Palin for Prez 2016

Let’s continue the open mic forum and see if some of the problems with the site are related to the number of comments.   I have been having problems with replying when the number of replies gets real high.  Now for the good news, fresh venison backstrap on the grill this weekend!



  1. @Anita, The issue of the Petrodollar? Well, I’m not sure what would happen if the US dollar was no longer used to by all the oil in the ME. This is an honest question, hoping to get some educated replies. The PrisonPlanet stuff should be looked at, just like every other news site, carefully. I want the story, not the propaganda crap.

    Does that help?

    • Same troubles with reply box so bear with me.
      No it doesn’t help. You’ve posted that question a few times lately leading me to believe that you have some inside info. I was just curious what it was. “They” have been threatening the demise of the dollar for years..just like a lot of other threats that don’t seem to come to fruition. I don’t know what to believe anymore..

      • Anita, try clicking inside the reply box and then hitting the enter bar.

        • It’s suddenly fixed. I just replied to Matt on the last page and it was still messed up. I’ll remember that trick for next time though.Thanks V.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’ve been getting a lot of emails warning that it may happen, just wondering what it may mean to all of us. Nobody seems to know I guess!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman and Anita

      If the dollar is not longer used as the sole money for trading oil then the US will NOT BE ABLE TO EXPORT our inflation to the rest of the world.

      We will have to suffer under our own inflationary policies while the rest of the world goes on its way with their money.

      Some don’t think this will be a big deal because the Central Banks and Politicians will continue to race each other to the bottom. But I think there are at least THREE players who have been making noises that may feel that is fine. Russia, China and Brazil.

  2. For Todd:

    A recent survey covering more than 1,000 physician practices confirms what many experts had feared—many doctors will not participate in Obamacare’s exchanges.
    The survey was conducted by the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), a trade group representing multi-physician medical practices. The results are in, and they’re unambiguous:
    A majority (55.5 percent) of practices believe the exchanges will have an unfavorable, or very unfavorable, impact on their practice.
    Fewer than three in 10 practices (29.2 percent) definitely plan to “participate with any new health insurance product(s) sold” on an exchange, with a majority (56.4 percent) still uncertain.
    Of those not participating in the exchanges, the top concern, listed by 64 percent of practices, was “concerns about the administrative and regulatory burdens related to these products.”
    More than two in three practices said that reimbursement rates for exchange plans are somewhat lower (36.2 percent) or much lower (33.2 percent) than “average payment rates from all commercial payers in your area”—and these lower reimbursement rates likely explain the lack of robust commitment by physician practices in participating in exchange plans.
    The study’s results are even more surprising given the source of the study. MGMA represents many integrated physician practices, including famous practices like the Mayo Clinic. The Obama Administration has held out these types of integrated practices as the prototype for the accountable care organization (ACO) model created in Obamacare. Yet these practices, which the Administration views as part of the future of health care, along with many other doctors and hospitals, may decide not to participate in Obamacare exchange plans.
    Giving millions of Americans an insurance card that does not provide access to care represents an empty promise, not health “reform.” It’s one more reason why Congress needs to stop this unworkable law and focus on better reforms that can actually help patients.

    • Colonel,
      The article you posted cherry-picked it’s numbers from the survey. I suggest you read the whole thing.

      Just out of curiosity, are these the same medical practices complaining about being dropped from UHC Medicare Advantage Network in Connecticut? They don’t seem to mind “government healthcare.” Maybe these practices would prefer a single-payer system?

  3. For Todd:

    Doctors vs. Obamacare: Can your physician simply ‘opt-out’?

    Read more:
    Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

    This is too long to copy and print. Suggest you read it.

    And this all, Todd. You will never be wrong. Time will show what happens.

    • I thought you didn’t like links? Not trustworthy – unless you agree with them.

      The article is over a year and a half old.

      I read it. So what?

  4. Thanks to Charlie, we have this “Satire” on Palin:

    A Palin candidacy is dead in the water. Whether 99 percent of Americans believe the “Satires” or 99 percent don’t, the brand has been damaged beyond belief or repair.

    Just for the hell of it, let’s review some of the past “satires”

    Romney’s dog on the roof of the car. Romney’s money

    Bush 2 on stupid

    Dan Quale on Potato-potatoe

    Bush 1 on UPC coding

    Reagan on Senility

    Gerry Ford on two! Golf and walking down stairs!

    Nixon and used cars

    Goldwater and Armageddon

    For the life of me, with the exception of Joe Biden’s occasional slip-ups, I can’t think of a major Democratic Candidate who has been “satirized” like the Republicans. One time events do not count, no way, no how. Anybody want to add to the list, challenge the list or show me where there has been some equal opportunity.

    Alinsky says:

    RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

    • Just A Citizen says:


      With all due respect, and from someone who has come to her defense many times, the reason her candidacy is “dead in the water” is MOSTLY, no ENTIRELY, due to HER.

      Only the hard core left would continue to harp on the stupid stereotypes and lies. All that is needed for those in the middle is for her to start talking off script.

      I do not believe she is stupid. I believe her to have some solid principles and do not hold it against her for a) quitting and b) using her fame to make some jingle for her family.

      But she is simply not Presidential Timber, so to speak. And Speaking is one of here great weaknesses.

      She delivered one of the best Convention speeches I have ever heard. But that was here talent showing through on a prepared speech. Watch her trying to comment off the cuff. It is painful at times.

      I wouldn’t mind having her and her family as neighbors. But I don’t want them in the White House.

      • It’s interesting how Palin has been so demonized, to this day, by the Left. Her political career is not going anywhere because of her “painful” interviews. I can only attribute her continued hatred by those on the Left as plain anger. With Nancy Pelosi being their “centerfold” in the LIBERAL PLAYBOY magazine, I can see why. 🙂

        • Anger? G, we LOVE Sarah Palin …. a) she remains a hotty … b) she’s the gift that keeps on giving. She is so clueless it is entertaining. She ruined any chance McCain had once she had to answer questions without a prepared speech (JAC is right) … but the real damage she did has continued on because she continues to spew … they can’t shut her up … and liberals LOVE her (and them) for it … she’s the softer version of the lunatics on the right (Bachmann, et al) … now you have CRUZ … gifts that keep on keeping on …

          But speaking of corrupt politics, he said, I read a book this week on The Jersey Sting … unbelievable …

          • Watched the news yesterday. Saw Bank of America take a big hit for Countrywide Mortgages. You may remember them, they brought down the United States economy. That’s the one where Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were in up to their necks in along with other friends of Angelo.

            Favorite point is that Angelo is still free as a bird, walking around, richer than rich and BOA, forced to pick up the pieces by the feds takes the hit and the blame. Man there is some story to be written about Countrywide and Angelo Mozilo. Mozilo seems to be getting fainter and fainter when you do searches on line. Doesn’t show up readily for Countrywide anymore. SOB got a pass!

            I get a kick out of Fordham U and their cluelessness . This guy regularly gets honored by them for his donations. As an alum, they love him. Nobody out there in the premier NY Jesuit institution seems to read newspapers and if they do be able to put 2 plus 2 together.

  5. Buckster………I jumped on the health exchanges and created a user profile. I had to set a different birthdate since I am 65. It took several tries but I found the same thing you did and it showed some rather incredible premiums. Then I went a step further and plugged in my income. That is where the sticker shock came in to me….the premium doubled and deductibles changed significantly.

    This supports the theory that the premiums that are proposed on the exchange sites take for granted you qualify for subsidies. I put in $125,000 income figure and the premium jumped almost 300%…..went from $235 to 610…..and the deductible went from 3500 to 9000…. Depending on the plan, of course.

    Be interested to know what you run into when you plug in your income.

    Have good day.

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    “Researchers concluded that personality traits correlate strongly with political views. “In left-leaning regions, it appears that residents are generally open, reserved, and socially distant, whereas in right-leaning regions, residents appear to be friendly, warm, dutiful, and traditional,” according to the study. “

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    A few interesting quotes from and intellectual of the early 1800’s

    “I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself. Letter to Arthur de Gobineau, 22 October 1843, Tocqueville Reader, p. 229”

    “Socialism is a new form of slavery. Notes for a Speech on Socialism (1848)”

    “As for me, I am deeply a democrat; this is why I am in no way a socialist. Democracy and socialism cannot go together. You can’t have it both ways. Notes for a Speech on Socialism (1848)”

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    I don’t usually do this, from this source, but this is so relevant in several ways. One of them being a particular “style of argument” which some may recognize. This is poached from Daily Kos. It is obviously intended to condemn the guy who might PRIMARY McConnell. But what does it really say to ya’ll???

    “McConnell primary challenger on raising Social Security retirement age: ‘We have to start now’
    byJed Lewison .

    In case you were starting to wonder whether Kentucky investment banker Matt Bevin had enough tea party craziness in him to topple Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and nuke himself in the general election, this should restore your faith (emphasis added):

    QUESTION: The programs that put the “big” in big government are Medicare and Social Security. What specifically would you do about them? Raise the age of eligibility?
    BEVIN: There has to be fiscal responsibility applied. There has to be common sense. These programs are going broke. They are bankrupt. Look at the requirements for eligibility on two fronts – both in terms of means- testing if it comes to that, but more critically and more importantly, look at the demographics.

    When these programs were created, the recipients on average lived a few years beyond the point at which they were eligible. Now they’re living as long as half their lives after the point that they become eligible – decades and decades. This is what’s making it unsustainable.

    Whether it’s 2, 3, 5, 7 years for people who have yet to join the program, the fact is we need to start moving in a different direction and we have to start now. I don’t believe in cutting for those who are now receiving. NOW BEFORE YOU PROCEED LET ME POINT OUT THAT BOB BOEKEL MADE THESE SAME ARGUMENTS THE OTHER DAY WHEN MAKING FUN OF CONSERVATIVES FOR FREAKING OUT ON THE DEBT. HIS POINT BEING THAT SOC SEC HAS TO BE ADJUSTED FOR THE NEW DEMOGRPAHICS.

    So Bevin tries to cover his behind by saying he doesn’t want to cut benefits for people who are currently receiving Social Security, but he wants to raise the retirement age and cut benefits for everyone else, and he says he wants to do it because he believes Social Security and Medicare “are bankrupt” in part because he believes many beneficiaries are living “half their lives” after becoming eligible.

    But just because Bevin believes those things doesn’t make them true: neither Social Security nor Medicare are bankrupt and only a handful of people ever reach the age of 98 or 100, the age at which they’d have spent half their lives benefits from Medicare or Social Security, and even those people would still have spent more of their lives in the workforce. THIS IS THE ARGUMENT STYLE I WAS MENTIONING. LOOK FAMILIAR??


    To the extent there are any long-term fiscal challenges, they have to with Medicare and the rate of increase in the cost of health care, and given that Medicare costs grow more slowly than private insurance, raising the retirement age would be the exact wrong way to go. TRUTH: THE ADMINISTRATORS OF BOTH PROGRAMS HAVE PREDICTED BOTH PROGRAMS GOING SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE RED. THAT INCLUDES SOC SEC WITH PEOPLE LIKE THIS CONTINUE TO CLAIM IS SOLVENT.

    All that being said, the fact that Bevin’s ideas are both bad and unpopular with the public at large isn’t necessarily a liability in the Republican primary. In fact, they’re probably pretty helpful. Just like Christine O’Donnell and Richard Mourdock and Ken Buck and Sharron Angle and Todd Akin before him, Matt Bevin just might be extreme enough to win. WHICH OF COURSE IS AN ATTEMPT TO “ASSOCIATE” THIS GUY WITH O’DONNELL THE WITCH, MOURDOC AND BUCK AND AKIN, THE IDIOTS, AND ANGLE THE CRAZY LADY FROM NEVADA. WHO BY THE WAY, WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE NOMINEED IF NOT FOR REID’S CAMPAIGN GETTING A SHILL TO RUN IN THE REP. PRIMARY.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    Another poached article, this time from Mises institute. Older article. note: this guy is taking credit for MY word which I posted on SUFA back about this time….Fasciolism. I spelled it differently. Anyway…………..its on healthcare so I thought it fitting of the moment NOTE: this was written in 2009..

    American Healthcare Fascialism

    Mises Daily: Friday, October 23, 2009 by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

    Some time ago I invented the phrase “fascialism” to describe the American system of political economy. Fascialism means an economy is part fascist, part socialist. Economic fascism has nothing to do with dictatorship, militarism, or bizarre racial theories. Fascism is a brand of socialism that was the economic system of Germany and Italy in the early 20th century. It was characterized by private enterprise, but private enterprise that was comprehensively regulated and regimented by the state, ostensibly “in the public interest” (as arbitrarily defined by the state).

    Socialism started out meaning government ownership of the means of production, but it came to mean egalitarianism promoted by “progressive” taxation and the institutions of the welfare state, as F.A. Hayek stated in the preface to the 1976 edition of The Road to Serfdom. The problems of the American healthcare system are caused entirely by the fact that the government subjects the system to massive interventions, some of which are fascist in nature, while others are socialist.

    In 1992, the Hoover Institution published an essay by Milton Friedman titled “Input and Output in Medical Care,” in which Friedman documented how, at the beginning of the 20th century, about 90% of all American hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises. State and local governments then began taking over the hospital industry. So, by the early 1990s only about 10% of all American hospitals were private, for-profit enterprises. Socialism characterizes at least 90% of all hospitals. Many other hospitals have received government subsidies, and with the subsidies come reams of regulation, making them fascist by definition.

    “The problems caused entirely by the fact that the government subjects the system to massive interventions, some of which are fascist in nature while others are socialist.”

    The effect of this vast government takeover of the hospital industry, Friedman documented, is what any student of the economics of bureaucracy should expect: the more that is spent on hospital care, the worse the quality and quantity of care become, thanks to the effects of governmental bureaucratization. According to Friedman, as governments took over an ever-larger share of the hospital industry (being exempt from antitrust laws), hospital personnel per occupied hospital bed quintupled, as cost per bed rose tenfold.

    Friedman concluded that “Gammon’s Law,” named after British physician Max Gammon, “has been in full operation for U.S. hospitals since the end of World War II.” Gammon’s Law states that “In a bureaucratic system, increases in expenditure will be matched by a fall in production.… Such systems will act rather like ‘black holes’ in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of … production.” Dr. Gammon surely knew what he was talking about, having spent his career in the British National Health Service.

    “The U.S. medical system, in large part, has become a socialist enterprise,” Friedman ended. Friedman also once suggested a syllogism to explain the bizarre spectacle on display today of responding to problems caused by healthcare socialism with even more healthcare socialism.

    The syllogism goes as follows:
    1. Socialism has been a failure everywhere it has been tried;
    2. Everyone knows this; and
    3. Therefore, we need more socialism.

    Layers of regulation plague every aspect of medical care and health insurance in America. In the health-insurance industry, for instance, each state imposes dozens of regulatory mandates on health insurers, requiring them to include coverage of everything from massage therapy to hair implants. The reason for mandates is that the message-therapy and hair-implant industries (and many others) hire lobbyists to bribe state legislators to require insurers to cover their particular practice if they want to sell insurance within a state. Among the states with the largest number of mandates as of 2009 are Rhode Island (70), Minnesota (68), Maryland (66), New Mexico (57), and Maine (55). Idaho has the fewest mandates (13), followed by Alabama (21), Utah (23), and Hawaii (24). SPECIAL NOTE, A REPEAT FROM MY PAST COMMENTS, IDAHO’S INSURANCE RATES AT THE TIME WERE ALMOST HALF THOSE OF MONTANA WHICH HAD OVER 50 MANDATES THEN AND ALMOST 70 AS OF TWO YEARS AGO.

    Each mandate increases the cost of health insurance and probably increases the typical health-insurance policy by hundreds, or thousands, of dollars yearly. This is a good example of healthcare fascism.

    Government policy in the health-insurance industry applies both the brakes and the gas at the same time. While imposing onerous and cost-increasing regulations, government also limits legal liability in some cases where an insurer refuses to pay for a particular procedure or treatment that costs a patient his life. The state also creates state-wide cartels with laws prohibiting the portability of some aspects of health insurance. (For example, my employer-provided health insurance covers pharmaceuticals in Maryland, where I reside, but not in other states.)

    Getting back to pure socialism, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration hospitals socialize a very large portion of healthcare in America, with the same predictable results as the socialization of hospitals: runaway costs for decade after decade, coupled with massive fraud, as is often the case when politicians are enabled to spend other people’s money. Even the federal government admits that there is currently about $60 billion in Medicare fraud. Since government always understates the cost of everything it does, it is likely that the real number is at least two or three times that amount.

    Having taken over most of the hospital industry, government-run or government-subsidized hospitals have created regional monopoly power for themselves with so-called “certificate-of-need” (CON) regulation. How this regulatory scam works is that an existing hospital in an area will give itself the legal “right” to decide whether there is a legitimate “need” for more hospitals. They have given themselves, in other words, the right to veto new competition in the hospital industry. It is as if the Microsoft Corporation had a legal right to veto new competition in the computer industry.

    “FDA bureaucrats are extremely risk averse.”

    Not surprisingly, research has shown that CON regulation has increased hospital costs. CON regulation is also used to block competition in various healthcare professions as well, from nursing to home healthcare. (I was once asked to assist several nurses in obtaining a CON license from the Fairfax County, Virginia government so that they could start up their own home healthcare business. The county government was already in the business itself, and vetoed their application, naturally.)

    Physicians have long enjoyed a degree of monopoly power derived from state legislatures that delegate to the American Medical Association (the doctors’ union) the “right” to limit entry into medical schools through accreditation. Only graduates of accredited (by the AMA) medical schools are licensed to practice medicine. The AMA has used these state-granted privileges to limit both the number of medical schools and the number of medical-school graduates. The reduced supply of doctors drives up the price of medical care and the income of AMA members. Hundreds of other health professions limit entry with the help of occupational licensing regulation, the primary effect of which is to create monopoly profits, not to ensure quality of care.

    Government regulation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, primarily by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), increases healthcare costs, denies the benefits of myriad helpful drugs and devices, and creates monopoly power. It has literally been responsible for the premature death of thousands of Americans who have been deprived of drugs that were long available to people in other countries.

    FDA bureaucrats are extremely risk averse: On the one hand, it costs them nothing personally to delay a life-saving drug for years, if not decades, by demanding test after test. On the other hand, if they permit a drug to enter the marketplace that turns out to be dangerous, it is a public-relations disaster for the agency, which it does not want to be associated with. Consequently, the entrance of new drugs and medical devices onto the market is often delayed by years, costing many lives and inflicting much needless pain on those already suffering, while driving up prices.

    The FDA also makes the market for pharmaceuticals less competitive by restricting what advertising may say for myriad drugs — even aspirin. New drugs do consumers no good if they do not know about them. Advertising restrictions imposed by the FDA, therefore, prop up the profits of incumbent drug marketers at the expense of newcomers in the industry and of consumers.

    The government’s legal system is also responsible for what used to be called “the liability crisis.” The genesis of this crisis began in the 1960s. The government courts began accepting the Chicago School Law and Economics argument that assigning all liability in product-liability cases to manufacturers would be a good way to minimize the “social costs” of accidents. Manufacturers know more about products such as medical devices than anyone else, the argument went, so contract law and shared responsibility for accidents with the users of the products were thrown out the window.

    So, when accidents occur, slick trial lawyers have had an easy time convincing dumbed-down juries to award millions, or hundreds of millions, of dollars in liability lawsuits. These lawsuits have bankrupted the manufacturers of many medical devices, while convincing others that the devices are too risky to make. The effect on the healthcare consumer is poorer healthcare and higher prices.

    There are thousands of other government regulations and controls on all aspects of healthcare, even (or especially) the nursing-home industry. Like most regulation, it has little or no beneficial effect for the public. More often than not, it is part of a cartel arrangement by some group of medical practitioners who are in cahoots with federal, state, or local politicians who are always more than willing to sell their “constituents” down the river for a generous campaign “contribution.”

    The only sensible approach to healthcare “reform” would be massive privatization of America’s socialized hospitals, combined with deregulation of the medical professions to introduce more competition, and deregulation of the health-insurance industry. Free-market competition would produce medical “miracles” the likes of which have never been seen, while dramatically lowering the cost of healthcare, just as it has done in every other industry where it is allowed to exist to any large degree.

    This is not likely to happen in the United States, which at the moment seems hell-bent on descending into the abyss of socialism. Once some states begin seceding from the new American fascialistic state, however, there will be opportunities to restore healthcare freedom within them.

  10. @Todd. On the subject of personal attacks, it is not hard to understand when you are being directly affected or indirectly affected when it comes to a negative comment. When you see “Liberals are total liars and should be banned from politics” It is not a direct attack on you, even if you are a Liberal. Now, if you see “Todd is a total liar…..” Then that is a direct attack. While that’s not the best example, it should make the point fairly clear. I reckon that “Joe the poster is a dick” would not fly here, where as Liberals or Tea Party people are dick’s” is clearly is not a personal attack. I hope that clarifies it all 🙂

    • Todd … G has to explain this to me every few posts as well … but I think he forgets himself … although I do think he’s trying these days … but I haven’t been around as much lately (just busy) … when I saw “Palin for President”, it was like bees to honey 🙂

      • I know Charlie – Palin for Prez 2016!! – I can only DREAM!! 😉

        Here’s my offer to you SUFAers:

        If you guys can get Palin to actually announce her candidacy for President for 2016, and she stays in the race and participates in at least one primary, I will donate $1000 to her campaign.

        I may absolutely serious – I don’t need any “outs”. 😉

        So get busy and motivate Palin to get into the race! 😉

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Yes, I agree! Palin should switch to the Democrats and take on Hillary 🙂 The Primary would be priceless 😉

          • I agree it would be priceless to watch Hillary take Palin down step-by-step.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              The entertainment value of watching two failures would be worth the lost time. Palin would win, just because she don’t have any blood on her hands. PALIN for PREZ 2016

              • Seems to me we have had all those oh so smart, good at giving speeches and talking BS people in office for a lot of years. I personally wouldn’t mind giving a down to earth woman with common sense a try.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I agree VH! Hillary is NOT down to earth so to speak. Palin for Prez 2016

    • Mathius™ says:

      I’m going to have to disagree with you gman.

      “Liberals” are dicks is very different from “liberal politicians” are dicks or (one of my favorites) calling the left Libtards simply because we do not agree.

      Respectful discourse does not permit the use of generalizations to attack ones group any more than it permits the use of generalizations to attack an individual. Unless, perhaps, you say something along the lines of “people here may not exhibit trait X, but it seems that conservatives in general do to a high degree.” Where is is clear that you are excluding the other commenters.

      Tempers always run high in politics and people can be, err, over sensitive (especially us touchy liberals, dontchaknow). I know that in my 4+ years on SUFA, I’ve stepped on more than my share of toes, but I do try to be good about it. In general, a good rule is that you shouldn’t say anything to someone online that you wouldn’t want to say to their face. And remember, that words on the internet easily lose the nuance which the spoken word conveys – a joke or lightheared comment easily becomes an attack or insult when not intended as such.

      But saying something like “liberals are idiots and should be banned from politics” still comes off as a hostile comment toward the liberal individual – would you find it innocuous if I told you that conservativism is a mental disorder? Of course not.

      • ” In general, a good rule is that you shouldn’t say anything to someone online that you wouldn’t want to say to their face.”

        Does that mean they have to wear a mask to compensate for the fugazy screen names? 🙂

      • I think as adults, we all know a personal attack when we see one. When I post an article or video link and say something negative about the “left” it is directed towards those in the link, not to anyone here. In some rare occasions someone form the “left” will agree with my assessment, but it is rare. If ya’ll feel the need, defend those in the link!

      • In general, a good rule is that you shouldn’t say anything to someone online that you wouldn’t want to say to their face.

        Probably not the best rule, because some folks just don’t care about others. I would say the best rule of thumb is to not say something to (pick a name) if you would not want them to say something similar about yourself. Now, calling conservatives something negative, based on a video or whatever is not a personal attack towards anyone here. For example, many people like Sarah Palin and what she stands for. When Charlie slaps her around as he likes to do, it’s not towards anyone on this site. If someone wants to defend Sarah, they are free to jump in the fray!

        For the record, liberalism, conservatism, communism and a few more “ism’s” are mental diseases 🙂 Does that help alittle?

    • Gman,
      The personal attacks are pretty few and far between here. I think you’re over-sensitive and just looking for an opportunity to jump on those from the left.

      Your general “insults” about the left don’t bother me – I’m used to them here. I just see them as childish attempts to show your perceived superiority. And to cover for “other things.” 😉

      I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but very few people respond to those posts. Maybe that’s the best indication of their value.

      If you want serious, respectful discussions here, maybe you should engage in serious, respectful discussions…

      Just my thoughts. 😉

      • gmanfortruth says:


        I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but very few people respond to those posts. Maybe that’s the best indication of their value.

        True, shaking one’s head back and forth doesn’t have proper words to respond. OR, maybe it’s like the ratings for the Liberal media like MSNBC ? 😉

        • This is the sum-total of your thoughts on this? Sad…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I said TRUE! which means I mostly agreed with you, because they are no different than what Charlie posts on Palin. Funny, you don’t seem to mind those 😉

            • I don’t see how you’re agreeing with me?

              What does “shaking one’s head back and forth doesn’t have proper words to respond. OR, maybe it’s like the ratings for the Liberal media like MSNBC” have to do with this?

              Your justification is “someone else is doing it”? Then, by all means, just continue to follow the “herd”…

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Todd, I can see you have zero understanding of those on the “right” side of politics. We believe in personal responsibility and in my case self reliability. I don’t follow any herd, the herds follow me 🙂 Liberals, who seem to need big government so they can be led around are the herd followers and you need only to back to Obama’s acceptance speech in Chicago to relive this for yourself.
                We all have opinions, and often, they aren’t always agreed upon. That’s cool. In politics, which is what we talk about, the left and right sides of the spectrum are equally attackable. If you or anyone else posts a video or article showing those on the “right” not being to bright, I will laugh with you and agree. When I show those on the “left” doing the same, you (and others) get offended. Being offended by the shear stupidity of those on the left political side is not a personal attack, but it may be a glaring weakness in the Liberal ideology. PEACE and be FREE!

        • Hey guys-for some reason the saying “like a dog with a bone” keeps running through my mind-I wonder why? 🙂

  11. Autonomy-that word is real familiar.

    Don’t forget Obamacare’s electronic medical records wreck
    By Michelle Malkin • October 23, 2013 09:29 AM

    Don’t forget Obamacare’s electronic medical records wreck
    by Michelle Malkin
    Creators Syndicate
    Copyright 2013

    Dr. Nicholas DiNubile, a Philadelphia orthopedic surgeon, has a timely reminder for everyone encountering the federal health care exchange meltdown: “If you think signing up for Obamacare is a nightmare, ask your doctor how the EMR mandate is going.”

    The White House finally acknowledged the spectacular public disaster of Obamacare’s Internet exchange infrastructure during Monday’s Rose Garden infomercial. But President Shamwow and his sales team are AWOL on the bureaucratic ravages of the federal electronic medical records mandate. Modernized data collection is a worthy goal, of course. But distracted doctors are seeing “more pixels than patients,” Dr. DiNubile observes, and the EMR edict is foisting “dangerous user-unfriendly technology” on physicians and patients.

    Instead of concentrating on care, doctors face exhausting regulatory battles over the definition of “meaningful use” of technology, skyrocketing costs and unwarranted Big Brother intrusions on the practice of medicine.

    As I reported last year, Obamacare’s top-down, tax-subsidized, job-killing, privacy-undermining electronic record-sharing scheme has been a big fat bust. More than $4 billion in “incentives” has been doled out to force doctors and hospitals to convert and upgrade by 2015. But favored EMR vendors, including Obama bundler Judy Faulkner’s Epic Systems, have undermined rather than enhanced interoperability. Oversight remains lax. And after hyping the alleged benefits for nearly a decade, the RAND Corporation finally ‘fessed up that its cost-savings predictions of $81 billion a year — used repeatedly to support the Obama EMR mandate — were (like every other Obamacare promise) vastly overstated.

    In June, the Annals of Emergency Medicine published a study warning that the “rush to capitalize on the huge federal investment of $30 billion for the adoption of electronic medical records led to some unfortunate and unintended consequences” tied to “communication failure, poor data display, wrong order/wrong patient errors and alert fatigue.” Also this summer, Massachusetts reported that 60 percent of doctors could not meet the EMR mandate and face potential loss of their licenses in 2015. And a few weeks ago, the American College of Physicians pleaded with the feds to delay the mandate’s data collection, certification and reporting requirements.

    Dr. Hayward K. Zwerling, an internal medicine physician in Massachusetts who is also president of ComChart Medical Software, blasted the Obamacare EMR mandate in a recent open letter: “As the developer of an EMR, I sincerely believe that a well-designed EMR is a useful tool for many practices. However, the federal and state government’s misguided obsession to stipulate which features must be in the EMRs, and how the physician should use the EMRs in the exam room places the politicians in the middle of the exam room between the patient and the physician, and seriously disrupts the physician-patient relationship.” Zwerling’s call to arms appealed to fellow doctors to pressure the feds to repeal the mandate. “It is past time that physicians reclaim control of their offices, if not the practice of medicine.”

    As I’ve mentioned previously, my own primary care physician in Colorado Springs quit her regular practice and converted to “concierge care” because of the EMR imposition. Dr. Henry Smith, a Pennsylvania pulmonary doctor, also walked away. “Faced with the implementation costs and skyrocketing overhead in general,” he told me, “I finally threw in the towel and closed my practice.” He said, “As EMRs proliferate, and increased Medicare scrutiny looms, medical documentation is evolving from its original goal of recording what actually was going on with a patient, and what the provider was actually thinking, to sterile boilerplate documents designed to justify the highest billing codes.”

    Dr. Michael Laidlaw of Rocklin, Calif., told EHR Practice Consultants that he abandoned the Obamacare EMR “incentive” program “when I realized that I spent the first two to five minutes of each visit endlessly clicking a bunch of garbage to make all the green lights show up on the (meaningful use) meter. I said to myself: ‘I’m not wasting precious seconds of my life and my patients’ time to ensure some database gets filled with data. I didn’t go into medicine for this. It is not benefiting my patients or me. I hate it.’ I actually refused to take the $10K-plus this year. I have even accepted that I would rather be penalized in the future. What is worth the most to me is AUTONOMY.”

    Let me underscore that again: Doctors face steep penalties if they can’t meet the radical technology goals imposed by the very same glitch-plagued Obamacare bureaucrats who now need an emergency “tech surge” to fix their own failed info-tech Titanic. The Obamacare wrecking ball has only just begun.

    • I asked the question several months ago on here if their doctor was spending more time with the computer than with the patient during office visits. Computers are great tools but having a physician typing in information may not be the best use of his time. When I started working, there were plenty of secretaries around to type up reports and other documents. I haven’t worked with a secretary now in well over 20 years. They did serve a useful purpose.

  12. Newest tactics-hmmm-I believe they tried this tactic DIRECTLY before, it failed-I guess their gonna test the waters again-to see if our society is ready yet to accept no moral boundaries AT ALL when it comes to abortion.

    Pro-Abortion Campaign Urges Women to be “Proud” of Their Abortions

    by Cassy Fiano | Washington, DC | | 10/24/13 6:03 PM

    One of the newest tactics from abortion advocates to help them obtain their dream world of abortion being available for free, on demand, and for any reason at all is to tackle the idea of abortion being stigmatized. The latest to make the case for the destigmatization of abortion is Carly “women could accomplish nothing without abortion” Manes.

    Lots of women have abortions, and if they would only speak up about it, people wouldn’t hate abortion so much!

    One in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime.

    These are real peoples’ lives. These are women in our community. One in three isn’t just a statistic — it’s a representation of all the women in your life who have had abortions but have not been given the opportunity to talk about it. Every time an anti-abortion law is brought to the floor, every time a group of anti-abortion activists stands in front of a clinic entrance with signs that shame individuals who have abortions, we are failing one-third of our nation’s women. We are effectively telling women who have had abortions, and women who are going to have abortions — outlawing abortion doesn’t stop abortions from happening — that their experience is shameful, and that the choice they made about their pregnancy is wrong. This is the stigma, and when we stigmatize abortion in this way, we are silencing a whole lot of people.

    Hey Carly, you know who else is silenced because of abortion? The millions of people killed because they were inconvenient. They were silenced, too, but their voices don’t count, right?

    What is far more disturbing about Manes’ whining about the stigma surrounding abortion — echoed by plenty of other abortion advocates as well — is that abortion is something not deserving of shame. It’s as if it should be seen as some kind of force for moral good. Women should speak loudly and proudly about their abortions, and that will erase the stigma!

    That’s why, starting today, with the 1 in 3 Campaign Week of Action, we are changing the conversation. The 1 in 3 Campaign is about letting individuals who have had abortions tell their stories without the shame and stigma that currently surrounds the abortion conversation. We are reclaiming our voices, and telling our stories so that woman around the nation can tell theirs too. Not only do we hope that the sharing of personal abortion stories finally puts an end to the stigmatization of abortion and women who have abortions, but we hope it mobilizes abortion supporters to advocate for safe, legal and affordable abortion care.

    In their fantasy world with a moral relativism, anything goes, devil may care society, maybe it makes sense for there not to be a stigma surrounding abortion. We shouldn’t ever judge anyone, right? But society does judge people, for all kinds of reasons. Do we look down on people who are alcoholics? Prescription drug abusers? Yes, we do. Alcohol and prescription drugs may be legal, but abusing them is not smiled upon. There is help for people who are alcoholics or hooked on prescription drugs, but there are very few people that will argue that we need to erase the stigma surrounding being an alcoholic or a drug abuser.

    So let’s say abortion is, and should continue to be, legal. Why does that mean that the stigma should be erased from it? Pregnancy is not a random medical ailment that happens to women for no reason whatsoever. It’s not cancer or disease or a disability. Women become pregnant because they had sex, and the overwhelming majority of the time, they did so willingly. When the result of their choice is inconvenient to them, then their solution is to callously discard the life they created. There’s nothing to destigmatize there.


    Acting as if abortion is the same as any other medical procedure is simply a lie. Abortion stops a beating heart, it takes a life. Using abortion as a form of birth control, to erase your mistakes and lack of personal responsibility, is abhorrent. It isn’t something to be celebrated or proud of.

    Instead of aiming to make abortion a last resort for women, and trying to empower them to where they won’t be in a situation to ever need an abortion, pro-aborts like Manes want to make it mainstream and common. They want to treat it like it’s just another medical procedure, that women have no reason to feel shame for snuffing out a life purely for convenience sake. It’s a truly sickening thought.

    And thankfully, most of the country doesn’t feel the same way — yet.

    • Sorry Matt-they’re

    • Mathius™ says:

      “That’s why, starting today, with the 1 in 3 Campaign Week of Action, we are changing the conversation. The 1 in 3 Campaign is about letting individuals who have had abortions tell their stories without the shame and stigma that currently surrounds the abortion conversation.”

      “Without shame and stigma” is not the same as being “proud.” I clicked on your abhorrent link and couldn’t find the support for any suggestion that the pro-choice crowd is suggesting an abortion should be a point of “pride,” only that they shouldn’t be ashamed or stigmatized either.

      Those are two very, very different things.

      That’s a nice strawman you’ve got there..

      • Pass the popcorn

      • You keep telling yourself that Matt-but ” but we hope it mobilizes abortion supporters to advocate for safe, legal and affordable abortion care.” Notice any change?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Well I’d prefer if they’d left the word “rare” in there as well..

          Are you honestly trying to tell me that the groups want more abortions?

          Why? Even those of us who don’t consider fetuses as having right trumping the mothers’ don’t consider abortion a “good thing” at the very best it’s a morally neutral action – at worst, it’s a tragedy. Nowhere on the spectrum does anything think it’s actually “good” to have an abortion or that there should be more of them.

          Perhaps a tiny fringe of voluntary human extinction types.. but that’s it. Pro-choice / pro-life, everyone wants fewer abortions.

          • I suspect that’s true Matt-but your not the abortion industry or one of the talking heads-the conversation is changing and they are trying very hard to change your mind.

            “Women should speak loudly and proudly about their abortions” Is this the talk of someone who wants less abortions or someone encouraging abortions.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Who said “proudly”?

              All I’m seeing is them saying that women shouldn’t be shamed and stigmatized.

              The only place I’m seeing “proud” is in your side’s arguments.

              • Okay Matt, I’ll give you that one-it wasn’t a quote. How about “Abortion on Demand without apology” Is that where you stand on abortion? On demand, because like most things that are political you don’t have to convince people about the details. You simply have to get them to support the cause and that’s the cause. On Demand without any shame. Again I ask you is this promoting “rare”. Is this anywhere close to abortion is a tragedy. Does this even represent the actual law on abortion?

              • Mathius™ says:

                Okay Matt, I’ll give you that one-it wasn’t a quote.
                Isn’t it interesting that you (and your link) keep putting it in quote marks though?

              • Actually, that was my mistake -the article didn’t put it in quote marks.

              • Mathius™ says:

                On Demand without any shame. Again I ask you is this promoting “rare”.
                No. But you can focus on eliminating shame and making them rare as separate items.

                Why does every effort at alleviating the stigma have to be tied to also eliminating the act itself. They are separate agenda items.

                As for “On Demand,” again, I see this in quotes – can you show me the pro-choice’s source? I suspect that this is also something they never said.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Actually, that was my mistake -the article didn’t put it in quote marks.

                Yes it did. Right in the headline.

              • Google it!! the rest I’ll have to answer later-I really shouldn’t of checked back to see if you had answered -I’ve seriously gotta go now. 🙂

          • I asked this question the other day-I suspect you didn’t see it. Did you tell me a while back that you didn’t think people should have abortions after 5 weeks? I have this memory but for some reason I’m not 100% sure it was you. And it’s bugging me not being sure 🙂

            • Mathius™ says:

              My PERSONAL opinion is that the thing which makes us “human,” or rather, endows us with human rights is a human mind. Specifically, the ability to think and experience the word with self awareness in a “human” fashion. Thus, a brain-dead coma patient, while biologically homo sapiens, has no “right to life” – he’s just a bag of meat. This applied to my grandfather after Parkinson’s turned his mind into a bowl of mush – he wasn’t “grandpa” anymore – he was a walking, drooling meatbag that just happened to looked like my grandfather. Understanding this is the key to understanding my personal beliefs on the subject.

              See, I can’t tell you when a brain develops any sort of “humanity” to it. What I can say is that, at about 5-weeks, a fetus’ brain is more than a couple cells and can be independently seen on an ultrasound. Does this mean a fetus “thinks” or “feels” in any human sense of the word? I highly doubt it. But at some point, the change does happen. But, PERSONALLY, I would err on the side of caution. I would be PERSONALLY against an abortion after the point of 5 weeks or so.

              Now, here’s where it gets tough: This is my personal opinion. I do not have the corner on truth. I could be wrong. And I do not have the right to foist my opinions on others. As such, while I might think abortion is (probably) wrong after 5 weeks, I don’t support efforts to impose my beliefs on others.

              Then again, I can also see the argument to support abortions until the fetus has gotten a job and moved out of the house.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        From a “left wing” poster at Huff Po. A comment I seem made often on the left wing sites.

        I thank god every day for abortion. Can you imagine an additional 50,000,000 people in the country? That’s the estimated number of abortions since Roe vs. Wade. There aren’t enough jobs now for our current population. Schools struggle with their funding. Add 10’s of millions more and the system will downright burst.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Sorry, but you can’t hold “the left” accountable for the comments of a stray (anonymous?) poster on HuffPo. I’m sure I can find all kinds of crazy/racist shit on Red State in the comments section – would it be fair to hold “the right” accountable for that?

          Show me something more substantial than “some guy who lives in his parents’ basement things..” Show me an official statement or a press release or comment by a senior official or SOMETHING.

          You offered me a link where they put the word “proud” in quotes in the headline and.. what? Where was that from? Nowhere.

          And then you offered me the they want abortion “on demand” and, again, I ask you where this came from. You offered this as an alternative when I called you out on the above – you put it in quotes. Who were you quoting, exactly?

          You’re attacking a strawman.

          Stop it.

          • Mathius, yes it would be more than fair to hold “the right” accountable for stuff like this. I wish you guys would do just that. What website(s) would you suggest that “right wing” and allows for comments?

            • Mathius™ says:

              I don’t frequent right-wing websites’ comment sections (other than SUFA).

              Are you issuing a challenge to dig up racist/crazy comments from the right? We both know there’s plenty of it out there.

              It is not fair to paint an entire platform with the brush of a subset of internet trolls.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I guess it is a challenge. I post stuff all the time showing the negatives of liberalism, so it’s only fair. I would love to read and or watch the video.
                If I am painting an entire platform, it is because of the results of their ideology, not a few trolls. If I am wrong, call me out my friend and show me where I’m wrong. I will offer my sincere apology if, in fact, I am wrong. So far, no one has been able to do that (that I can remember) 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                It is IMPOSSIBLE to find racist crap from ANYONE on the right wing side.

                You keep forgetting who is located over here.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I offered you NOTHING except the quote from a person commenting on HP.

            However, this is a common comment from folks on the left. I don’t know how many share the view but it is more than the occasional wing nut for sure.

            Maybe you don’t know your friends as much as you think? Maybe you don’t have as much in common as you think?

          • I only have about 5 minutes so lets see if I can say what I want to say.

            First of all this is not a strawman argument-it is taking the people’s words and their actions and coming to an obvious, logical conclusion. You want to argue that removing all shame and stigma from an action does not equal being proud of the action. If one removes all shame and stigma from an action and attaches the words abortion on demand without apology to the equation( and this phrase is used commonly by the abortion industry they actually walk behind these huge banners that say those exact words-so claiming it isn’t true is a little hard)what are you left with. I’ll tell you-you have abortion on demand no matter the circumstances-you have no moral boundaries at all. Now does the word proud work in this situation-who cares-without any stigma or shame you produce no lines that someone shouldn’t cross.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H. Let me add a little something.


              Antonyms for ashamed

              not sorry

              It appears to me that the antonyms for ashamed are describing the characteristics of someone who is proud or prideful.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              The Definition of PROUD



              adjective: proud; comparative adjective: prouder; superlative adjective: proudest
              1.feeling deep pleasure or satisfaction as a result of one’s own achievements, qualities, or possessions or those of someone with whom one is closely associated. “a proud grandma of three boys”

              synonyms: pleased, glad, happy, delighted, joyful, overjoyed, thrilled, satisfied, gratified, content

              antonyms: ashamed

              OH MY, look at that. The opposite of PROUD is ASHAMED.

              2. having or showing a high or excessively high opinion of oneself or one’s importance.


    Here’s the rest of the Stewart/K interview-good luck on not having a stroke when watching part 2.

  14. Todd- this is your post….

    Can you clear this up for me?

    I said, in referring to the Colonel stance on Single-Payer:

    Nothing in this world works out “exactly the same thing….
    everyone with no exceptions”, so you’ve created an “out” for
    yourself right from the start…

    Your reply was:

    You call that an answer?
    It’s nothing more than a deflection of the question.

    I was pointing the Colonel’s position on single-payer was not true,
    because his conditions would never be met – basically “bait” as Anita put it.

    If you agree it was “bait”, then what is your issue with my answer? How was it
    a deflection of the question? 😉

    OK…now for my response….

    You deflected by saying nothing ever works out as exactly the same thing….which in my opinion was not really an answer to his question.

    The Colonel stated he would support gov’t healthcare when it was truly a single-payer system, meaning that no one was exempted from using it, not even the politicians who wrote it.

    If the chefs don’t want to eat their own cooking, do you want to eat it? I don’t, and apparently neither does the Colonel. Obama wants to cook up a new healthcare system and forcibly serve it to the American people while refusing to eat it himself, and excusing his cronies from eating it as well.

    He (the Colonel) is saying in effect- Obama and Congress: you cook it, you eat it. Then I will be willing to eat it also.

    How soon do you think Obama and the Dems will come up with a healthcare system they like so much that even THEY want it?

    About when hell freezes over is my guess.

    Why doesn’t Congress want it? Why did the unions ask for an exemption from it? If it were so wonderful, THEY WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SIGN UP FOR IT, NOT RUN FROM IT.


    • Murf,
      The Colonel’s requirements are entirely unrealistic and will never be met. He knows that – he even agreed it’s an “out”.

      Anita agreed it was “bait”, and you seemed to agree with her. I don’t see your problem with me pointing out the same thing?

      And I agree, the “Chefs” should be subject to any plan they create. But the Colonel’s requirements for NO EXCEPTION went well beyond that and are entirely unrealistic.

      The Colonel wasn’t talking about ObamaCare. He was talking about a fictional single-payer system.

      Members of Congress and their staff are not exempt from ObamaCare. They get their health insurance thru their employer – the federal government. ACA and the exchanges are for people without health insurance. But Vitter added an amendment that Congress and their staff use the exchanges, which would mean they would lose the government contribution to their health insurance. I believe an admin rule was issued to correct this.

      This is not an exception or exemption – it is treating congress like everyone else who gets health insurance thru their employer… Like me… 😉

      Most union members get health insurance thru their employers or the union. They don’t need ObamaCare. The unions wanted an “exemption” so their members would be eligible for government subsides. The unions were just fighting for a better “deal” for their members. That’s what unions do.

      And imagine this – the Obama Administration turned them down – one of his biggest supporters… 😉

  15. Join the rest of the civilized world already (it’ll happen sooner or later) and go single payer … it’s just a matter of time, wingies … we’re winning 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      Of course it’s just a matter of time. But they’ll come along kicking and screaming.

      It’s too late for this generation, but the next generation is going to love their universal healthcare. That’s the truth behind why (some) conservatives are so militant against the baby steps the ACA takes toward single-payer. It’s because they know people will love it and, once they do, they’ll never ever be able to get rid of it so they need to *cough* abort it *cough* before it’s too late*.

      I’m just glad they’ve so successfully tied the name of a liberal President to what’s going to be one of the most popular policies of all time. It’s going to be really funny to watch when they start pretending that it was really theirs all along and then go back to calling it the ACA rather than ObamaCare – that’s when we’ll know they’ve admitted defeat. (Fox News circa 2018: “liberals keep insisting on calling the ACA ‘ObamaCare’ in spite of it’s actual name and despite the law’s conservative origins. Why are liberals so desperate and dishonest?”)

      *It’s already too late.


      Disclaimer: I am not necessarily in favor of single-payer, nor am I against it. But I do believe it is inevitably coming and I do believe it will be wildly popular. That doesn’t make it necessarily good – though I suspect it probably will be. I am committed to my current position of “undecided.”

      • Hmmmm…interesting analogy Mathius……Todd will say you left yourself an “out”. You are quite correct about one thing, however. A form of government sponsored and subsidized (tax payer) health care is coming. It is inevitable. It will be inequitable and it will be a fiasco, but it is coming. It is coming because, and this is MY opinion, personal responsibility and fiscal responsibility will no longer be sacrosanct. People are getting used to something for nothing and people are getting used to the term entitlement ( meaning lazy, in my dictionary ). Personal and fiscal responsibility are fast becoming PC buzzwords like redskins and cowboys and genies and Indians….they will be taken out of the language shortly. Sad….but I recognize it is coming.

        Now, I want to ask both you and Charlie….a couple of questions. You, Mathius, use the term single payer and universal almost in the same sentence. Do you not see a tremendous difference?

        Charlie, you are a champion of the poor and downtrodden…..will you agree with a single payer or universal healthcare system that still creates an elite status rife with exceptions and exemptions for the “elite”?

        Will both of you agree or disagree with allowing an option? For, example, allow private health insurance to exist as an option and if that option is selected, allowing that person or family to do so without being taxed or penalized? If not, why not? You still allow a freedom of choice. To me, it says, ok, people, you must have insurance….either private or through the exchange. Your choice.

        I would go even further and would agree to private health insurance as a choice with no IRS deduction…..that is, in effect, a surcharge. Completely take out of the IRS tax code ANY deductions for any healthcare. I have not run any numbers on this but would be willing to wager, as BF would put it, bet in the blind, that this would more than fund government exchanges.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Good Morning Sir.

          I WILL SUPPORT A FEDERAL Health Insurance Program that meets the following criteria.

          1. NO employer mandates.
          2. NO personal mandates.
          3. NO penalties or taxes for owning or not owning health insurance.
          4. Those who utilize it PAY FOR IT through their OWN premium payments into the program.

          That is the minimum requirement. That is all.

          As for eliminating tax deductions for health insurance, are you going to eliminate the EMPLOYERS deduction for their group plan costs?? Does this also mean that the employers share would be taxed as INCOME to the employee?

          • No eliminations of employer tax deductions.
            No taxable income to individuals. With the elimination of the individual tax deduction, that would be double tax.

        • Mathius™ says:

          You, Mathius, use the term single payer and universal almost in the same sentence. Do you not see a tremendous difference?

          I understand the difference.

          Due to a combination of tax penalties and subsidized incentives, everyone will have insurance. Universal Coverage.

          The US government will (eventually) take over the entire healthcare sector in one giant version of medicare. It will squeeze out the existing providers and become the only game in town. Single Payer.

          Does this help?

        • Mathius™ says:

          Will both of you agree or disagree with allowing an option? For, example, allow private health insurance to exist as an option and if that option is selected, allowing that person or family to do so without being taxed or penalized? If not, why not? You still allow a freedom of choice. To me, it says, ok, people, you must have insurance….either private or through the exchange. Your choice.

          I don’t have a problem with this. As long as it meets certain basic minimums.

          ::Gazes into Crystal Ball::

          Everyone will have Medicare (everyone). The rich and well-to-do will have super-premium policies from private companies which will provide whatever is missing / lacking in the general coverage.

          • ::slaps Mathius in forehead…hands him 32 oz Red Bull::
            ::takes 20 lb sledge and smashes crystal ball::
            ::hands Mathius new Crystal Ball, adjusts internal lighting::

            1. Re-enters suggestion that Medicare is a choice. You either take Medicare and its provisions or you go with private insurance.

            2. Medicare has all the bells and whistles…pays for everything in accordance with ACA…along with the schedule that is currently presented. Premiums, bronze, silver, gold plans, subsidies….etc. dog, cat, horse…..whatever.

            3. If individual chooses private healthcare, he/she/they negotiate whatever they wish to be covered, inclusive or not inclusive……and they pay with cash or whatever. No subsidies, no government help….nothing.

            4. Private insurers have no penalty, no Medicare tax, no surcharges….no IRS deductions.

            ::stands back in corner, pops Dr. Pepper::

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I well NEVER agree to LET Private Insurance options exist.

            I will, however, agree to let a Govt provided health insurance exist if it meets my simply criteria.

        • “Charlie, you are a champion of the poor and downtrodden…..will you agree with a single payer or universal healthcare system that still creates an elite status rife with exceptions and exemptions for the “elite”?”

          I am not a champion of anything but a spaghetti eating contest 30 year ago (I kicked ass) … I believe in personal responsibility … I just don’t believe in social Darwinism (which is what I think you guys are aiming at) … that is just insane. In any paradigm, there will be haves and have-nots, I agree … the idea is to even it out as much as is necessary so that EVERYONE is close enough to an equal playing field that personal responsibility can make a difference. To answer your front-loaded question … EVERYONE should have health care … even Texans! 🙂

          • Spoken like a true spaghetti eating conservative…..even a CHAMPION.

            • I will have to look up the term Social Darwinism. You keep saying that so I guess I better get up to speed.

              • Social Darwinism

                DefinitionSave to FavoritesSee Examples

                Theory of social selection that attempts to explain the success of certain social groups. Based on the laissez faire doctrine with heavily racial bias, it interprets ‘survival of the fittest’ concept to mean that only the best adapted (those already well off) survive the ‘natural conflict’ between social groups and thereby enhance the survival capacity of the remaining society. Popular in the 19th and 20th century Europe and USA and embraced by the Nazis, it has nothing to do with the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-82) or his theory of natural selection, and precedes the publication of his book ‘Origin Of Species.’

                Read more:

              • Colonel, Charlie has been snorting plutonian dust mites again 🙂

                Charlie, you really believe that conservatives are all racists, don’t you?

            • 🙂

              • Not at all, G … but I do think that social Darwinism is a root belief of “individual responsibility” taken to an extreme … an offshoot of Ayn Rand’s insanity, if you will.

                Pluto rocks, by the way … dust mites are sooooooooooooooo kewel … 🙂

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Way to extreme for me. While I know of Rand, I have never read her work, nor have I seen the movie. So, I don’t understand the all the Rand talk that goes on. Hope all is well with you and yours 🙂

  16. Was wondering about this too and just read this comment on Any chance that lawsuits will be filed? Now I realize, lawsuits filed vs. success are two different stories. But consumer protection laws, bait & switch, and outright fraud come to mind. Any thoughts?

    “I urge anyone affected by the 0 care implementation – those who have received insurance cancellation notices – to file suit in federal court naming president 0, Sebelius, Reid, and Pelosi as co-conspirators in fraud. There is ample evidence that these individuals promised that “if you like your policy” that one could keep it, that health care premiums would “go down”, and they made a variety of other broken promises. Executive privilege does not cover fraud.”

    • Could be interesting, 16 million in a class action suit (posted below on G!) Add to that where they have decided to ignore and adjust parts of the law thru executive action/inaction….

  17. These statistics are very dangerous to the country. It also will have far reaching effects on elections! It also occurred under a Liberal Democrat President 😦

  18. I have a question for those who want “single payer”. Why would the corrupt Federal government want control over the countries healthcare?

  19. WOW, just wow. Short article (forget the political stuff). What do you take from this?

  20. VH – You asked several posts back, if ocare needed young, healthy people to carry the brunt of the costs, why did they also allow that “kids” to the age of 26 could be on their parents’ plan. It was by design – here’s why:

  21. So, so, so tired of downright lies. How in the world do these people look themselves in the mirror? I cannot even comprehend behaving like this. R’s had nothing to do with timing, development, implementation, passing the bill, etc. etc. ALL OF IT, was and is being done by the Dem party.

  22. Ironically hilarious 🙂

    The last line is CLASSIC!

  23. As I had thought, there is only one way the IRS can collect the “tax/fine” for not getting insurance. They can only take it from your refund! Here’s how to solve that “fine” problem.

  24. Oh, a little side track here. This year, local races are being done……you know, judges, councilmen, precinct chairmen, sheriffs, J. P.’s….all local elections are run in off years to avoid pages of ballots…….

    Texas has instituted its voter I D law and it went into effect this October. Ran flawlessly. Acceptable ID’s were state issued picture ID ( drivers license or state issued ID ) or a passport. Nothing else. If you showed up with a birth certificate, it had to be certified and it was checked against the state data base.

    The voter ID is here to stay.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I was wondering what your thoughts on the elections were.

      MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had a story on it the other night. Per her story and the “witnesses” she produced your elections were an abject failure.

      It is obvious that the ID requirements do not work because people who have voted for years, one lady who got married and had ID with two different last names, could not vote.

      It is also obvious this entire effort is designed to suppress minority and other Dem party voting. Some black lady said so and provided the proof with examples of black people being turned away.

      So how is it you claim FLAWLESS and they claim FIASCO????

  25. THe CT in me wants to know, what the hell is this?
    After posting yesterday’s blog regarding two of the latest military leaders that Obama has purged, my friend Nena S. sent me the story beneath the videos. It really helps to paint the bigger picture.

    At the same time that Obama is purging the military, he has been busy keeping one of his campaign pledges, which is to create a “civilian national security force, just as strong, just as well funded as the U.S. military”. There can be little doubt that DHS fits that bill. This is the same DHS that has solicited for 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point bullets they claim are for “training”. The question is, why train with hollow point bullets that are not only much more expensive but designed to do maximum damage, and illegal for warfare?
    Perhaps Obama is one step ahead of his ‘friend’, the now deposed Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian President Morsi who was removed from power by the Egyptian military aft the people there rose up en masse. My friends, we are witnessing what Rush LImbaugh recently called a “peaceful coup”. How long it will remain peaceful seems to be the question:

    Earlier Forbes wrote: “…at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.
    Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation.

    • This is how Obama operates. He doesn’t create every “crisis”, just an environment where they are more likely to occur. What has his foreign policy fostered in the ME? Stir up world tensions and conflicts while also weakening the US military. Replace real military leaders with bureaucrats that assist Obama by useless spending such as bio fuel for the Navy/Air Force, new gender neutral caps for the Marines….. Stiff them on death benefits, obstruct the medical treatment at the VA to destroy moral so the patriotic soldiers opt out. Make it into a paper army….

      • gmanfortruth says:

        It’s a big puzzle that no one knows what the end picture is. The picture though, is not looking pleasant 😦

  26. Oh dear Piers, thank you so much for all your invitations to appear on your shambolic show, including the adoring message you sent. But is it still any wonder why I’ve politely responded that I’m too busy doing, um, er… pretty much anything to accept the invite? (At least I didn’t tell you to “get stuffed”.) And to all our British friends: we ask, what did your friends across the pond ever do to you to deserve your Piers?


  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Utah “libertarian republican” trying to get State Govt to reduce police brutality.

  28. Just throwing this out there to see what happens..hope it works. JAC didn’t you say you saw this clip?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      No. But I have now. Very interesting and complicated “propaganda” in my humble opinion.

      Go back and read the comments and see how “diverse” the range of “reasons” they agree.

      Funny how he takes on the “liberal” then uses “liberal” ideology to explain how we were “once upon a time”.

      Kind of like listening to one of Obama’s campaign speeches in fact.

      • This clip was the opener of the pilot for the show. I watched the first season on dvd. This was the highlight. It descends into liberal garbage pretty fast after that even though they claim to be conservative.

    • Funny how words can be used-there is something in that speech that we all agree with-we all could claim it as our own thoughts-yet the details of why would be different.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita has does a food job of putting a “new item” on the table for discussion. So I figured I would add to that. One reason I found the fits over the monument shutdowns in the east so “funny” during the shutdown coverage.

  30. I’m thinking it’s the lyrics because his voice is so different I can’t quite decide if I like it or not-but I still love the song-heard it for the first time today. 🙂

  31. Where the White Man Went Wrong

    Indian Chief “Two Eagles” was asked by a white U.S. government official, “You have observed the white man for 90 years. You’ve seen his wars and his technological advances. You’ve seen his progress and the damage he’s done.”

    The Chief nodded in agreement.

    The official continued, “Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?”

    The Chief stared at the government official and replied, “When white man find land, Indians running it, no taxes, no debt, plenty of buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work. Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing; all night having sex.”

    Then the chief leaned back and smiled, “Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.”

  32. Revealing:

    Why are leftists so ugly?

    And then they open their mouths and they become even more so.

  33. Can you even imagine these words coming out of Laura Bush’s mouth?

    • Without question she has taken a more activist role – probably not much unlike Hilary. Laura always struck me as more “polite”, more “stately” for the most part – very traditionalist.

      Hope all is well here – been long time….

    • So we need you all to max out.

      Fair warning for our lefties and commies in SUFA guys shove Sarah Palin’s dizziness down our throats…I’m going to make sure that you wish MO never said these words!

      …..all in good fun of course. But those words spell out what their motive is..just keep working you slaves, then fork it all over to the (govt) plantation…and we’ll dish it out as we see fit.

  34. As I read this, I wondered why no mention of gang or urban violence. Montana is mentioned as having high gun ownership and implied that there is a high percentage of accidental, in home child deaths as a result…..I’m thinking more kids are shot in a week or month in Chicago than in a year in Montana, so this is an example of how numbers can be used to mislead…

    • The quote below is in my opinion the most important one in the whole article.And I think pretty much answers the why of your question.

      “When the Chicago Tribune was criticized for editing out the race of the attackers in a series of similar organized attacks in Chicago, it replied that race was irrelevant. Yet race is not considered irrelevant when indignantly editorializing on a disproportionate number of young black males arrested and imprisoned.”

  35. as Abraham lies dying, he settles his estate. To the children of his concubines, he leaves generous parting gifts, but his remaining wealth and real estate – the Cave of Machpelah – he gives it all to his son Isaac. And only to Isaac. Eventually, the cave will become the burial ground of all three Jewish Patriarchs -Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – and three Matriarchs, Sarah, Rebecca and Leah.

    Thus, Jewish rights and claims to the Promised Land date back almost 4,000 years. From that historical moment on, Jews are as much settlers as wanderers. They become firmly anchored in the land. Abraham’s purchase of the Cave of Machpelah is the first real estate transaction in the Bible. It makes concrete God’s earlier promise to Abraham: “Get thee…unto the land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great, and be thou a blessing ” – the three main pillars of Zionism – a quest for a specific, well-identified piece of land, a quest for nationhood on this land, and a quest to create an exemplary society – “Be thou a blessing – a light unto the nations.”

    Read more:

  36. Here you go VH..not that I need to supply you with any more ammo…

    • Well, the feminist have gone back on just abut everything they started out supporting-knowing it was those “evil men” they complain about so much that convinced them to betray women is priceless.

  37. What a cluster. Every frickin’ o voter should be held responsible for this fiasco and fined for sheer stupidity.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Every frickin’ o voter should be held responsible for this fiasco and fined for sheer stupidity.

      Sadly, stupid is still not a crime. But, they will all get fined (with everyone else) in the long run, so to speak.

    • Don’t worry Kathy, we are the Borg, you will be assimilated.

  38. Judy Sabatini says:

    Anyone for martial law? That’s what this video is about, martial law coming in 2014.

  39. Posted on FB. No idea of accuracy. D13, I know you’ve read the entire bill. Are these penalties real?

    “Actual comment from someone who was able to log on to Obamacare website…..
    I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 “Silver Plan” and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I “opt-out” and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the “REPERCUSSIONS PORTION” for “non-payment” of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with “Non-Payment” and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy “Automatically withdraw” your “penalties” weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is “Free” or even “Affordable.”

  40. “A talented con man or a slick politician does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.”

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius and BL.

    Watching NFL pregame show on Fox yesterday.

    Terry Bradshaw, after quoting some author and trying to act all smart and sophisticated, and after all the others having a LOT of fun at his expense said:

    “I don’t know what it is that makes me so stupid but it is sure working today”.

    I hurt myself laughing so hard.

    • Watched the G-men yesterday.. woo-boy…

      Saw a snap go ten feet over the punters head, then he overran the ball rather than just throwing himself on it like a grenade. Eagles picked it up for an easy two yard run to a touchdown. Some of the worst football I’ve ever seen in my life. Maybe Charlie was putting pressure on DeOssie/Weatherford to mess with the spread?

      How goes this fine Monday morning, my Texan friend?

      • Sorry, JAC, I thought Colonel posted that.

        How goes this fine Monday morning, my ::location undisclosed:: friend?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Have you not been paying attention these past 2 1/2 years?

          My Undisclosed Location is not a secret. I am hoping that will change soon however.

          I am currently living among the Progressive Wing Nuts and the High Tech Limousine Liberals. “There is no Tax high enough”………….. My parody on a song I can hear in my head but not sure who sang it. Has to be from the olden days.

          But otherwise, I am doing well this fine Monday morning.

          How about you?

          I would post something in support of my team tonight but given my record this weekend I think I will remain silent.

          Oh, if you think watching the G Men was agonizing you should have been watching the Lions try to GIVE THE GAME to those damn Cowboys. Dallas just didn’t appreciate the hospitality and refused to put the Lions away. Guess they thought they were being good sports or something. It cost them the W in the end.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Thank you. As I suspected………….the gool ol’ days.

              • Hold on their JACski…don’t be dissin my LIONS…I was out helping the elderly pastor neighbor pick up leaves yesterday so I only saw the Lions last drive. Woohoo! Didn’t even care to watch the highlights after I found out it was a come from behind, with 6 mins left, victory. Hey..sometimes you have to win ugly! I’ll take it 🙂

  42. JAC……FIRST, let me state that voter ID does not suppress the vote minority. This is smoke screen.

    Now the reason I said that it worked flawlessly is because it actually worked….flawlessly. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The Voter ID issue in Texas is very simple actually. (Obamacare could learn from this)…If you get married in Texas and change your name, you have personal obligations to change everything in the State……it is not the State’s responsibility to try to second guess, Do not show up anywhere, with two ID’s…..married or not….it will not fly through the system. And, Texas makes it really easy. Our website works. You can do anything online or you can do it in person or you can do it by mail. But THE INDIVIDUAL will have to do it. Do not expect the State to do it for you.

    For example, in the instance of the married lady, you have 30 days in which to change your name or residency requirements in Texas. Period. Failure to do so is not an excuse. The law is very clear and it is very plain and it is written in English. Live with it.

    There is an affidavit that can be obtained and it outlines specifically what is required to prove residency. However, it does carry a stiff penalty of perjury. It requires two forms from that list. It is called Texas Residency Affidavit authorized under 37 Texas Administrative Law Section 15.49.

    To go on, Texas has an up to date data base that can be checked immediately. In the voting precincts, there is a separate table set up for those that do not get through the first check and an individual will manually check the data bases for you. There is also a Sheriff or some such authorized person at each voting place with the power of arrest. You will not be allowed to vote if you have outstanding warrants (including simple traffic tickets), a state tax lien, behind in child support payments, arrest warrants either Federal or State and that includes traffic violations from another state if they are part of the data base. The voting procedure is tied to the Department of Vehicle Registration and you will not be allowed to vote if you are in violation of any vehicle registration or inspection. All you have to do is walk across the hall, take care of your obligation to the state and you will be able to vote. The State data base is also tied to property and deed and warranty data bases including birth records going back to 1898, The minute your drivers license, State issued ID, or Passport is scanned, these data bases are checked within seconds and and “bangs” are presented to you. If you show up on the warrant will be arrested on the spot.

    In addition, to get and keep a State ID or Drivers license, do not be in any violation of any court order. You will get neither if you are.

    Now, the aged, minority, and poor cannot use any excuse. If you can show up to vote, you can show up to get a FREE State issued ID….however, one thing that Texas IS doing and that is checking addresses to the data base of property. If there is more than two people registered at a single residence that is zoned single family residence, you better be ready to prove whom you are and you better be an immediate family member. The reason for this is that there are residences in many neighborhoods that are halfway houses for the illegals.

    If you are not even computer literate, there is a desk available at the voting site, provided by the State and local governments, to walk you through the process.

    The reason some people did not like it the last time, is because they got caught in the system. Outstanding traffic warrants, unpaid bills…deadbeat issues….

    Interesting in the system as well, is the fact that one of the ways that you can prove residency is to provide a workplace check with address or your bank account that has been opened 6 months or more that is verifiable. UH OH>…verifiable? This scares the crap out of the illegal because he/she can be traced.

    If you have qualified for EBT cards or welfare, you can bring that with another verifiable instrument on the list and receive a free ID card…but your address and your eligibility for the Federal services will be verified with SSN.

    The only people that are bitching that I am aware of…………..are the ones scamming the system.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Sir. I hope you had a great weekend. Warm weather has finally broken here, cool and cloudy with drizzle.

      Following is an article that pretty much mirrors what I saw on Maddow. I admit I did not watch her whole piece as I can’t watch her with Spousal Unit Leader in the room. She cannot stand that woman and yells at me to turn the channel.

      I am curious after your explanation how it is that a “JUDGE” did not understand the rules and was one of the featured examples of “discrimination”. Even this article alludes to her simply having to sign an affidavit. Which means she did vote after all. Anyway, perhaps you can address some of the points in this fellas ramblings:

      Texas Voter ID Law Discriminates Against Women, Students and Minorities

      Ari Berman on October 23, 2013 – 11:06 AM ET

      Texas’s new voter ID law got off to a rocky start this week as early voting began for state constitutional amendments. The law was previously blocked as discriminatory by the federal courts under the Voting Rights Act in 2012, until the Supreme Court invalidated Section 4 of the VRA in June. (The Department of Justice has filed suit against the law under Section 2 of the VRA.) Now we are seeing the disastrous ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision.

      Based on Texas’ own data, 600,000 to 800,000 registered voters don’t have the government-issued ID needed to cast a ballot, with Hispanics 46 to 120 percent more likely than whites to lack an ID. But a much larger segment of the electorate, particularly women, will be impacted by the requirement that a voter’s ID be “substantially similar” to their name on the voter registration rolls. According to a 2006 study by the Brennan Center for Justice, a third of all women have citizenship documents that do not match their current legal name.

      Just yesterday, this happened (via Rick Hasen), from KiiiTV in South Texas:

      “What I have used for voter registration and for identification for the last 52 years was not sufficient yesterday when I went to vote,” 117th District Court Judge Sandra Watts said.

      Watts has voted in every election for the last forty-nine years. The name on her driver’s license has remained the same for fifty-two years, and the address on her voter registration card or driver’s license hasn’t changed in more than two decades. So imagine her surprise when she was told by voting officials that she would have to sign a “voters affidavit” affirming she was who she said she was.

      “Someone looked at that and said, ‘Well, they’re not the same,’” Watts said.

      The difference? On the driver’s license, Judge Watts’s maiden name is her middle name. On her voter registration, it’s her actual middle name. That was enough under the new, more strict voter fraud law, to send up a red flag.

      “This is the first time I have ever had a problem voting,” Watts said.

      The disproportionate impact of the law on women voters could be a major factor in upcoming Texas elections, especially now that Wendy Davis is running for governor in 2014.

      Moreover, the state is doing very little to make sure that voters who don’t have an ID can get one. As I mentioned, 600–800,000 registered voters don’t have an acceptable voter ID, but according to the Dallas Morning News “only 41 of the new cards were issued by DPS [Department of Public Safety] as of last week.”

      Getting a valid photo ID in Texas can be far more difficult than one assumes. To obtain one of the government-issued IDs now needed to vote, voters must first pay for underlying documents to confirm their identity, the cheapest option being a birth certificate for $22 (otherwise known as a “poll tax”); there are no DMV offices in eighty-one of 254 counties in the state, with some voters needing to travel up to 250 miles to the closest location. Counties with a significant Hispanic population are less likely to have a DMV office, while Hispanic residents in such counties are twice as likely as whites to not have the new voter ID (Hispanics in Texas are also twice as likely as whites to not have a car). “A law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote,” a federal court wrote last year when it blocked the law.

      Texas has set up mobile voter ID units in twenty counties to help people obtain an ID, but has issued new IDs to only twenty voters at the sites so far.

      Supporters of the voter ID law, such as Governor Rick Perry, argue that it’s necessary to stop the rampant menace of voter fraud. But there’s no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is a problem in Texas. According to the comprehensive News21 database, there has been only one successful conviction for voter impersonation—I repeat, only one—since 2000.

      Texas has the distinction of being one of the few states that allows you to vote with a concealed weapons permit, but not a student ID. Provisions like these suggest that the law was aimed less at stopping voter fraud and more at stopping the changing demographics of the state. Based on what we’re seeing thus far, the law might better be described as the Republican Self-Preservation Act.

      • Funny thing about all this , years ago, a friend of mine had two NY State Drivers licenses. One contained the name we all knew him by the other was a juxtaposition of his first and middle initials. for example. Pedro M. Rojas or P. Manuel Rojas. Used them for years so as not to build up too many points finally got caught because, he kept them both on the same side in his wallet and as he removed one the cop saw the other. I don’t think that it is ever too much to ask that people use at least one form of ID which is as fraud proof as possible. There will never be perfection.

        Buried in the story was the fact Judge Watts was allowed to vote by signing an affadavit. prominent in the story was the equation of a Birth Certificate with a “Poll Tax”. Interesting use of the term to say the least. I guess none of those people drive or ever need to secure a license since under new federal anti terrorism laws, positive ID in several forms must be provided to get a DL.

        Anybody who wants to see just how looney fraud can be is welcome to check the NJ Div. of Motor vehicles position on Birth Certificates issued by Hudson County. There was so much fraud there that none are acceptable.

        Colonel, the next time anyone questions you about voter fraud, as a matter of fact the next time ANYBODY questions any of you about voter fraud, feel free to link them with Hudson County and the New Jersey Division of Motor vehicles site.

        For those too lazy to look at the link, the State Department of the United States will NOT accept a certified Hudson County Birth Certificate either. But remember, according to Eric Holder, there is no proof of any substantial fraud ANYWHERE!

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    If there was any doubt as to how important the Texas Governorship is to the National Democratic Party and the Obama machine, note where this lady comes from and who she worked for. Texas is going to get a flood of money this coming year. I hope they use it wisely:

    Sen. Wendy Davis’s (D-Fort Worth) camp announced Sunday that Karin Johanson will manage her campaign for Texas governor.

    Johanson, the former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and chief of staff to House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), managed Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s (D-Wis.) historic campaign in 2012.

    “Karin has proven that she can win tough races. She has taken on and beaten a full arsenal of failed leadership, despite millions in negative ads,” Davis Communications Director Bo Delp said in a statement. “Karin will be an excellent and outstanding addition to this historic and exciting campaign.”

    Davis announced her gubernatorial bid earlier in October.

    “As long as we can make this great state even greater, we will keep going,” she said during her announcement in Haltom City, Texas. “Because with the right kind of leadership, the great state of Texas will keep its sacred promise that where you start has nothing to do with how far you can go.”

    • “the great state of Texas will keep its sacred promise that where you start has nothing to do with how far you can go.”

      LOL! Really? This is the kill-at-will candidate and she talks about “where you start”? How about all those whose life never does start?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I am guessing here but I’ll bet that this slogan is not a PROMISE in the sense she is using it either.

        I hope the DNC and various other Dem organizations spend a FORTUNE on this race. And then that D13 and all his cousins use that money well, once Ms. Davis is beaten.

  44. Could do this all day……

    More obama faithful getting a personal lesson in economics:

  45. Colonel / JAC,

    Your thoughts? Please give it the full 5 minutes. Try to get past the obvious bias. (especially after 3:25)

    I present to you, Don Yelton, [now-former] North Carolina county precinct GOP chair:

    • Emphasis on the former. Idiots, bigots, racists exist. And he is gone. Kudos to the R’s for immediately taking action – that is your point, right?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I agree, improved voter ID requirements will harm Democrats in certain areas.

      It is the Democrats who have relied on the shady voting rules so they will be harmed by tightening up the rules.

      But this will not hold true across the board or even cause Statewide elections to change necessarily.

      However, until same day registrations, early voting and mail in ballots are eliminated the problems with election integrity will remain. Not to mention the possible fraud of vote machines.

      • So you make nothing of the fact that here is a man in a position of authority within the Republican party – a member of the GOP Executive Committee – openly admitting that the goal of these programs is to prevent Democrats from voting?

        Q. What is the real reason for the law?
        A. The law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt.


        Q. And it just so happens that a lot of those people vote Democrat..
        A. … [sarcastic] Gee …

        Nothing? Just more attacks on the Democrats and early-voting, etc? You have no response to what this man is openly admitting?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          I did not hear him say that was the “purpose”.

          I heard him say that was the outcome.

          If I want to prevent fraud and I believe the other side is the one using fraud, then my proposal to end fraud necessarily affects the other side. The two are connected.

          That is not the same as saying I want to hurt the other side so I will devise a means of doing that and then rationalize it by claiming fraud.

          I do not have a problem with voter ID laws that require ID that is no more than is required for a myriad of other things. These laws are not racist nor discriminatory. Unless as he said….your so lazy you can’t go get your ID and make sure your registered.

          I have personally witnessed ID fraud and complaints about it were IGNORED by those that ran the elections, who just happened to be in the Party of power, that being the Democrats.

          I have also witnessed the Democrats stuffing the elections by drumming up people to vote with promises of free stuff. Like Lunch and cigarettes. Again, no action by the Democrats in charge.

          Do you have a problem with the fact that apparently the Democrats in this guys district can’t seem to figure out how to get the ID needed to vote??

          • If I want to prevent fraud and I believe the other side is the one using fraud

            The “Other Side” is using fraud… the guy says there are “one or two” cases per election. One or two.

            This isn’t about preventing fraud. You don’t risk disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people to prevent one or two cases of fraud.

            That is not the same as saying I want to hurt the other side so I will devise a means of doing that and then rationalize it by claiming fraud.

            Sure it is.

            THERE IS NO [statistically significant] FRAUD!

            Two cases, hell 100 cases, does not warrant this action.

            So you have to ask WHY they are pursuing this.

            Why? Could it be that “the law is going to kick the Democrats in the butt”?

            These laws are not racist nor discriminatory.

            I don’t think they’re (really) racist. I think black people just happen to vote Democratic and, if they voted Republican, then the Republicans would not try to disenfranchise them.

            But they ARE discriminatory.

            He straight up admits it with that smug sarcastic “gee.” Aasif Mandvi says something along the lines of “it will prevent blacks, students, etc from voting.. and these people just happen to vote Democratically?” “Gee..” Gee, shucks, well how ’bout that? Isn’t that just f’ing convenient?

            I have personally witnessed ID fraud and complaints about it were IGNORED by those that ran the elections, who just happened to be in the Party of power, that being the Democrats.

            I’m sure only Democrats commit such fraud.

            But nevermind that, there are one or two cases according to the guys’ own words. Whether there are one or a million cases, the guy believes – outright states – that there are one or two cases each election. So how does that justify this action?

            I have also witnessed the Democrats stuffing the elections by drumming up people to vote with promises of free stuff. Like Lunch and cigarettes. Again, no action by the Democrats in charge.

            This isn’t illegal.

            And can you back this up with a single unbiased news report?

            Make this illegal. Fine. I’m all for it.

            But even if this were rampant (which it’s not), voting ID laws wouldn’t change a damn thing about this practice – and it would STILL disenfranchise thousands of otherwise innocent would-be voters. Voters who, conveniently, just happen to vote Democratically.

            Do you have a problem with the fact that apparently the Democrats in this guys district can’t seem to figure out how to get the ID needed to vote??


            If one person can’t figure it out, he’s a just moron.

            If tens of hundreds of thousands of people can’t figure it out, there’s a problem with the system. Now just what might that problem be, I wonder..

            Or are you just suggesting that they’re all lazy and stupid?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Your the one claiming this is aimed at Democrats.

              So you tell me why they can’t get their Identification and registration worked out in advance.

              Voter ID fraud: ONE CASE is enough justification for me to take action to prevent it.

              Why? Because by its very nature you cannot determine how extensive it is.. If you catch 2 people that might represent 1,000 who did not get caught. This is not like the studies of Dept store theft. Nobody has dived into this type of fraud to determine what those values might be.

              So simply take action to prevent it.

              And by the way, TWO voters can be the difference in a LOCAL election, so TWO votes do matter.

              Now address that bigger question. How is it that voter ID laws are going to disproportionately disenfranchise DEMOCRAT voters??? These are the same voters who are enrolled by door to door volunteers, driven to polling places by volunteers, etc, etc. Yet somehow this is going to prevent them from voting??

              I think maybe the Democrats are screaming because they know their LAZY DEAD voters might not turn out this next time.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I forgot one rebuttal. Buying people lunch to vote is ILLEGAL in the States where I have lived.

              You can give them a ride to the polling place but you are NOT supposed to discuss who to vote for. But that is a farce as well.

              If you wish to discuss what would constitute a Good system then I am more than game.

              But to chastise some Republican for recognizing how a simple thing like Voter ID might affect the Democrats is simply ridiculous in my view. You are looking for me to condemn him for recognizing the truth. For supporting common sense rules for voters to identify themselves.

              You want me to be offended that he is playing the game within the rules which were created by both sides. For the Dems to howl foul is quite hypocritical in my view.

            • Well shoot the video’s gone-so I have no idea what this guy said.So I can’t comment on his words. But from reading our comment I think the problem here might be you actually believing that tens of hundred’s of thousands CAN’T manage to get an ID or that they have been living their lives without one. Or that anyone actually needs to be registered the day of an election. Personally, I think the registering the day of an election is simply meant to make the process confusing and easily rigged.

      • I am going to repeat this, over and over until you guys get it.

        Funny thing about all this , years ago, a friend of mine had two NY State Drivers licenses. One contained the name we all knew him by the other was a juxtaposition of his first and middle initials. for example. Pedro M. Rojas or P. Manuel Rojas. Used them for years so as not to build up too many points finally got caught because, he kept them both on the same side in his wallet and as he removed one the cop saw the other. I don’t think that it is ever too much to ask that people use at least one form of ID which is as fraud proof as possible. There will never be perfection.

        Buried in the story was the fact Judge Watts was allowed to vote by signing an affadavit. prominent in the story was the equation of a Birth Certificate with a “Poll Tax”. Interesting use of the term to say the least. I guess none of those people drive or ever need to secure a license since under new federal anti terrorism laws, positive ID in several forms must be provided to get a DL.

        Anybody who wants to see just how looney fraud can be is welcome to check the NJ Div. of Motor vehicles position on Birth Certificates issued by Hudson County. There was so much fraud there that none are acceptable.

        Colonel, the next time anyone questions you about voter fraud, as a matter of fact the next time ANYBODY questions any of you about voter fraud, feel free to link them with Hudson County and the New Jersey Division of Motor vehicles site.

        For those too lazy to look at the link, the State Department of the United States will NOT accept a certified Hudson County Birth Certificate either. But remember, according to Eric Holder, there is no proof of any substantial fraud ANYWHERE!

  46. Just A Citizen says:
  47. Why is the issue of voter ID ONLY suppressing the Democratic Vote? Why can’t it also be suppressing the Republican vote? Are you telling me that only democrats are affected? They are the only elderly, the only poor, the only minority….what a load of crap, everyone.

    Of course the guilty ones are going to yell discrimination….their ox is the one being gored. With relation to the wife of the judge, Texas statute does not require the wife of a judge or any judge with spouse to register….because they are exempt.

    No one can show disparate impact, can they?

    • I believe the phrase you are looking for here is “disproportionately affected” Colonel…

      • Just A Citizen says:


        So you admit that Democrat voters are “disproportionately” to lazy to get the needed ID or they are really DEAD after all.

      • I am going to repeat this over and over until you guys get it!

        Funny thing about all this , years ago, a friend of mine had two NY State Drivers licenses. One contained the name we all knew him by the other was a juxtaposition of his first and middle initials. for example. Pedro M. Rojas or P. Manuel Rojas. Used them for years so as not to build up too many points finally got caught because, he kept them both on the same side in his wallet and as he removed one the cop saw the other. I don’t think that it is ever too much to ask that people use at least one form of ID which is as fraud proof as possible. There will never be perfection.

        Buried in the story was the fact Judge Watts was allowed to vote by signing an affadavit. prominent in the story was the equation of a Birth Certificate with a “Poll Tax”. Interesting use of the term to say the least. I guess none of those people drive or ever need to secure a license since under new federal anti terrorism laws, positive ID in several forms must be provided to get a DL.

        Anybody who wants to see just how looney fraud can be is welcome to check the NJ Div. of Motor vehicles position on Birth Certificates issued by Hudson County. There was so much fraud there that none are acceptable.

        Colonel, the next time anyone questions you about voter fraud, as a matter of fact the next time ANYBODY questions any of you about voter fraud, feel free to link them with Hudson County and the New Jersey Division of Motor vehicles site.

        For those too lazy to look at the link, the State Department of the United States will NOT accept a certified Hudson County Birth Certificate either. But remember, according to Eric Holder, there is no proof of any substantial fraud ANYWHERE!

      • You are correct Buck…..I must have been remembering the old days of racial discrimination and the rallying cry of disparate impact…..

  48. I’d say these are some really good questions.

    ObamaCare Is Wreaking Havoc In the Individual Health Care Markets, Where It Currently Applies.
    What Happens When It Begins Applying to Employer Coverage As Well?

    A question I actually do not know the answer to. (I don’t know the answer to many questions, this is just one of a long list.)

    But it does seem to me that Something Bad is going to happen, because Obama called upon his Bottomless Well of Executive Power to delay the Employer Mandate unilaterally, fearing political fall-out for the 2014 elections should millions upon millions of previously-covered workers be dumped into the exchanges.

    Will this happen? I don’t know. But here’s what I do know: Obama sufficiently feared this possibility to violate the Constitution and delay his own beloved pet boondoggle to avoid the possibility of it.

    Right now we are talking about the millions and millions of people in the individual insurance market. They are getting screwed. But as a percentage of the country, this is a small number of people — I think the fraction is something like 8% or so.

    Caveat: I just made that up. But it’s low.

    We should be talking about What Happens Next. And critics of ObamaCare have some good authority to speak about What Happens Next, given that they already predicted What Already Happened.

    The individual-market Losers are the canaries in the coalmine for tens of millions more likely losers.

    I would like Obama and his Minions to be questioned closely about what they predict will happen next. I want them on the record as to their new promises about “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” as regards employer-paid coverage.

    Let’s face it: If 90% of the country thinks, probably wrongly, that only 10% of the country is getting screwed, they will probably just shrug it off and say “Sucks to be them.” All of these anecdotes about people getting screwed will not move the general public.

    Only worries about What Comes Next, regarding themselves, will agitate them for the 2014 elections.

    Honestly I don’t know if the disruption in the employer markets will be as bad. I think it will be bad, but not as bad — for one thing, I think employer-provided insurance already includes a bit of subsidization for sick workers– in as much as the employer buys coverage for an undefined group, which might include very sick people — the risks then are already pooled, at least to some extent. But only to some extent, because the sickest of all people probably do not work, and thus do not ever enter the employer coverage pools.

    Employer coverage is also generally decent, and thus won’t be much affected by increased demands for coverage. But it will be affected somewhat, and when ObamaCare demands that a business give its employees, effectively, a $1,000 or $3,000 annual raise in the form of a health care policy that covers previously uncovered things (and also steals money to subsidize the uninsurable), many companies may balk and simply stop providing insurance altogether.

    Maybe this is the secret evil genius of Obama’s plan — he will get all those healthy people subsidizing the sick on the individual markets, because when his employer mandates start kicking in, many companies will dump their huge numbers of relatively low-risk people (remember, the most sick people can’t actually work for a living) into the high-risk individual market pools.

    Do I know these things? No, I don’t. But after having not looked into these matters for five years straight, perhaps our media could trouble itself to rise from its lazy slumbers for a few minutes to begin asking some questions about ObamaCare.

    Until now they’ve gotten everything about ObamaCare wrong. Can they attempt to get some of it right, before the employer mandate kicks in?

    Or do they agree with Nancy Pelosi that we’ll all have to collectively suffer under ObamaCare in order to learn what’s actually in it?

    People insuring themselves and making the Rich Man’s Wage of $50,000 or more per year (wow!!! That’s like Sinatra-money!!!) are the first victims of ObamaCare.

    Will there be more? Does anyone in the media have any interest in discovering the answer to these questions before people begin self-reporting their own victimization?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I think it’s going to be easy to show how bad Obamacare is as time goes on. If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny.

%d bloggers like this: