYING UP, with the dependent class – angry, hungry, and desperate – taking to the streets. Looting, arson, and general lawlessness will quickly follow.

    This was a very long e-mail, so I picked out a few parts. If anyone would like me to forward it, I can.



    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Sounds like the great depression all over again.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      The ONE problem with this is that all currencies are currently valued versus other currencies, and the Yen and Euro have equally great problems if not worse in some ways.

      Because of that, the value of the dollar is currently RISING relative to other currencies (has gone up from .6 Euro to .75 Euro in the past few months, has risen less, but at least some versus the Yen).

      Also, gold is in an extended lull, although still near $1100.00 per ounce. Oil has been up quite a bit though.

      What we may be seeing right now is the calm before the (probably GLOBAL) storm. If the dollar goes, all other currencies will go with it. It will make the Great Depression look like a kid’s pizza party at Chucky Cheese (TM).

      There is a (mostly behind the scenes) worldwide scramble going on to stave off not just collapse of the dollar, but the collapse of currencies WORLDWIDE. The elites realize that they risk losing control of ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING if there is a worldwide currency collapse. No one can possibly predict what would happen in such an event, but I guarantee you it would make World War I, World War II, and the Great Depression seem like a picnic.

  37. Cuban leader applauds US health-care reform bill
    Dubious endorsement? Cuban leader endorses US health care reform, says it’s about time


    Well, that says it all! 🙂

  38. I am off to visit with my favorite economist so will be out of touch for a couple of days. Will check in when I can.

    Good luck, stay safe and live free

  39. v. Holland says:

    Woo Hoooo!!! My husband doesn’t have cancer 🙂 🙂

    Also can back up, I believe Peter’s assertion, that if you pay your own doctor bill it is cheaper-We were told his test today would cost around $2100.00 plus anesthesia. I told them my policy wouldn’t cover tests and they told me if you were self pay it would only cost $1349.00 total including everything. Happy Happy Day!

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      That’s very good news about your hubby V, glad to hear that.:smile:

    • Congrats on you and your husbands great news! 🙂 Happy news is always welcome with me 🙂

    • Excellant for the Hollands!!!!!!

      I second the Woo Hooos :mrgreen:

      • v. Holland says:

        Thanks guys-I feel wonderful, grateful and a little wicked for some reason-think I may stay home and get drunk. 😆

        • Cool, make sure you hang out here a little tonight. I’d love to see you stt..stu..studdering.. Ready, set, go! 🙂 🙂

          • v. Holland says:

            I suspect, that would be a baddd idea 🙂

            • Judy Sabatini says:

              Let’s celebrate.

              Cheers to V and hubby

            • Cheers on your great news.

              As for drinking and blogging, I have had to stop that myself. I tend to allow my emotions to get into the debate, reducing me to one of those name-calling arguers. I usually have to log on and apologize the next day when I drink and write, lol.

              • v. Holland says:

                I can say from personal experience that you are absolutely right. 😆

                Got in a discussion with Kent once about atheist and Christians -let’s say emotions on my side were high 🙂 Not a mistake I will make twice.

        • Are you loosened up yet V?

    • Excellent news V!

      That puts things into perspective. I’m sure you are greatly relieved.

    • Good news indeed!

    • Great! I’m happy for you two and the rest of your family! God Bless!

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Absolutely wondeful VH!

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      An honest doctor will ALWAYS charge you 30-60% less for ANYTHING if you tell him you are paying out of pocket. I have yet to find a doctor that does not do this.

      • v. Holland says:

        Again, thanks everybody for caring 🙂

        They did make a point of saying they could not show that I had insurance in there computer or I wouldn’t be seen as a self pay. It was funny really the woman came and asked me 3 times if I was sure my insurance wouldn’t pay-nice woman didn’t want to cost me money-if I was wrong. They even went out of there way in the beginning to determine if my insurance would pay or not, without my having to ask-in order to determine if I could qualify for self-pay. Nice to see some doctors aren’t just giving you a cut if you ask -they are bringing up the possibility themselves.

  40. Judy Sabatini says:

    Welcome to the Nanny State

    By Sandra Fabry

    One of our government’s more recent and lesser known social engineering tools is a grant program under the trillion dollar spending and debt package passed by Congress and the president under the guise of “economic stimulus” in 2009.

    While nationally, all eyes are on the government takeover of the health care industry, a proposal to ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking has New York’s chefs and restaurateurs up in arms.

    Banning a food staple like salt, one of the oldest and most ubiquitous seasonings, may sound like an absurd idea, it is not an isolated idea pushed by a health-obsessed state legislator. Lawmakers and health activists have long been looking for ways to influence consumer choices and to curb our intake of foods, drinks and other substances they deem harmful — be it through regulatory regimes or through the tax code. For the longest time, the target these health activists loved to hate the most (and, quite frankly the low-hanging fruit) was tobacco, but more recently they have also pushed other “life-style tax hikes” or regulations and have zoomed in on trans-fats, sodium, snack foods and soda.

    They have found an ally in the White House in President Obama, who is going much further than joining his wife in advocating healthy food choices from the White House garden. The president’s idea of taxing soda and sugar-sweetened beverages as part of the health care overhaul quickly fizzled, however this hasn’t stopped the advancement of the nanny staters’ agenda.

    One of government’s more recent and lesser known social engineering tools is a grant program under the trillion dollar spending and debt package passed by Congress and the president under the guise of “economic stimulus” in 2009.

    So far, two rounds of related grants have been announced – a first round of $120 million went to states and territories in early February, and a second round of $372 million has just been awarded to 44 local communities last week. So what are you getting out of it?

    The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) administer a program called “Communities Putting Prevention To Work” (CPPW). The program gives out “stimulus” grants to states and local communities which have outlined how they plan to engage in a handful of “evidence-based” prevention strategies dubbed MAPPS, short for “Media, Access, Point of purchase/promotion, Price, and Social support and services.” In all honesty, however, “MAPPS” might as well mean “Make the American People Pay for our Schemes.”

    While descriptions for some of the latest projects funded under the program sound almost laughable — what exactly do you think they mean when they talk about “increasing point-of-decision health prompts at stairwells and elevators in public venues”? — it becomes abundantly clear that this is a concerted effort to advance government control over our consumption decisions when reviewing the CDC’s guideline document for grantees.

    Strategies listed range from outright product bans, over zoning, to media and advertising restrictions for “unhealthy” foods and drinks and tobacco products. And when Delaware receives more than $1 million to “educate leaders and decision-makers about the benefits of increasing the price on other tobacco products,” Oregon receives $3 million to “support a policy proposal to increase tobacco price,” your “stimulus” dollars are likely going towards hiring lobbyists to promote tax increases (which by the way would seem to violate one of CDC’s own lobbying restrictions).

    The code words for pushing for tax increases in the grantee guidelines are “evidence-based pricing strategies to discourage tobacco use” and “changing relative prices of healthy vs. unhealthy items.” Of course that only becomes clear after reviewing the references used in CDC’s supporting documentation, but then again, why would they want to advertise that they’re planning to spend our money to raise our taxes to expand control over our personal lives?

    What is the “stimulus” package really stimulating? We know it’s not job creation, because after all, weren’t we promised that the unemployment rate would not go above 8 percent if the bill passed?

    I’ll leave the answer up to you. In the meantime, let me welcome you to the Nanny States of America.

  41. Judy Sabatini says:

    7 Sickening Questions About Obamacare

    By Jon Kraushar

    What government program has ever reduced the deficit? Why are some in the White House and Congress exempt from this plan? And those questions are just for starters…

    A new CBS News poll finds that “nearly two in three Americans want Republicans in Congress to continue to challenge parts of the health care reform bill.” At this point, there will only be minor technical changes in the bill even with the new House vote required for final passage. But the battle over public opinion goes on. Here are seven sickening questions about Obamacare that all Americans must consider:

    1. What big government entitlement program has ever:

    • Reduced the deficit?
    • Only cost what it says it will and lowered the costs of goods and services?
    • Improved quality?
    • Enhanced efficiency?
    • Decreased delays?
    • Fostered more choice and competition?
    • Featured competent bureaucracy?
    • Operated with honest accounting?
    • Avoided fraud, abuse, waste, maddening red tape, and higher taxes?

    Why should we trust that Obamacare will do all that? Obamacare’s deceptive budget cooking was described in one instance by Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) as “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.”

    2. Why does Obamacare exempt some in Congress and the White House from having to buy the same health care plans that the law forces other Americans to purchase: President Obama, Vice President Biden, Cabinet members, top White House staff, congressional committee staff and leadership staff, such as those who work for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)?

    Republican Senators Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Tom Coburn (Oklahoma) tried to close this loophole, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wouldn’t even let it come up for a vote. As Grassley says, “It’s only fair and logical that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this overhaul of America’s health care system, experience it themselves. If it’s as good as promised, they’ll know it first-hand. If there are problems, they’ll be able to really understand them, as they should.”

    3. How will we deal with a doctor shortage caused by Obamacare, particularly when doctors are being asked to treat 32 million more Americans now insured by the new law?

    The Medicus Firm a medical recruitment company, found in a survey that 46 percent of physicians said they’d quit or retire if Obamacare became law. According to the survey, “even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system.”

    4. How will patients—particularly senior citizens—feel when their doctors and even hospitals tell them, “Sorry, but we’re only taking on non-Medicare patients who pay privately, in full”?

    The New York Times (which championed Obamacare) wrote last year that “Some doctors—often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists—are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.” Under ObamaCare, physicians’ Medicare fees are supposed to be cut 21 percent and hospital reimbursements for Medicare patients chopped by $1.3-billion. How long can doctors and hospitals sustain those losses before they’re forced to pull the plug on treating Medicare patients (although some exceptions may be made in dire emergencies)? Count on Congress to use budget tricks like temporary “fixes” to defer those cuts until at least after the November elections.

    5. How can President Obama claim that insurance premiums will go down when the very same nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office he quotes, selectively, has said that Obamacare will cause the average family’s premiums to go up by as much as 13 percent by 2016?

    6. Remember the “jobs saved or created” canard regarding Obama’s economic stimulus?

    The president is repeating that fantasy by applying it to Obamacare. However, the nonpartisan Lewin Group estimates that as many as 600,000 people will lose their jobs due to the onerous new employer health care mandates in Obamacare.

    7. Do you realize that Obamacare turns Medicare into what should really be called “Medi-pare”?

    Obamacare slices $528-billion from Medicare, including $136-billion carved out of Medicare Advantage. As The Washington Examiner’s Susan Ferrechio has reported, “The Medicare Advantage cuts will force 4.8 million seniors off the popular plan by 2019. An additional $23 billion in cuts to Medicare will come from a panel charged with slashing Medicare spending.”

    Those are just some of the gut-wrenching questions about Obamacare that cry out for answers. But as the expression goes, “It’s what you don’t know that really hurts you.” Obamacare is so full of dubious assumptions that in future years we may rename it Obama’s box, as in Pandora’s box.

  42. To the Hollands!!!!!!!

  43. Something to giggle at!

    Redneck Hooker

    A redneck was walking home late at night and saw a woman in the shadows.

    ”Twenty dollars’ she whispers.

    Bubba had never been with a hooker before, but decides what the hell, it’s only twenty bucks

    So they hide in the bushes.

    They’re ‘engaged’ for a minute when all of a sudden a light flashes on them. It is a police officer.

    ‘What’s going on here, people?’ asks the officer.

    ‘I’m making love to my wife!,’ Bubba answers sounding annoyed.

    ‘Oh, I’m sorry,’ says the cop, ‘I didn’t know’

    ‘Well, neither did I, ’til ya shined that light in her face! “

  44. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hey All

    Just heard that the house just voted on student loans and apparently it passed. So now, they’re in charge of that too. But, what the heck, does student loans have to do with health care?

    BTW, Heard it was 217 to 194 or something like that.

  45. Judy Sabatini says:

    This is how he treats his supposed allies.

    President Allegedly Dumps Israeli Prime Minister for Dinner

    Times of London

    According to Israeli reports, Obama walked out of his meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu for dinner.

    For a head of state to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the president withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of.

    Yet that is how Benjamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip seen in Jerusalem tonight as a disastrous humiliation.

    After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on Jewish settlements, Obama walked out of his meeting with Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new,” a congressman who spoke to the prime minister said today.

    “It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages,”poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House phone line. Another said that the prime minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea.”

    Left to talk among themselves, Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He later spent a further half-hour with Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks aimed at restarting peace negotiations, but left last night with no official statement from either side. He returns to Israel dangerously isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.

    Sources said that Netanyahu failed to impress Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not be responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel this month, and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.

  46. This report made me laugh a little. Bob wants us to believe that his government run healthcare is good, which is fine, but yet these things happen and one has to wonder, why did we have a revolution in 1776?


  47. And here we go…

    Businesses already announcing hits as a result of the passage of ObamaCare


  48. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    At least health care reform will be creating jobs SOMEWHERE (although not here in the US of course….)


%d bloggers like this: