Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Judges!

July 6, 2012 by  

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Judges!
UPI FILE
We have to say "no" to Obamacare on the State level.

We don’t need permission from the courts to exercise our rights. We need to learn how to exercise our rights whether the government or the courts want us to do so.
Thomas Jefferson had some advice for us. In 1798, in response to a Federal law criminalizing free speech, he wrote:

Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government… whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers… nullification of the act is the rightful remedy…

With his advice, our message today to the Supreme Court is pretty straightforward: You may have your opinion, now come and enforce it!

What Do We Do About It?

Now that the black dresses have ruled against our Constitution again, what do we do about it?

Do we march on Washington, D.C., and demand that Federal politicians limit their own power?

Do we try to file another lawsuit in the hopes that Federal judges will limit Federal power?

Do we vote the bums out in the hopes that the new bums will say, “Oh, wow! Yeah. You can have all that power back!” For your information, that never happens.

Jefferson and James Madison both warned us that if the Federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of the extent of its own powers, that power would endlessly grow — regardless of elections, separation of powers, courts or other vaunted parts of our system.

They were right. For 100 years, we the people have been suing, marching, lobbying and voting the bums out. But year in and year out, government continues to grow and liberty continues to diminish. It doesn’t matter who is the President or what political party controls Congress; the growth of power in the Federal government never stops.

The Solution

Again, the question remains: What do we do about it? Jefferson told us that “nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

Madison went a similar direction and said that the States “are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil…”

What does that mean?

Well, we’re not supposed to wait for the Federal government to correct itself. We’re not supposed to wait two or four or six years for some new bums to fix things for us. We’re not supposed to wait years for the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court to give us permission to be free. We’re supposed to exercise our rights whether the government wants us to our not.

So what is nullification?

Nullification begins with a decision made by you that a particular law is unConstitutional. Then, in most situations, your State Legislature would be pressured into resisting that particular law. This step usually involves a bill, which is passed by both State houses and is signed by your Governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your State directly, in a referendum. It may change your State’s statutory law or it might even amend your State Constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your State government to cooperate with, or enforce any Federal law it deems to be unConstitutional.

At its very core, nullification is any action or set of actions which results in a Federal law being rendered null and void or just plain unenforceable.

Some Important History

In 1850, when President Millard Fillmore signed the second Fugitive Slave Act, due process was under serious attack by the Federal government.

The law compelled people of all States to “assist” Federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves. It brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under Federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in his escape, even by simply giving him food or shelter.

The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for alleged “slaves” and made their testimony inadmissible in court. The written testimony of the supposed slave master, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.

State Resistance

In response, Northern States intensified efforts to pass what were known as “personal liberty laws.”

In Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, State officials were forbidden from assisting the Feds in enforcing the law and refused the use of State jails for fugitive slaves.

Vermont passed a “Habeas Corpus Law,” requiring State judicial and law enforcement officials to actually help captured fugitive slaves there.

Massachusetts took a really strong stand and actually passed a law that gave kidnapping charges to anyone trying to use these “indefinite detention” provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act.

In that State, though, not a single Federal agent was ever charged with kidnapping.

Was this because the law was passed by a bunch of politicians grandstanding? Did they have no intention of backing up their words with actions?

No. Not a single Federal agent was arrested because, after the law passed, not a single person was kidnapped in Massachusetts and sent to slavery in the South.

Maybe the Feds were scared; maybe they weren’t. Either way, the law was extremely effective.

In fact, Northern States were so successful overall that, when South Carolina seceded 10 years later, the people there named the Northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act as one of their primary reasons for leaving the Union. From the publicly released “Declaration of Causes” was this:

The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.

What’s the bottom line? State and local non-compliance and resistance to unjust laws is not just a good idea. It works.

Examples Today

A little over a week ago, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire signed a bill making law there that the State will refuse to participate in setting of health exchanges.

Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin recently announced that his State would do the same. And other Governors are following their lead.

In November, Ohio passed Issue 3, which states: “No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.”

Ohio is the 10th State to do this.

In Arizona and other States the past two years, bills have been considered to fully nullify the Affordable Care Act.

Two Paths Ahead

We have two broad paths. We can do what we’ve been doing: voting bums out, hoping for repeal, filing another lawsuit or trying to get the entire country to agree on an amendment. Or we can take Jefferson’s and Madison’s approach and nullify.

So how does this play out?

That brings me to the story of Roscoe Filburn.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 required American farmers to restrict production of wheat in order to raise prices.

As a farmer, Filburn was permitted to plant 11.1 acres of wheat, yielding 20.1 bushels per acre. He decided that it was in his best interest — possibly because he had less revenue due to the production limitations — to plant another 10 or so acres. But the excess wheat grown was used at home to feed his livestock, among other things. He never sold it, so he saw this as being outside the scope of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce.

What did the Federal government do? It levied a fine against Filburn.

Filburn sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court ruled against him, saying the government could regulate as “interstate commerce” a plant grown in one’s backyard and consumed in one’s own home.

In response, people talked about voting the bums out, changing the makeup of the Court, repealing the law, etc. But none of that worked, because the principle still remained that growing food in your backyard and consuming it in your home was “interstate commerce.”

If we fast-forward to present times, we can see a similar situation.

Angel Raich

In the 1990s, the people of California voted to legalize consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich — who had a huge, cancerous tumor in her brain — was told by her doctor that using marijuana to relieve some of the pain was acceptable.

Marijuana, though, is illegal on a Federal level in all circumstances, so the Feds decided to make an example. Federal agents destroyed Raich’s homegrown marijuana plants without much resistance.

Like Filburn before her, Raich sued. Gonzales v. Raich went all the way to the Supreme Court; Raich lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the Federal government did not recognize State laws authorizing the use of marijuana in any situation.

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers–as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause–have no meaningful limits.

What The…

So what happened? Did the weed activists take the same route as those who supported Filburn decades earlier? No. They basically said, “Thanks for your opinion, now come and try to enforce it!”

At the time the Raich ruling came down, 10 States had marijuana laws. How many repealed after that decision? Zero. Today, another seven are on board, defying the Federal government and increasingly getting away with it.

What’s the lesson here?

When enough people say “no” to the Federal government, including the Supreme Court, and enough States pass laws backing them up, it becomes nearly impossible for them to force their unConstitutional laws, regulations and mandates down our throats.

–Michael Boldin

Dr. Michael Cutler

is a graduate of Brigham Young University, Tulane Medical School and Natividad Medical Center Family Practice Residency in Salinas, Calif. Dr. Cutler is a board-certified family physician with more than 20 years of experience. He serves as a medical liaison to alternative and traditional practicing physicians. His practice focuses on an integrative solution to health problems. Dr. Cutler is a sought-after speaker and lecturer on experiencing optimum health through natural medicines and founder and editor of Easy Health Options™ newsletter — a leading health advisory service on natural healing therapies and nutrients.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Judges!”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • GALT

    Talk about empowering the people with the TRUTH? Unfortunately the tenth article of the bill of rights is meaningless, since you are now required to reserve your rights, under the UCC…………failing that, you have benefits and privileges, subject to change at any time.
    Fifty years after the completion of this sleight of hand, and the greatest con of all time still eludes the “experts”…………then again, maybe that’s not what is going on……….after all,
    in order to have a career as an “exorcist”, one has to have demons to exorcise?

    http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

    Two of four jurisdictions are missing…….strange that all these “patriots” have failed to notice………

    • Rick Gabara

      We do need to march down to Washington DC, Only with are guns and take back power and control of are country under the II Amendment. That is in are Constitution so the people can stop the power of the government when it gets out of control. Like it is to be now,…

      • Robert Smith

        More violence from the right?

        Rob

      • rhcrest

        MORE violence from the right Robert Smith. FYI there hasn’t been any violence from the right. No it is the left that destroyed the state Capital in WI, it is the left that occupied parks across the country and destroyed them and smashed the windows of neighboring businesses and threw old ladies down the stairs. It is amazing how the left always accuses the right of exactly the things that it does

      • Ted Crawford

        Rick
        Such pronouncements are counterproductive at best and delusional at worst ! We might remember that Obama, shortly after taking office, within days I believe, signed EO-13524 ! This gives him control of all NATO Forces on American soil, about 200,000 last time I checked ! American Forces might hesitate to fire on their fellow Americans. Not so certain with these guys. To create a situation that would allow him to declare Martial Law, would be to play right into his hands !
        In any case unnecessary violence to make a point is a leftist method !

      • http://gravatar.com/wandamurline wandamurline

        We should not do that at this time….wait until after the November election….I believe that the entire compass of the federal government will change….at least it will if the tea parties are successful and we are working hard to do that. Obamacare is unconstitutional, I don’t care what Roberts’ blabbering brief said, and it is up to us to change this at the voting boxes….take that energy you have and get busy….get people registered to vote and get them to vote out the Democraps. Guns should only be used as a very last resort. I am as irritated and made as you are, but until after the election, we must remain civil. Let’s see how it plays out. We may end up in a revolution, but then again, maybe not. Vote like your very life depends on it, because it literally does.

      • Todd

        Guns not needed, However, A good old TAR and Feathering is the order of the day…I’ll point out, it has been the left wing Socialist who have been clammering/pushing for violence. Supported by OWS and a hint from of approval from the WH. And so you know, This site is not far right wing, It is more for the independent party.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        The government would have the police and military shoot you down like dogs in the streets , Remember what happened to the solders from WW-1 in Washington D C . Look up the bonus army .

      • truesoy

        Rick Gabara;

        People like you make the case for gun control.
        People likeyou should not be allowed anything sharper than a crayon, for your safety and everyone elses safety.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • PGHYinzer33

        I would certainly NOT advocate violence, there is enough violence in the world, look at all the wars your master is creating, he is about to go WW3 on Iran, and you want to what? Save your ideas for another day… we MUST force them of their own free will to let go the reigns of this greed.. (I don’t think it will happen, but we must try).. The taking out of the government by storming the place, will not work, they will always be stronger than you are, have you not seen the 10 ft walls and 6 inch glass they have built around themselves to keep YOU out? You will stay a slave to them..suck it up… >:}

      • Kate8

        Might I remind you all, and especially you self-righteous Leftys, that it is OBAMA who has claimed the right to rub out anyone he chooses, for his own reasons, at any time, with ZERO accountability, right here on American soil.

        Who’s violent?

        It just amazes me that you guys gloss over this point. You seem to agree that this is his right, and at the same time, decry anyone who speaks of defending themselves against this outrage.

        Talk about your double standards.

      • al

        Actually the Founders of our Nation gave us the path to fix anything and everything we have going wrong in our government. It is called Article V of the Constitution. We do not have to put up with these excesses of power by the Federal Govt.
        Many of the States are already fed up with the Federal over reach and have made nullifying laws. So I would imagine that the CC could happen.

        So 2/3rds of the Several State Legislatures can declare a Constitutional Convention and change the Constitution to restrict the Federal Govt from over reaching, just what Amd 10 says, only in more direct terms. After the changes to the Constitution there must be 3/4ths of the States to Ratify the changes and Now Congress, The Executive and the Supremes have some new rules to play by.

        Read Article V and think about it. We can even change the Commerce Clause to be more restrictive to the Government and do many other changes like Term Limits for Congress, set the Salaries of Congress. Change SCOTUS to specified terms. Whatever, it is our Constitution, and what we write is Constitutional LAW. We can even make Treaties subservient to the Constitution. This would sure put the brakes on the U.N.

      • Robert Smith

        “It is amazing how the left always accuses the right of exactly the things that it does”

        Really? How many abortion clincs has the left blown up? How many doctors have been killed?

        And Fred Phelps picketing our fallen… That isn’t emotional violence?

        Rob

      • Robert Smith

        “Remember what happened to the solders from WW-1 in Washington D C . Look up the bonus army .”

        Don’t have to go to WWI. Remember Kent State?

        Rob

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Robert: How many abortion clincs has the left blown up? How many doctors have been killed?

        Obviously not enough, as the number of un-born being murdered continues, in fact, has increased, and that, exponentially.

      • Kate8

        Leftys love abortion clinics. Why would they shoot them up?

        On the other hand, they have shot up some churches, and have committed other acts of desecration and disrespect, as well. And how about their out of control protest rallies, and their vandalism and personal assaults on attendies of rallies they oppose?

        When it comes to acts of violence against those they disagree with, the Left takes the prize for being the biggest offenders. They display no emotional control, and behave like mobs run amok.

        The Left’s tolerance only applies to those things which have always been considered unacceptable to human decency. They are the worst NAZIs when it comes to allowing people to practice simple faith, and raise their children accordingly. It has to be their way or the highway, making faith and morality “hate crimes”…

        If their ideas are so wonderful, why do they have to go to underhanded lengths to shove them down our throats under threats of terrible penalties?

      • vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        ” “It is amazing how the left always accuses the right of exactly the things that it does”

        Really? How many abortion clincs has the left blown up? How many doctors have been killed? ”

        Interesting that you should mention the violence of the right and neglected to mention the violence perpetrated by those very doctors against the most innocent amongst us. What is the total now? More that 50 MILLION Murders? and you dare to call people on the right violent?

        • chester

          Vicki, yes, I will accuse the right of violence, Any time some nutcase from the right decides he knows better than the law who deserves to die and who deserves to live, he has far exceeded anything whoever he takes out may have done, simply because he stepped outside the law to do it. When it comes to bombing clinics, how many innocents were killed in those bombings, along with one or two who MIGHT have been guilty of aiding and abetting a legal medical procedure. The same can be said for those who want to shut down ALL women’s medical clinics because one or two of them might agree that an abortion is better than the alternatives, among others, carrying her rapist’s child to term, then being forced to raise that constant reminder of a violent crime committed against her. Or the lady who is carrying a child with genetic disorders so severe that it can NEVER exist outside its mother’s womb who, because YOU don’t believe in abortion, and believe that, because it goes against your religious and personal views of what should be, is forced to carry that child until some accident of nature literally kills it in the womb. Even then, because it can not be proven the child is dead without direct physical examinations, more than likely she will carry a dead fetus until she either spontaneously aborts, or has labor induced. You cry about the children lost, but fail to look at the lives saved, in many cases more than just that of the mother to be. Don’t go all religious on me and cry that Jesus hates me and those like me, as if you read your bible the way you claim to, you will find quite the opposite is true. In fact, Jesus loves all of us, be we sinner or be we saint. Some have yet to realize that, either in relation to themselves or in relation to those they dislike.

      • vicki

        chester says:
        “Vicki, yes, I will accuse the right of violence, Any time some nutcase from the right decides he knows better than the law who deserves to die and who deserves to live, he has far exceeded anything whoever he takes out may have done, simply because he stepped outside the law to do it.”

        You mean nutcases like the unibomer? Or maybe Jared Loughner? Clay Duke? Perhaps your problem is accusing the right of violence rather then the nutcase. But if you are as liberal as you seem from your writing you probably acutally blame the gun. How come you don’t blame the bombs?

        • chester

          First and foremost, the trigger does not pull itself, nor does the gun aim itself. Those bombs did not build themselves, nor did they mail themselves. I personally, have problems with any nutcase that thinks he is above the law, be he right, left, or outer space. But mostly am thinking of all those who have decided that women do not NEED any obgyn services if they can’t afford the downtown doctor’s rates out of pocket. I hear too many people saying Planned Parenthood is nothing but a cover for abortion mills, and NOTHING is farther from the truth. Ninety nine percent, or more, of all women who go in there do so either for birth control meds or counseling, or for actual gynecological exams that they for sure can not get some place else. Yeah, some of the clinics do recommend abortionists, and one or two may even have one in their building, but that is separate from what Planned Parenthood is all about. From what you are saying, I assume you think it would be great if all women’s clinics closed up. That way they would HAVE to see a doctor YOU approved of, and would carry EVERY child to full term, or natural abortion, rather than terminate a pregnancy that could well be endangering the woman’s life. As far as the Unibomber is concerned, he was about as far to the right as any. If you look at the people he killed, or tried to kill in a couple of cases, they were all either liberal college professors, or business men he didn’t like. He, like most of those on the extreme right I have had the privilege to know, did NOT want things to change.

      • vicki

        Chester says
        “I hear too many people saying Planned Parenthood is nothing but a cover for abortion mills, and NOTHING is farther from the truth. ”

        I think you mean “nearer”
        http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/153699-exposing-the-planned-parenthood-business-model

        I tend to believe employees over random people. But don’t worry. All those services that you think are the primary source of PP revenue are now covered. PP services are no longer needed.

        obamaTax is here.

        • chester

          Vicki, if I wanted to look and dig a bit, bet I could find someone to SWEAR you LOVE women, too. Disgruntled employees are apt to say anything to get back at an employer they feel treated them unfairly. 99 plus percent of Planned Parenthood clinics provide help in planning families by teaching about birth control measures, and how to effectively use them. Some MAY mention abortion as a possibility for a child who has little, if any chance of surviving after birth, but none recommend abortion as a means of birth control. I would say far more cases of STD’s are found and treated in those clinics than abortions discussed. Also, by slamming those clinics shut, you take away the ONLY source of female health care available to a good many rural women and low income women. These are the areas where no self respecting ObGyn specialist wants to set up practice, as he can’t make money hand over fist there. I just checked to verify something, and here is another rock for your wheel. Over the last ten years, the number of LEGAL abortion providers has stayed fairly steady at less than two thousand for the whole country. You can find nearly that many ObGyn specialists in one city.

      • vicki

        Chester makes lots of assertions and provides no evidence then expects us to take his word for it over employees and ex-employees of PP. Good luck with that Chester. Typical liberal.

        http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/February/Second-Planned-Parenthood-Video-Reveals-Violations/

        • Chester

          How do I prove personal experience? Oh, and by the way, why should I believe a source who wanted Planned Parenthood dead before it even got started. Well, can’t quite say that, as CBN did not exist when PP got its start. Of course, I have a problem with any organization who worked hand in glove with Jerry Falwell, and some of the other fallen angels from the supposed to be Southern Baptist groups

      • http://gravatar.com/wandamurline wandamurline

        Actually, it is contained in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The states just need to tell the feds to p!ss off…we are not going to do what you say because you have no right to be telling us to do it….if the 26+ states that sued the government over Obamacare stick by their guns, what is the federal government going to do? They cannot deal with a multitude of states…they can jump on one like Arizona at a time, but 26 to 35 states is way over their heads to keep in order. If the feds can pick and choose which laws they want to abide by, so can the states. Obama started it, so the states need to finish it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/agi.groff Agi Groff

      Don’t get sidetracked with side issues, watch this video and you will know what is wrong with America:
      You-tube USS LIBERTY Cover Up – Full Documentary – “The loss of Liberty”
      Watch the video, sign the petition!
      Do not be afraid to put your name on this petition, initiated by one of the survivors of the attack. We must all hang together, or else we will hang separately.
      It is time to “Come From The Shadows” (Joan Baez) and demand that truth and justice reign over this land.
      Watch: Loss Of Liberty on You- tube!
      Sign the petiton:
      Google: Investigate the Attack on the USS LIBERTY PETITION

      • Vigilant

        Here’s a suggestion: why don’t YOU stop trying to sidetrack us, and deal with issues in the article?

  • Moby49

    Sounds like a loser’s whine to me. Anytime you don’t like the decision you act like a two year old, sit on the floor and throw a tantrum. If you don’t like it, do something useful, like proppose a good alterntive. Why is it always just “no, no, no” with your folks. As the old adage goes, “if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem”.

    • Robert Smith

      It’s been proven again and again that the PEOPLE don’t want what the extreme right wants. Yet they continue under their own self proclaimed divine providence that THEY are ENTITLED to dominate the rest of us with their beliefs.

      They claim they have had “enough.” Well, I quite sure the rest of us have had enough of their support for the greedy 1% and thier brutal god.

      Rob

      • Michael

        Very well said Robert- thank you!

      • rhcrest

        YOu on the left are the ones that feel ENTITLED to DOMINATE the rest of us with your beliefs. You want to tell us what kind of lightbulbs we can buy, how much water our toilets can use, if our kids can have a toy in their happy meal, if we can have a large tub of popcorn at the movies or if we can buy a large soda, you want to tell us what we can do with our private property through the use of envornmental laws, you want to control our healthcare decisions with Obamacare, you won’t let us have access to our own natural resources like oil and coal so that we may become energy independent, you want to control the family farm with excessive laws, you want to control the small family business with excessive laws and regulations that drive them out of business. You force us through taxation to pay for programs that we don’t want and to pay for things like other people’s cell phonesand paying to repair and rebuild mosques overseas and Cowboy Poetry festivals and all the endless gov’ programs that exist that should not exist. I read awhile back that you even want to make sugar a controlled substance. You want and you have laws controlling everything. Laws that are unconstitutional and that you had no business passing in the first place.

      • rhcrest

        And it isn’t the 99% vs. the 1%. It’s the 51% who work and pay taxes vs the 49% who live off the dole and pay no taxes.

      • Deerinwater

        Sometimes I think they should just “do it”, whip it out and stop all the whining and threaten, let them double down on their second amendment solution and get it over with.

        Then my sense of reason and maturity takes charge and I ignore it, knowing cooler heads will prevail.

        It is these same people that protest today who see immigration issues as being so simple, ~ immigrants need only follow the law.

        This is yet one more example of the far right and their notions of “conservatism” , it’s not actually for them but something to subject “others” too.

        They can “talk the talk” but cannot “walk the walk” .

      • TML

        Robert Smith says “It’s been proven again and again that the PEOPLE don’t want what the extreme right wants. Yet they continue under their own self proclaimed divine providence that THEY are ENTITLED to dominate the rest of us with their beliefs.”

        Just because the claimed majority of Americans wants something, doesn’t mean its right. Maybe the majority of Americans are wrong. I would come closer to believing that the “extreme right” (minority?) continues under the principles of this nation at its conception, not an entitlement of domination, but an entitlement to resist the oppressive state power, and the will of majority upon the individual.

        Robert Smith says “Well, I quite sure the rest of us have had enough of their support for the greedy 1% and thier brutal god.”

        Is it not greed and envy that one takes from another because it is thought that he and his fathers have acquired too much, in order to give to those who have not exercises equal industry or skill? Is it support for the greedy 1% to want to keep the fruits of my labor, rather than have it taken by force and dispersed to those who would not labor? If I were to become wealthy, should I be penalized for my good fortune and/or hard work? Something should indeed be done to prevent the influence of the top 1% from being more than the average citizen, but taking their money by force and playing Robin Hood isn’t the right way to do that.

      • chester

        RHcrest, hate to inform you of this, but the left only wants to dominate, your words, you to the extent that you are forced to let them follow their beiiefs and act upon them. Seems like you want those on the left to do as you PREACH, which is not necessarily what you DO. Case in point, the right still claims gays have no rights, yet complain when something they assume is a right suddenly becomes less of a right and more of a duty. Or, even better, when a law they don’t think is any big deal suddenly comes to life and shows them it does have teeth after all, such as OSHA. This has saved many a worker’s life, yet the right would see it repealed, as it costs them money to comply with the safety regulations it demands be followed.

      • Dennis48e

        “Case in point, the right still claims gays have no rights, …”

        No, the right says the homosexuals have no special rights.

      • chester

        Dennis, the gays aren’t asking for “special rights,” just the same rights you, as a heterosexual, enjoy, the right to marry who you want, with the same family rights as you have. Where do you see anything SPECIAL in that, other than the FACT that you believe homosexuals should have NO rights at all.

      • truesoy

        Robert;

        The irony of the conservatives is that they fight fight for conservatives causes while enjoying the fruits of liberalism.
        I guess they haven’t figure out yet, or maybe they don’t wan to, how most red states survive if not for the financial support they get from the federal government, and which is made possible by the blue states contributions (taxes).

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • Deerinwater

        “rhcrest says:
        July 6, 2012 at 8:19 am
        And it isn’t the 99% vs. the 1%. It’s the 51% who work and pay taxes vs the 49% who live off the dole and pay no taxes.”

        Well everyone pays taxes of some form, they don’t all pay federal taxes, it true.

        To suggest thous who don’t are living off the dole, ~ in a generalizing and sweeping statement and every bit as false and it is true.

      • Deerinwater

        You must recognize financial gains about and beyond expenses to be subjected to Federal Tax code.

        If you don’t make anything, why much you be required to pay taxes on a loss?

        You should be upset that Americans can work a years and not show any gains to pay taxes on.

        What is it about a national economy that permits this to happen? Is that just to complicated to understand?

      • Deerinwater

        chester says:
        July 6, 2012 at 10:28 am
        RHcrest, hate to inform you of this, but the left only wants to dominate, your words, you to the extent that you are forced to let them follow their beiiefs and act upon them.”

        Hmm? Well I’m excited to inform you that the “right” is no different. And for now, they are not driving the bus and explains your “excitement”

      • Deerinwater

        TML say;”Just because the claimed majority of Americans wants something, doesn’t mean its right. Maybe the majority of Americans are wrong. I would come closer to believing that the “extreme right” (minority?) continues under the principles of this nation at its conception, not an entitlement of domination, but an entitlement to resist the oppressive state power, and the will of majority upon the individual.”

        Oh! well dominion implies domination.

        No one is questioning your “right” to resist anything you feel necessary to resist. Feel free to choice your battles but what is it going to take to make you realize you have failed?

        If you are foolish enough to select battle that you can’t win by brute force, on the merits or at the polls your strategy and recruiting skills need serious work.

        As for rights and wrongs and majorities and minorities, many thing are being twisted around and mislabeled in an effort to confuse you ~and me. Drinking from a poison well blurs the vision and dulls the senses.

        Fox News reaches a majority that are in a political minority at the moment, while she’s a poison well of disinformation of which the majority drinks.

        Fox news is a circus offering many attractions and distractions in an effort to find appeal among the masses that are most common to all, sports, business, and news.

        Fox tells the masses what to believe and how to think and what is important and what is not, 24/7 . 365 day a year non stop.

        Fox News is what helped supply the wing under 43′s wings as we went to war without clear directing or concrete purpose or strategic exit anyone could understand. No consideration offered to burden of cost, who would pay it for three years much less a projected 12 years.

        Fox did this with the help of the Right Wing Christian Coalition. ~

        Today, ~ to hide their embarrassing and failure in it’s supporting unsound judgement the Right Wing Christian Coalition has mutated into the New! improved Tea Party and again is all Righteous and can do no wrong.

        Offering the “News” has became a three ring circus, to make profits and sell a package the GOP wants delivered to your living room, bedroom, hotel, airport lounge, and bar room.

      • Rawhide

        I guess your were looking in the mirror when you wrote your diatribe. It is the left who push their beliefs upon other people, examples: atheists, homosexuals, communists, muslims, etc. Christians do not push their religion on anyone. Unless, it is the example they are setting, that you object to.

        And as far as where America stands politically, She has always been a center-right nation. And this is something you lefties can’t stand, so you try to force your changes on everyone.

        When it is time, and America calls her native sons to her defense, I hope you are on the right side, but probably not. If that be the case, may you pass on in your sleep before you are able to do harm to any patriot, who answers that call.

        • Eric Jones

          Crishtians dont push ther views on anyone? uh-huh and ron jeremey never stared in a porno.

      • vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        “They claim they have had “enough.” Well, I quite sure the rest of us have had enough of their support for the greedy 1% and thier brutal god.”

        Their brutal god? The one that plans on killing anyone who might be a terrorist just cause he says so? The one that supports the murder of children just because they are inconvenient to the mother? Hmmmmm. I don’t think you have a clue about the Christian God. The one from whom all of your rights come.

        Just wait till your god (government) decides that you are no longer useful to his power or that the rights you think you have are inconvenient to him.

        • chester

          Vicki, do believe that the “brutal god” Mr. Smith was referring to was the god of mammon, who seems to be the main point of worship for so many of the upper level right. If you remember your studies, this is the god of wealth at any expense, and is worshiped, either directly or indirectly by many of those people you seem to think are among the world’s best. This has not a thing to do with abortions,or as you prefer to call them, child murders. It has far more to do with the accrual of wealth, whether in the form of money, land, or other possessions. When one percent of the population of our country controls upwards of half of the TOTAL wealth of the country, makes you wonder just what their actual god is, not the one they claim.

      • Karen

        I am so sick of the left and right remarks,, why can every work together for the good of the people, and what is the good for our country,,, there is no good things coming from the left r the right,, and the government is greedy, if the people of this country would stop paying federal income taxes , there is no law that says that we have to pay federal income taxes ,, that would stop putting money in the pockets of worthless government spending, and keep our money in our pockets, and take back control of our own money,
        the left and the right r both wrong,,,, this is America and we do have rights , this thing that we call a president is nothing but a communist,president, and we need to stop him from destroying our freedom , what r our guys fighting for in other countries our freedom, but this thing we call a president is taking that way from us , all these people coming to our country from other countries cause they dont like their country, but want to make our country just like the one they dont like what do you call that , we need to all stand together and make this country a great place again,

      • vicki

        Karen says:
        ” there is no law that says that we have to pay federal income taxes”

        There might not have been but there is now. obamaTax. That’s right. The Individual mandate is a tax on INCOME with a minimum payment of $95 or 1% of AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) whichever is higher. And an optional 100% deduction if you buy a government approved lightbulb er I mean insurance plan.

        http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758

        And that is just for 2014. The tax goes up to min $695 (2.5% AGI) in 2016. And being a tax on income we can quickly determine where it goes next by looking at the original income tax. That little tax started out at 1% too.

        • chester

          No argument about the percentage of the original income tax, but do have a problem when you say it was a tax on the working man, The ORIGINAL income tax was a tax on income from investments, not on earnings from labor. After a while, the moneyed class decided that investment taxation was costing them too much money, while working people were paying no federal tax unless and until they actually had enough money to invest some of it. That idea alone seems to go against the grain of those born to money, so they started putting pressure on congress to re write the tax code so working class folk paid “their fair share.” Funny thing is , the working folk now pay more in taxes as a proportion of their income than the ultra well to do. As far as why taxes have gone up, look at what the government does now that it did not do way back when, and look at how little the original source of its income, tariffs, brings in now,

      • vicki

        And why should we believe Chester over the US Government when he writes:
        “No argument about the percentage of the original income tax, but do have a problem when you say it was a tax on the working man, The ORIGINAL income tax was a tax on income from investments, not on earnings from labor. ”

        http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/hottopic/irs_history.html

        A tax on (personal) income. No limitations based on source. That comes later with many changes in the income tax law over time.

        • Chester

          Well, miss Vicki, you don’t HAVE to believe ME, but how about the law books you keep harping on. Just a LITTLE study will show that wages were NOT earned income according to the earliest income tax laws, they were simply fair exchange for labor given. Money earned with NO labor involved WAS income to be taxed. Of course, the Republicans, most of whom at that time had more income from investments and interest than for labor did NOT like the idea that they were the only ones being taxed, so worked with congress to rework the tax codes to the point that truly earned income is no longer ROI, but money paid for work given. Do study a bit of history please before you decide I am a know-nothing liberal who isn’t worth listening to. Also, talk to some of your elders to see what they have to say about who was taxed and when.

      • vicki

        Chester says:
        “Well, miss Vicki, you don’t HAVE to believe ME, but how about the law books you keep harping on.”

        Good cause I don’t. If you had any cites to support your assertions you would have figured out by now that you need to offer them. Meanwhile here is another cite to show that wages were most certainly included Why it even has a special column just for wages

        http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

        Chester: “Just a LITTLE study will show that wages were NOT earned income according to the earliest income tax laws, they were simply fair exchange for labor given.”

        Th IRS disagrees.
        http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=176508,00.html

        Chester: “Money earned with NO labor involved WAS income to be taxed.”

        Money from any source was to be taxed from even the debates in 1909.

        http://www.taxhistory.com/crs/09.html

        Chester: “Of course, the Republicans, most of whom at that time had more income from investments and interest than for labor did NOT like the idea that they were the only ones being taxed, so worked with congress to rework the tax codes to the point that truly earned income is no longer ROI, but money paid for work given.”

        You have provided no evidence for your attack on Republicans.

        Chester: “Do study a bit of history please before you decide I am a know-nothing liberal who isn’t worth listening to. Also, talk to some of your elders to see what they have to say about who was taxed and when.”

        I need make no decisions about your knowledge base. The complete dearth of cites in your bald assertions tells all.

        • Chester

          So, you are saying that EVERY American history book written before the late eighties was mistaken in what they had to say about income tax and when and how it originated. If that is the case, which, according to your replies, it must be, then I can cite nothing you are going to believe. I will say that the amount of tax levied, and the point at which it kicked in, effectively made it a tax on income other than wages, as it was set at three per cent of all income over four thousand dollars. At that time, the average wage earner took home seven to ten dollars a week, if that much, so he did NOT have to worry about any income taxes due the coming April. In fact, no wage earners, and very few salaried workers, had to worry about income taxes at all until along about ’42 or ’43, when the country was again in bad need of income to pay for a war we did NOT start. In fact, until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in ’41, we were actually making money off the war in Europe, selling arms to the opposition, including England, France, and Russia. After we became involved in the war, the arms makers were still making more than anyone else, as besides supplying our own military, we were providing arms to England and Russia under the lend lease programs. I know, not all that has to do with taxes, but it all goes to show the whys and wherefores of our current system, including the FACT that every time our tax system has been revised, it has been to help the rich and business at the expense of the working man.

      • vicki

        Chester says:
        “So, you are saying that EVERY American history book written before the late eighties was mistaken in what they had to say about income tax and when and how it originated.”

        Nope. Just saying the ones that are mistaken are.

        Chester: “If that is the case, which, according to your replies, it must be, then I can cite nothing you are going to believe.”

        Before I choose believe or not you actually have to PROVIDE a cite :) I notice that like most liberals here you don’t.

        Chester: “I will say that the amount of tax levied, and the point at which it kicked in, effectively made it a tax on income other than wages”

        Which is NOT at all the same as saying it started as a tax on anything but wages. Even the cites I offered noted that the initial values meant that only the very well paid would be expected to distribute their “disposable” income according to government bureaucrats rather then their own free will decisions.

    • teaparty13

      what about the homos in CA? when the voters struck down the gay marriage, they went against the people to have their kinky lifestyle ok’d by the 9th circus, so I guess it’s only ok if you’re a left wingnut, but not ok if you’re on the right..I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of being taxed to death to help a bunch of freeloaders.

      • Deerinwater

        Are you talking about state, city and local taxes or Federal taxes, ~ as your Federal taxes are low today Sir/Madam.

      • chester

        Teaparty, apparently more than the ten to fifteen percent of the population of California that is gay disliked that law that they stood up and spoke, rather loudly, against it. If YOU don’t like the idea of same sex marriage, don’t participate in one. That much is YOUR right. Why do you have to force YOUR ideals down the throats of those who have a different outlook on life? Isn’t that what you are accusing the left of doing to you? It seems that those who speak the loudest for reduced government only mean in things that affect them, like business regulations and laws saying you can’t run a sweatshop. When it comes to personal issues, such as who to sleep with and when, the right wants the government to assert absolute control over that

      • Dennis48e

        ” as your Federal taxes are low today Sir/Madam”

        HA, tell us another good one rs. I was looking at a pay stub dated in the middle of WWII and the total taxes withdrawn from it was less than 3%. That 3% included a special tax to support the war.

      • Robert Smith

        “when the voters struck down the gay marriage, ”

        The voters would have kept slavery, the voters would not have given blacks or women the right to vote,..

        The voters made medical pot legal and assisted suicide legal. The right tried to crush it in the courts.

        Rights from the Constitution are won in the courts.

        Roib

        • truesoy

          Robert Smith;

          Civil rights issues can’t be left up to the popular vote; is that simple.
          Conservatives would have never given women the right to vote (ironically conservative women seem to forget that).

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

    • http://www.facebook.com/michaelboldin Michael Boldin

      Ok, if that’s what you call it. Fine. But that doesn’t mean I’ll ever stop doing what I think it right, dude.

      • Robert Smith

        If it’s within the law nobody gives a crap except the right wing.

        If it’s outside the law I hope you go to jail.

        It’s that simple.

        Rob

      • GALT

        Those (common) law and equity courts?

        It’s the RIGHT question…….DUDE!

      • Vigilant
  • Michael

    This sounds like George Wallace standing on the steps of Foster Hall at the University of Alabama in 1963. He failed to stop desegregation of the university and you will fail to stop the extension of healthcare. While you are all worked up why not rant and rave about being forced to buy auto insurance and to wear a seat belt while driving? The problem with your stand is that it won’t attract any support of the greater American public. The law hurts a little but helps a lot and ultimately will be accepted and loved by the people once the lies about it fall behind and it is fully implemented. Thank you Barack Obama for having the courage to see it through!

    • Kachisaw

      Excellent Michael. There is no other way to tell that the Obamacare is good to many which is of course not liked by NO, NO, NOs.

    • Ted Crawford

      Are all Progressives so missinformed Michael? The two provisions you mentioned are indeed Constutional. Rendered so by the Tenth Amendment, they are State Laws and have nothing to do with the Federal Government ! You folks continue to compare Apples to Oranges and declare AH HA! It’s really DUH, DUH !

      • chester

        Ted, desegregation HAD been ruled unconstitutional at one time, just as slavery had been ruled constitutional. The rules HAVE been changed, more than once, by the same court so many rightwingers are condemning now. Study a bit of history if you have problems with what I am saying, then come back and tell me I am wrong.

      • TML

        Chester… he was talking about the two provisions you mentioned (e.g. auto insurance and seat belt laws) which are state laws, not Federal. Understand the difference?

        And frankly… we aren’t forced to provide funds for other people’s auto insurance, and seat belt laws… well… I think those are pretty stupid too. ;)

      • Ted Crawford

        Chester
        None of that has the slightest thing to do with the fact that Michael attempts to compare the actions of the Sovereign Sates, to the actions of the Federal Government.! It seems you too want to compare Apples to Oranges ! Must be some flaw in the Progressive mind-set !

      • Vigilant

        chester says, “Ted, desegregation HAD been ruled unconstitutional at one time, just as slavery had been ruled constitutional. The rules HAVE been changed, more than once, by the same court so many rightwingers are condemning now. Study a bit of history if you have problems with what I am saying, then come back and tell me I am wrong.”

        Sorry, chester, you’re wrong. Segregation was ruled Constitutional (“separate but equal”), but desegregation was never ruled unconstitutional. And slavery was Constitutional until the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865. There was NEVER a question about the legaility of slavery prior to the 13th Amendment. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s ruling in support of the Fugitive Slave Law was entirely, 100% Constitutional. Please read Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution.

      • Smilee

        You do not know the difference between apples and oranges. If the Constitution gives a power to the Congress (US) then that trumps state laws, it was again made crystal clear recently in the AZ immigration laws when they got thrown out because that power belongs to the federal gov not the state gov.

    • firefight

      Michael,
      You say, “The law hurts a little but helps a lot and ultimately will be accepted and loved by the people once the lies about it fall behind and it is fully implemented.”

      It is obvious to me tnat you have not read the hundreds of pages in the Obama Health care bill and have not a clue what is in store for all of us that you say we will come to love. Sorry, but, “NO WAY JOSE.” Everything contained in this bill gives Obama and his minions unlimited control over our lives and everything we own…….or at least THINK we own. Do you think it’s fair to tax a person with a Federal sales tax when they sell their home? What the hell does that have to do with health care and why is it in the bill? Are you telling me that you embrace and love this thought? What about the part where the government has the right to choose and decide IF you can receive medical treatment based upon how long they think you might live and what your value to society might be? What about these death panels that can make a decision to euthanize you. THAT exists today in the UK. Is this what you want for us? Not me. PAL! Common sense tells me that this administration and group of law makers has found a way to cut off my Social Security checks and my Medicare by cutting off my LIFE! I’m surprised that you haven’t got the brains to figure that one out…………but then, you OBVIOUSLY haven’t read the BILL that you say we will all come to love.

      • brett

        obviously, you haven’t read the bill either.

      • firefight

        Brett, OH, but I have……YOU haven’t!

    • Isaac Davis

      Robert: You should take the time to figure out the difference between “healthcare” and Medicine. You are disillusioned to believe for one second that this diabolical nonsense that began as a penalty, we knew all along as a tax, then proclaimed as a tax against all logic as that was not the argument brought before the SCOTUS to rule upon. When you figure out that some nonsense labeled as “healthcare” has nothing to do with Medicine, and everything to do with removing your ability as an individual to choose for yourself how you pay for medical care–and, again, not one thing to do with actual Medicine.

      Notice how bureaucrats fail deliberately to never mention the collapse of the best medicine practices in the world that this diabolical nonsense is going to bring about. The total collapse of what you now know as “healthcare” in the United States does not happen until after 2014, as you have been anesthetized with bureaucratic Novocain to convince you that gov’t is going to make it better. Name one thing that gov’t has ever actually improved upon…

      Enjoy your chains…may they rest lightly upon you.

      • brett

        as long as you’re in line before me.

      • Robert Smith

        “Name one thing that gov’t has ever actually improved upon…”

        Regulations that prevent things like Enron.

        The National Highway system.

        Air Traffic Controllers.

        The military can’t be privatized. They tried to have a catered war in Iraq and the abuses and money waste were horrific.

        Airline safety rules fixing problems before more peopledie.

        Setting standards so a second is a second and a foor, or meter, is clearly defined.

        Coinage for the realm.

        Maritime rules so ships obey the rules and don’t generally run into each other.

        The Coast Guard keeping watch over all those recreational boaters.

        How many more do you want? You asked for one, but I imagine that ignorance on the benefits of our Federal Government runs deep.

        Rob

        • truesoy

          Robert Smith;

          …and if I could piggyback onyour response:
          Other government contributions to the well being of society is, medical research and development. This has contributed to saving millions of lives and continueto do so, for it is not big pharma the one that throws billions into research and development.
          The failure to understand the role and purpose of government is the leading cause of disatisfaction for the conservative individual. This is even more common in the populace of the red states, these red states being the ones that benefit the most from the governments legitimate functions, such as the collection and allocation of taxes, with a big chunk of it going to then and disproportionally larger than any contribution they might have made; yet if you were to ask any one of them, they’ll tell you they are opposed to Obama because he is a ‘socialist’ that believes in ‘spreading the wealth’.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • GALT

        We seem to be way better at killing people than we used to be, does that count?

      • Smilee

        Isaac Davis says:
        July 6, 2012 at 8:38 am

        “we knew all along as a tax, then proclaimed as a tax against all logic as that was not the argument brought before the SCOTUS to rule upon.”

        Your wrong the solicitor general for the Obama administration argued before the court that this mandate was constitutional both under the commerce clause and under the taxing authority powers of the US Congress for providing for the general welfare. The court ruled against his argument that it was constitutional under the commerce clause but was constitutional under congresses taxing authority thus making the mandate constitutional. The court agreed with that part of Obama’s arguments

    • Patriot

      And Wallace was a big left progessive/Democrat, when you start understanding that the “Conservatives” of the country are trying to save you and others from tyranny maybe you will stop listening to the media/Obama propaganda talking points. Let’s not revise history, let’s learn from it!

      All of the key events in our histroy were opposed by the left and every effort to restrict are liberties, freedom and impower the individual have been supported by these same progressives, left or whatever they label themselves these days. Keep in mind that progessive speak is always the “opposite” of what they say, it is very easy to determine where they stand this way. They never, ever will tell the truth, the truth is on the Conservative side!

      • Robert Smith

        Speaking of George Wallace… He figured it out: “In the late 1970s, Wallace announced that he was a born-again Christian and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his earlier segregationist positions. He said that while he had once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness.[note 3] In 1979, Wallace said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: “I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over.”[4]

        Unfortunately the right wing has taken over the evangellical born-again effort with their Southern Stratigy.

        More food for thought: “Wallace’s final term as governor (1983–1987) saw a record number of black appointments to state positions.[55] In his fourth term, Wallace became the first governor to appoint two black members in the same cabinet, a number that has been equaled but never surpassed.”

        Democrats LEARN.

        From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace#Change_of_positions

        BTW, I know one of the National Guard guys in the picture that was on the cover of Life. He was sympathetic to Wallace then and has since called him a trator and often uses the “n” word when mentioning Obama. His son-in-law won’t let his kids visit that kind of hate.

        Yup, his bigotry cost him his grandkids. Now he’s a very sad old right wing man.

        Rob

      • Robert Rashbrooke

        Ok, I finally accept that the ONLY people in the whole wide world who are greedy, stupid, selfish, unprincipled, lying, unscrupulous , deceitful, dangerous, lacking empathy, controlling, misinformed and duplicitous are those with Liberal leanings, and that ALL Conservatives are EXACTLY the opposite.

        I just do not understand why governments the world over have found it necessary to produce laws designed to protect their populations from harm, both from themselves or from others, since the Conservatives would never participate in such behaviour and have controlled many countries and governments from time to time.

        Unfortunately, it is NOT hilarious reading all these rants from either side of the political spectrum, they just do not achieve anything. Everyone is influenced by his own personal history and experiences, and it is entirely possible that no group of people will ever achieve the same beliefs even when exposed to the same set of circumstances.

        By all means keep spreading your own belief, but do not try to convince others that YOUR belief is the CORRECT one, but rather, change by persuasion and logic. It may not happen overnight, but if your view IS the more correct one, rational, thinking people WILL come to see that your view, rather than their previous one, is the more appropriate and correct.

    • Deerinwater

      Michael; It’s an old argument. Conservatives like to use and have these programs but they don’t like to pay for them. The same goes for their “wars” ~ they want them, think it’s a good idea but disappear and hide when it’s comes time to pay for them. ~ and there is “no problem”~ until they themselves have one and only then is there a problem.

      They are thrifty with their money and want you to spend “yours” and most willing to enjoy what you bought with it.

      Another example of “conservative thinking” happen to me last week that’s worth telling.

      I am a independent ac contractor and have GOP friend that works at GD, a defense plant that is presently on strike. He had called me last summer with his AC out, he had tryied to fix system but with no luck. ~ he had bought parts that were bad, right out of the box ~ it happens sometimes. ~

      ~ anyway ~ he has learned to stock a few spare parts.

      He asked me where I bought parts and I told him, since it was a wholesale house, I told him to use my name if they asked him “who he was” when he bought, since they do not sell to the public.

      Weeks later, we met up and he said, he was pleased, they made him a good deal on the parts he bought and they did in fact ask him who he was representing.

      I told JIm, ~that the more that I buy, the greater my discount at a wholesale house.

      Then Jim says, “Then I helped you” ?

      and I said, “Yes Jim, you have helped me, thank you very much”

      Now ~ if you can not see the humor is this story and how my friend Jim has turned notions of indebtedness and gratitude around in a simple favor being offered, the chances are good, you too are a Republican that claims to be a “conservative”.

      http://www.historynyc.com/proddetail.asp?prod=4855

      History of Medicare

      Looking back at the Medicare program
      The federal Medicare program has changed the lives of millions of Americans. But the roots of Medicare go back to our nation’s early efforts to achieve health coverage for its elderly and poor citizens.

      It’s hard to believe, but the gradual evolution of the plans Humana offers today began more than a hundred years ago.

      1902
      The first U.S. workmen’s compensation law enacted (later declared unconstitutional)
      1915
      Thirty states enacted the first major legislation to require employers to insure their workers against industrial accidents – or workmen’s compensation
      1935
      The first federal government health insurance bill introduced in Congress
      1945
      President Harry S. Truman became the first sitting president to officially endorse national health insurance
      1961
      President John F. Kennedy sent a message to Congress recommending health insurance for the elderly under Social Security
      1965
      President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law
      1972
      Medicare eligibility extended to people with disabilities and to people with end-stage renal disease (ESRD)
      1976
      HMOs began to be offered as a Medicare option effective with the HMO Act of 1976
      1983
      The diagnosis-related group (DRG) prospective payment system began – soon after, Medicare members could enroll in an HMO or managed care plan
      1997
      The Medicare+Choice program (now known as Medicare Advantage) was enacted
      2003
      President George W. Bush signed the “Medicare Modernization Act” into law
      2006
      The voluntary Part D outpatient prescription drug benefit becomes available to beneficiaries from private drug plans and Medicare Advantage Plans

    • chester

      Ted, did anyone ever tell you WHY seatbelt and insurance laws came to be? it wasn’t until the federal government threatened to, and in some cases did, withhold highway funding that all states finally adopted laws uncle demanded be put in place. Oh, and if you pay auto insurance, you ARE paying the bill for those who choose not to carry it. Why is uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance required, even on state minimum policies? Could it possibly be because there are those who, for whatever reason, don’t have insurance? If that is true, then we ARE paying for those who can’t or don’t have auto insurance. Only thing is, since car insurance is not a single payer thing, kind of like health insurance now, some will pay more than others for no better reason than that an insurance company does not like who they are or where they have been, not that they actually have a bad driving record.

    • moonbeam

      Not here in Florida, baby. Our governor, Rick Scott, say he will NOT be implementing the expand medicaid part of this atrocious bill.

      But, since you like it, we’ll see how you feel when you are hit with the astronomical job-killing, health rationing tax that comes with it. Because as the cost of healthcare rises and the gov’t’s ill conceived attempt to hold these costs at bay, your need for healthcare will be rationed to hold down these costs. In the UK they’re waiting 18 weeks for care. Not fun if you have a brain tumor or need life saving heart bypass surgery.

      • Deerinwater

        “Not here in Florida, baby. Our governor, Rick Scott, say he will NOT be implementing the expand medicaid part of this atrocious bill.”

        Yea, that’s funny. ~ let us see how long that position works for Rick Scott in a state full of blue haired seniors and it won’t work for Jingles either is a states of the poorest of the poor.

        It’s will be like the stimulus money they “refused to take”, saying one thing and do something else.

        • truesoy

          Deerinwater;

          ….oh yeah, Rick Scott, the man that was involved in the biigest medicare ripoff in history, who now happens to be the governor of Florida.
          Makes you wonder about the voters in Florida, doen’t it?

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        You’re right about that, true boy, FL voted for Obama in 2008.

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          ….and voting for Obama in 2008 was probably the smartest thing they’ve done in years.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        “Makes you wonder about the voters in Florida, doen’t [sic] it?”

      • independant thinker

        “… the expand medicaid part of this atrocious bill.”

        As I understand it the feds are supposed to be providing the money for this expansion of medicade (money it has to borrow to give to the states). At some point, probably sooner rather than later, the feds will shut off that money and the states will be stuck having to scramble to find money to cover the tab.

        • chester

          IF all the medicaid expenses fall back on the states, they will do exactly what they do now, cut off the poorest and sickest, then make those with a minimal income buy into the program. In Missouri right now, if you make over $800 a month, you are disqualified from medicaid, unless you pay straight to the state sufficient funds on a monthly basis to bring your income back down to that level.

    • 3jgroup

      Oh Michael,
      Your so sadly informed in your love for Obama. Mistress Pelosi stated simply before the bill was passed that we needed to pass this bill to find out what was in it. Now that more is found out each and everyday, more will be destroyed. Do you think for one minute that the US can run healthcare any better than Canada or the UK? Really, how is Medicare/Medicade and Social Security working out for America? Bankrupt soon! And to your silly statement about wearing seatbelts and having to carry car insurance. Newsflash, i do not have to buy a car if i don’t want to, so i don’t have to have car insurance or wear a belt if i walk. Those things are expected if i wan’t to own a car. Your argument is stating that the Feds should order all americans to own cars or else pay a fee “tax” to not. I love how liberals act like they are so intelligent.

    • PGHYinzer33

      Some laws are good laws, like that of the seat belt law, but to say people will love the Omamaaalaw… is like the love I feel with the TSA’s unlawful search and seizure at airports.. did you fall in love with that one because it saves lives?…Gotta fight against those terrorist babies you know..

      • truesoy

        PGHYinzer33;

        …and what are you talking about anyway, or don’t you knowthat ‘obamacare’ is a conservative republican ‘hatched’ idea sinceat least the 1980′s. Hence, if it was good then, why not now? Oh, I know why. It is bad now because they tell you so.
        And if it was constitutional, then, then why not now?
        Conservative people are the most easily manipulated bunch becausethey lack independent thinking.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • chester

        PGHYinzer33, do you honestly believe that everyone LOVES the seatbelt laws, or that everyone LOVES motorcycle helmet laws? Kind of the same thing with auto insurance laws. supposedly they are there to protect us, not from someone else, but from ourselves. The idea being that if you half kill yourself in an accident, someone is going to have to take responsibility for your continued health and well being, as well as that of your family. When we finally start trying to treat healthcare the same way, those who LOVE car insurance because they make money hand over fist selling it suddenly see a possible hit in their pocketbook if insurance is provided by the government. Going on what is being put out now, by both sides of this issue, there will continue to be private insurance available, only with some restrictions on how much profit they can make, and who they can refuse to serve. That is what a lot of the fight is about now, as those who believe free enterprise should be allowed to make as much as it can, any way it can, do NOT like the idea of being told they are ripping people off, and will have to watch their profit margin a bit closer.

      • Vigilant

        true boy whines, ” …and what are you talking about anyway, or don’t you knowthat ‘obamacare’ is a conservative republican ‘hatched’ idea sinceat least the 1980′s. Hence, if it was good then, why not now?”

        And he talks about a lack of independent thinking!

        For over a century, the liberals hung their hat on Thomas Jefferson’s idea of small, unobtrusive government. “Hence, if it was good then, why not now?”

        When the parroters of leftist talking points begin to pontificate on “independent thinking,” they’ve tested the depth of the waters with both feet. true boy, you’re a joke.

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          You still didn’t answer why if Obamacare was the darling of the ‘right’ years ago, it is not now?.
          And please, no hokeypokey answers. Be real, ok?

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

          • chester

            Truesoy, the reason so many of the right are so down on Obamacare is that it was a Democrat who got it through. They had talked about it and talked about it, but ran the other way when Hilary Clinton started working for it way back when. Bad thing is, once they turned their backs on it the first time, they can NOT admit they EVER liked the idea.

      • Vigilant

        True boy tries to pass off faulty assumptions with “You still didn’t answer why if Obamacare was the darling of the ‘right’ years ago, it is not now?.
        And please, no hokeypokey answers. Be real, ok?”

        You want reality, here it is, sonny:

        (1) Obamacare could not have been the “darling of the ‘right’ years ago” because no such thing existed years ago. Apples and oranges. But that’s neither here nor there.

        (2) You did well to put “right” in quotes, because the idea of the individual mandate has NEVER been a conservative position. Your shallow grasp of conservative values shows in your statement.

        Above all, Conservatives are staunch respecters of the Constitution. Any politico who ever advanced the individual mandate as a conservative idea is most certainly NOT a Conservative but a RINO or liberal, peas in a pod. You’ve gone terribly wrong in attempting to conflate “Republican” with “Conservative.” And that’s as real as it gets.

        • chester

          Do beg to differ with you on the comment about ” Obamacare” not having been a darling of the Republican party before Hilary picked up her papers. The Republicans were pushing a ” Universal Health Care” package not long after Johnson got Medicare brought in. Now I will grant Obama hardly existed at that time, so the program could NOT have been Obamacare, but was a very similar program all the same. Actually, it was a Republican idea right up to the time Hilary wanted to make it happen, then the tables were turned, and the Republicans could hardly stand behind a program someone they disliked so thoroughly wanted put in place.

          • truesoy

            chester;

            See what I mean?; conservatives believe in things they don’t understand, nor they know why they stand for the things that they stand for, and Vigilant is living proof of that.

            Sincerely,
            Truesoy

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          Really, the idea of the individual ‘mandate’ has never been a conservative position?.
          Gee, for being, and/or for claming to be such a conservative you sure know very little about conservative positions.
          Allowe me to enlighten you, please:
          THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION (and you can’t get any more conservative than that, right? but you knew that anyway, or at least you should know.
          a) 1989 article in the Heritage Foundation promoting the healthcare reform (obamacare) by none other than Stuart Butler (Mr. conservative himself) and the foundation ‘healthcare expert’, argued in his brief: “many states now required passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection, but neither States, nor Federal Government mandates all households to protect themselves from the potential catastrophic cost of a serious accident or illness. Under The Heritage Plan there’ll be such a requirement”.
          Vigilant, could you please repeat again that thing you said about my shallow grasp of conservative values? I like to hear it again!.
          And also could you repeat that line about the mandate never being a ‘conservative position’?.
          And please, stop making a ‘fool’ of yourself. Learn the facts before you speak, or write.

          Ps.- anxiously awaiting to hear from you, affraid you might hurt yourself over this.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

          • chester

            Truesoy, you did the research and found what I lived through, and apparently Vigilant is either too young to have experienced, or has forgotten all he heard during that period in his life. Will say thanks for that bit, though, as can already see steam coming from more than one pair of ears.

          • truesoy

            chester;

            …and I only wish I could see his/her face now. Ouch!

            Sincerely,
            Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        Chester and true boy once again suffer from reading comprehension skills.

        Chester says, “Do beg to differ with you on the comment about ” Obamacare” not having been a darling of the Republican party before Hilary picked up her papers.”

        Now tell me where I said that. Hone your reading skills and quit putting words in my mouth. I SAID, “Any politico who ever advanced the individual mandate as a conservative idea is most certainly NOT a Conservative but a RINO or liberal, peas in a pod. You’ve gone terribly wrong in attempting to conflate “Republican” with “Conservative.”

        There, you got that straight now?

      • Vigilant

        trueboy, after posting a reference to Stuart Butler’s 23 year old article, says, “Vigilant, could you please repeat again that thing you said about my shallow grasp of conservative values? I like to hear it again!.”

        OK. I’ll repeat it: You don’t have a clue as to what Conservatism stands for.

        I refer you to a more current position of Mr. Stuart at http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/video/2012/03/butler-fnc-3-28-12 , that is, if you have the guts to view it and the intelligence to comprehend it. In truth, it matters not to me that Butler backed off a position held 23 years ago. What matters is that your argument collapses of its own weight because Butler’s position never was Conservative in nature.

        Get this once and for all, and get it straight: NO CONSISTENT PATTERN OF CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT HAS EVER ADVOCATED THE ABRIDGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES THROUGH AUGMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT POWER.

        Another key to the confusion in your (and chester’s) thought processes is that you equate “Republican” and “neoconservative” with “conservative.” It just ain’t so. If you care to quit flapping your gums and really learn something, read Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative” or “CONSERVATIVES BETRAYED: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause,” by Richard A. Viguerie.

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          So conservatives were for it before they were against it.
          Are you insinuating conservatives are ‘flip-floppers’?.
          It seems that way.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

        • chester

          I will agree that no conservative ever wanted to abridge freedom, especially when it comes to business, but they most assuredly DO want to abridge MY freedom to marry who I want, or to have sex with who I want, when I want. In their opinion, homosexuals deserve fewer rights than the electrons used to convey this message from me to you. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant as a result of that rape, they say her ONLY option is to carry that child full term, then either give it up for adoption, or raise it to adulthood. What ever she does, she is FORCED to carry a long term reminder of that rape. If a girl is raped by her father, she has exactly the same option, with the further degradation of knowing whose child she is carrying. Oh, by the way, morning after pills, a BIG no-no. The WOMAN is responsible for making sure there are no accidents resulting from any sex she is involved in, be it voluntary, with a condom blowout, or forcible rape. She, and only she, is responsible for seeing to it she can not become pregnant at all times.

      • Vigilant

        P.S. true boy, to borrow a page from you, “And please, stop making a ‘fool’ of yourself. Learn the facts before you speak, or write.”

        “…and I only wish I could see [your] face now. Ouch!”

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          ….but why do conservatives avoid facing the fact that Obamacare was an original idea hatched by republicans long time ago?. And as far back as 1989 this idea was promoted by The Heritage Foundation, and the republicans loved it.
          So, what’s the issue now?

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        [Wind]Chester misfires with “Truesoy, you did the research and found what I lived through, and apparently Vigilant is either too young to have experienced, or has forgotten all he heard during that period in his life. Will say thanks for that bit, though, as can already see steam coming from more than one pair of ears.”

        (1) My interest in Conservative politics in 1989 was diverted by my USAF service. What transpired or did not transpire during that time is irrelevant to the fact that the individual mandate has NEVER been a Conservative position. You want to know what comprises Conservatism? Read the above referenced books, then come back with your tail between your legs and fess up that you were wrong. I’ll try to ignore the steam coming from your ears when that happens.

        (2) Quit the condescending bullsh*t with the reference to age. I was born when Truman was president, and in my 65+ years I have spent my time LEARNING about the world through both books and the school of hard knocks. You want to preach about mental age, suggest you and true boy get that checked real quickly.

        • chester

          Vigilant, as I said the first time, and am about to repeat here, you did NOT live through a lot of what you speak so loudly about, unlike many of your seniors. My time was USN, from 1963 to 1967, and, while I never set foot in Viet Nam, I handled and helped throw a LOT of 75 pound chunks of steel and high explosives in support of our troops on the ground. So, yes, I got to see and hear a LOT that you have had to learn from books, and that does make a difference in our outlooks.

      • Vigilant

        trueboy says, “….but why do conservatives avoid facing the fact that Obamacare was an original idea hatched by republicans long time ago?. And as far back as 1989 this idea was promoted by The Heritage Foundation, and the republicans loved it.
        So, what’s the issue now?”

        The issue is your inability to read. You continue to confuse “Republican” and Conservative!”

        I don’t give a damn WHO introduced the program. It’s not a Conservative idea, never was, never will be.

      • Vigilant

        trueboy says, “So conservatives were for it before they were against it.
        Are you insinuating conservatives are ‘flip-floppers’?.
        It seems that way.”

        No, certain REPUBLICANS may have been for it, but no true Conservative ever was.

        Do you have difficulty understanding plain English?

        It seems that way.

        Incidentally, if you really believe Conservatives were for it, and you like it too, what does that make you, a “flip-flopper?”

        • chester

          Vigilant, apparently you think none other than Barry Goldwater was NOT a true conservative. Enough said.

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          What are you saying, that the Heritage Foundation is not a ‘true conservative’ voice?
          You know, al you’ve proven is that the new conservative ‘breed’ has gone over the edge.
          God have mercy on us if by some fluke of bad luck they were to take 100% control over our government.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        chester uses a double negative and says just the opposite of what he means to say with “Vigilant, apparently you think none other than Barry Goldwater was NOT a true conservative.” Better work on your English skills if you want to sound intelligent enough to debate me. “Enough said.”

        Even when corrected for the double negative, there’s nothing in my comments to indicate that I think only Barry Goldwater was a Conservative. Better work on your reading comprehension skills as well. “Enough said.”

        • chester

          Sir, according to your earlier writings, Barry Goldwater, who was REPUBLICAN first, last and always, could NOT have been a true conservative, It is also apparent that you are the one who has trouble understanding plain and simple English, or should I say American English, as the negatives in question were not conjoined, but separated by a phrase or two. I have no problem admitting that not all Republicans are your class of conservative, just as I do not fit the standard YOU set for true Liberals, or Democrats, for that matter. I am very much PRO-gun, just as I am also PRO-choice. Now, you tell me which category you will place me in, Really is no need, as you have told me on more than one occasion where you thought I fit. Another little hint, I voted McCain, but after what has gone on over the last three years, am just as glad I lost.

      • Vigilant

        The not-so-”sincere” trueboy says, “What are you saying, that the Heritage Foundation is not a ‘true conservative’ voice?”

        No, that’s not what I’m saying. What you implied was that if a liberal pronouncement comes out of the mouth of someone tied to a Conservative organization, then the pronouncement MUST be Conservative. Don’t put words in my mouth, sonny.

        I know it’s near impossible to penetrate your spent uranium alloy cranium, but here it is, as simply stated as I can make it” Liberals believe in an unconstitutionsal, larger and more intrusive central government, Conservatives believe in the restricted government established by the Constitution. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

        “You know, al [sic] you’ve proven is that the new conservative ‘breed’ has gone over the edge.”

        Oh, I certainly agree with you on that. The new breed is called “Neoconservative,” and it in no way reflects the Constitutional values of true Conservatism. At least you managed to get one thing right.

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          I’ve noticed that you are a real “bi” type of guy, because your views in any one issue can swing either ways, and/or both ways if it serves your purpose.
          But you can not have it both ways, either The Heritage Foundation is conservative, or it is not. We all know it is, and you just can’t selectively choose when it is and/or when it is not because it does not fit the conservative concept you’ve been fed as of lately.
          And no more denying the true nature of the healthcare reform will add pounds of credibility to your otherwise feeble conservative principals, for if it was first a conservative idea then then it makes a conservative idea now, that came to fruition thanks to a democratic administration.
          Ps.- your brand of conservatism is a train wreck waiting to happen, again. (well, it did happen during the last administration)

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        chester the molestor pontificates, “Vigilant, as I said the first time, and am about to repeat here, you did NOT live through a lot of what you speak so loudly about, unlike many of your seniors. My time was USN, from 1963 to 1967, and, while I never set foot in Viet Nam, I handled and helped throw a LOT of 75 pound chunks of steel and high explosives in support of our troops on the ground. So, yes, I got to see and hear a LOT that you have had to learn from books, and that does make a difference in our outlooks.”

        I retired from the USAF after 24 years of honorable service at the highest enlisted rank in 1990, then went on to work another 14 years for NATO in the Netherlands. I did farm work as a boy, as well as work with a landscaper, in a drug store and super market, and I’ve dabbled as a realtor.

        I spent 7 years in the Far East and 19 years in Europe, and was stationed in NY, NM, CA and ND. I’ve been TDY to many bases in the N. US, Canada, Greenland and the Azores as a Command Equipment Management Team technician in communications. I’ve been in 46 states. I’ve supported alert B-52s and KC-135 tankers as well as Minuteman II missiles in the silos as a NORS supervisor. I’ve had responsibility for 150 personnel as a Chief Enlisted Manager and directly supervised 30 personnel as a branch superintendent..

        I’ve worked or played in Japan, Korea, Okinawa, the Philippines, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, the UK, Turkey, Iceland, France and Mexico.

        You want to continue this comparison? I’ve got more if you want to see it.

        • chester

          Sir, you complain about people resorting to name calling, then fall into that same trap, I do commend you on your service, and thank you for it, but the very fact that you were on active duty during so much of the time in question indicates that you did miss a lot of the blow by blow that civilians lived through. Yes, am stating that from personal experience, as there was a LOT going on in the civilian world that active duty personnel were not expected to have an opinion about, or, often enough, even know about. Granted, we got to read about some of it in newspapers, when they finally caught up with us, and even hear about some of it through AFRS broadcasts, when we were within range. But, hearing about and reading about is NOT the same as living it on a day by day basis.

          • truesoy

            chester;

            Don’t mind Vigilant for his silly comments. He was in the Navy in the 60′s, but probably was dragged in kicking and screaming during the draft. And now the squid wants to cash – in on it.

            Sincerely,
            Truesoy

          • chester

            Truesoy, it was me that was USN in the mid-sixties. Vigilant was USAF from about a year before I got off active duty. Good possibility he WAS drafted, as all four main branches were accepting draftees at that time, and they weren’t too particular, just as long as you were under forty. Supposedly, wife and kids were supposed to exempt you, but they drafted a lot of married guys anyway, then told them to to file the papers for their family allotments when they hit boot camp.

          • truesoy

            chester;
            sorry, I think I misunderstood your post…

            sincerely,
            Truesoy

          • chester

            Truesoy, is not a problem there. Really, figured you had, which is why I corrected you.
            Take care and God bless.
            Chester

          • truesoy

            chester;

            Thanks…

            Sincerely,
            Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        OK, chester, let’s ratchet this down a bit. I thank you for your service as well, and I apologize for the name calling.

        I have the deepest amount of respect for the memory of Barry Goldwater as a Constitutional Conservative. Yes, he was Republican, but so is Ron Paul. Neither fit into a purely Republican mold.

        I, too, have mixed political inclinations, as did Goldwater and as does Ron Paul. The task is to define what I mean when I use the term. “Adherence to the principles of our founding as formalized in the Constitution” best describes my view of what “my” brand of Conservatism means. It recognizes that the Constitution, as declared, should be the Law of the Land, and that respect for the rule of law is paramount in maintaining that respect.

        I am pro-defense (2nd Amendment), as you are, but I depart from your views in being pro-life. Although I am not a Christian, I believe the unalienable rights to life, liberty and property are inviolable. Further, I think that when you put life itself on the scales with “pursuit of happiness” or “choice,” life is the hands-down weightier consideration. Abortion, in my mind, nullifies the chances for liberty and pursuit of happiness by removing the very basis for it, life itself. I think we all need a shot at these things, whether as adults or as human foetuses.

        I believe that the Constitution is mute with regard to homosexuality and that the Federal Government has no business inserting its nose into the gay rights or marriage issue, that, in fact, should not be an issue at federal level. With that I agree with Senator Goldwater, as he came to see after he was out of Congress. Many social Conservatives disagree with me on this, and so be it.

        So, you could say I’m a Constitutionalist, fiscal Conservative with some definitely Libertarian, or even, I suppose, Liberal ideas on the social front. The definitions of both conservative and liberal have changed greatly over the years. The liberalism of Thomas Jefferson is the conservatism of today, more or less.

      • Smilee

        Vigilant says:
        July 8, 2012 at 8:53 am

        Your totally wrong, the Heritage Foundation dreamt up the Obama care idea as a republican response to what they then called Hillary Care and in Mass Romney used that as a compromise with the democrats in the Mass legislature and it became law there so Obama felt he could get bipartisan support with it but the republicans then wanted no part it because their priority goal then was to make Obama a one term president rather that work with him to solve the nations health care problems and to do this they then had to lie their butts off to convince people it was something it was not and also no longer take ownership of it but Obamacare is definitely a republican idea.

        • truesoy

          smilee;

          The Heritage Foundation had been promoting what the republicans call ‘Obamacare since the late 1980′s before there was an Obama, nor were the Clintons in the White House, yet.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

  • firefight

    There is a huge difference between defying a thing because “we just don’t like it or want to do it.” and defying a thing because it violates my basic freedoms and God given rights. As a child, I tried to defy my parents when it was nap time. I was a child then and didn’t know what was best for me. Today, I defy any legislation that imposes gun control because I know the consequences of losing that basic freedom from looking at history and the other countries where citizens allowed this freedom to be stripped away. I am also smart enough to know that any person who does not embrace all freedoms as outlined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights can not call themselve an advocate of freedom. You can not be FOR freedom and then eliminate even one single freedom that is outlined in these two documents. Picking and choosing is not acceptable. So, when a person tells me that we need “MORE gun control,” I simply point out to them that they are anti-freedom if they take that stance because their call for MORE control means LESS freedom. Whenever our government seeks to manipulate the people’s minds in order to further their own agenda, we have a duty to defy that government and those politicians and law makers. Such is the case with operation Fast and Furious and such is the case with Obamacare. We have a duty to stop these people from imposing their unjust plans upon us. We and our freedoms do not belong to them to do with as they please.

  • Ted Crawford

    As your article points out Nullification rarely works, while I agree that this issue is on a par with the ending of Slavery, with 50% of the population now leaching off the other 50%, I’m concerned that we could generate the overwhelming majority necessary !
    Perhaps a reasonable number of the entitlement crowd might begin to realize that too many leaches drain all the blood from the host and leave nothing for anyone ! Remember this is sold to them as “Free Health Care “!

    • firefight

      Good point there Ted. All you have to do is look at Greece to see that taking from those that have and giving to those who have not does not work. That country is in complete decay and can not recover until those who have been feeding off the working class are eliminated.

      My solution to the problem here is to cut off their water. If we refused to collect “Ceasar’s” taxes and refused to submit them, what would happen? How many of us can they put in jail and how long could they keep us there? The biggest problem we have is the funding of their follies. If we continue to fund them, they will continue to do as they please and create more taxes to burden us for their pleasure. I think it’s time to cut off their allowance.

      • brett

        you have no idea as to what’s happening i greece. they’re in a hole because they borrowed money in lieu of taxes. same as us. back in the day when this country was strong the effective top tier tax rate was 50-70%+. what romney pay last year? 15% of $200 million. the 49% that pays little to no fed tax still pays state, local, school, s.s., medicare, sales tax, etc. and barely make in a year what romney makes in a few hours.

      • Ted Crawford

        Nice try Brett, but wrong. The Capital gains tax, which is the tax Obama is refering to, has been a factor for 99 years, for 63 of those 99 years the rate was at or below 25%. The average annual increase in revenues for those years was at 6+%. For the remaining 36 years the rate was above 25%, the average annual revenue increases were at 3% ! Taxes and the revenues they generate are inversly proportional !

      • brett

        overall effective tax rate that includes, not just captial gains tax. try harder next time.

      • brett

        sorry for the misspell, no comment on greece or low income taxes?

      • firefight

        You’re wrong again Brett and obviously misinformed. Just back from that country I can honestly say that these are some of the warmest and nicest people I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting…..but, the younger crowd, the mid to late twenty somethings are of the mind set that someone owes them something and that their government is responsible to give it to them. The same mind set that is desrtoying this country today. Greece has placed itself among those failed nations that thought they could buy their way to power by creating entitlists and securing their votes. Now, there is no more money to take from the haves to give to the have nots and the have nots are not willing nor motivated to fend for themselves. When you get in the streets with these good people who have worked their butts off all their lives and now have nothing to show for it, you can readily understand why they hate their government and those politicians who have robbed them of what was rightfully theirs thru excess taxation and restricting laws.

      • brett

        then why are they ( not just the youth ) protesting the austerity policy forced on them and demanding higher taxes for the wealthy. next time leave the resort and group tours. any thing on effective taxes?

  • Paul

    It is funny, that the “extreme right” wants liberty. The “99%” think that the state is providing them with free health care. The government does not force you to buy auto insurance. When you pay for Osamacare, you will pay not only for healthcare, but the overhead of thousands of enforcers to collect the tax, regulators to control healthcare providers (read: reduce their compensation — reduce care quality), and bureaucrats to oversee your consumption of “benefits” — read: “You’re too old” or “You’re too expensive.” These are jobs that do nothing for the economy — they live off the proceeds of the real producers.

    Oh, and also, the “health care tax” will fall on everyone. If it does not come directly, it will come through inflation.

    The extreme right wants life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those self-identified as the “99%” are deluded to think that they are going down that course. They are heading toward slavery to unlimited government. Obama looks forward to your service.

    Government big enough to give you everything you want — is big enough to take away everything you have. Wake up, America!

    • http://www.facebook.com/Brownink09 Frank B.

      Right On Paul!!

  • http://Yahoo.com Bill

    I think I’ve already had a taiste of Obama Care by virtue of my workmans comp. I was hurt in a work related accident in 1992. My case was settled and future medical IS required – deemed so by the doctors and the judge. I now go to the doctor who talks to me – in person, and examines me. Everything this doctor has recommended, goes to a third party who has never seen me, talked to me or examined me and the result, EVERY time has been to deny how the doctor wants to treat me. Medical care can be great but if a third party continually denies what the doctor wants, what good is it.

    • chester

      Bill, and that third party is, let me guess, the same insurance company who wanted you OUT of the hospital the same day you were admitted. Do a bit more research on what is coming down the road in Obamacare, and you will see a totally different picture. The ONLY board will be there to make recommendations to congress, not to control anything directly related to healthcare for any individual.

    • brett

      yea bill, sorry but what you think is obamacare most certainly is not. not enough of the bill has been enacted yet. you are speaking of insurance co.

  • Joseph Mariom

    JOEJOE
    I am 81 years old and in fairly good health bit I’ll rebel at someone trying to tell me how to die or not be able to receive care needed. My doctor can advise me but not some YOYO from the Gov.

    • DavidL

      You have been on Medicare for at least 16 years now. Has this government run health insurance ever done what you are afraid of and say you won’t allow to be done? The clear inference to be drawn from your statement is no. Unfortunately, you are yet another victim of the irresponsible and destructive propaganda coming from our extreme right.

      • Ted Crawford

        You failed to mention David that this wonderful Government program has been administered, typicaly, so poorly that it will completely exhaust all it’s funding , left unaltered, by 2017 ! The part that should concern us all is that Medicare is a far, far smaller program than PPACA !

      • Joseph Mariom

        David my boy I am on plan A medicare no plan B I have better insurance than medicare. The only reason I have iy is because when I turned 65 they gave it to me. So far I have used about 1400.00 of medicare so pffft on you obama lover

        • truesoy

          Joseph Moron;

          Medicare part A is Medicare.
          At age 65 unles you are still employed fulltime, you and everybody else goes on Medicare.
          Again, YOU ARE ENROLLED IN MEDICARE.
          Thisis the biggest problem old conservatives have, they are on a goverment plan, but they don’t know it, and because they don’t know, want to kill it. Smart!!!

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        “This is the biggest problem old conservatives have, they are on a goverment plan, but they don’t know it, and because they don’t know, want to kill it. Smart!!!”

        true boy, use some gray matter instead of brown matter to aid your thinking process. You can bet your backside everyone on Medicare knows they’ve been enrolled, no matter what their political persuasion.

        You get tons of mail from both insurance companies AND the government just before you turn 65. Moreover, it reduces individual Social Security payments to help fund it.

        Get out of your bedroom and get a taste of reality once in awhile, OK?

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          You are as dense as you have ever been. What do you think will happen to seniors once ‘medicare is sold to the insurance industry (privatized vouchers)? I’ll tell you what will happen, for one thewre woyuldn’t be enough money in the voucher for insurance premiums and eventually old people will suffer and die for lack of proper medical care.
          Now, maybe you are not on medicare yet and don’t know how it works, and or maybe you are already on it but are not smart enough to understand what you have that others coming after you will lose, or you just simply don’t care, therefore this only proves you a very ‘callous person’ (this being a very conservative attribute), and/or a dummy (another typical conservative trait)
          One more time I repeat that, conservatives are people that believe in things they don’t understand, nor they care to.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        True boy calls me dense by immediately following up with a diversion of the topic. Sonny, you did in no way address my response to your assertion, which was “This is the biggest problem old conservatives have, they are on a goverment plan, but they don’t know it, and because they don’t know, want to kill it. Smart!!!”

        Now let’s look at that statement. Tell me where in that comment does it address “medicare [being] sold to the insurance industry (privatized vouchers)?” or “that others coming after you will lose,” It ain’t there, and has nothing to do with my response. And you call ME dense! Your reading comprehension level is somewhere around elementary school level.

        Then you compound your mistake by trying to lie your way out of it, by saying, “One more time I repeat that, conservatives are people that believe in things they don’t understand, nor they care to.” THAT’S NOT WHAT YOU SAID, IDIOT! You said old Conservatives “are on a goverment plan, but they don’t know it…” Now if you think those two statements are the same, you need to have your head examined.

        P.S. Don’t ever try to argue with me using such shoddy and disjointed grasp of the English language, unless you expect to be called out, to your humiliation.

      • Vigilant

        P.P.S. Don’t ever presume your stereotype to be true, that “conservatives are people that believe in things they don’t understand, nor they [sic] care to.” You took on the wrong adversary when you stepped into the ring with me, little boy.

        Judging by your amateurish attempts to bring unrelated and diversionary subjects to a conversation, I can assure you I have never attempted such childishness in my debate line. Moreover, I’m confident that my historical and philosophical understanding of our heritage, founding documents and consciousness of the real world is more profound, by multiples, than your feeble and incomplete programming by your teachers.

        “Sincerely”

        Vigilant

  • Michael Lewis

    Freedom of “speech” and freedom of the press are supposed to be the inalienable rights of natural persons, “We the People”!

    Every article that I have read on this topic discusses free speech and avoids any discussion of free press!

    Exercising free press rights has always involved the cost of paper, ink and distribution.

    In the 184 year period prior to Watergate and the creation of the Federal Election Commission “We The People” enjoyed the same freedom to raise and spend money to pay the cost of exercising our free press rights that newspaper and broadcast corporations accomplish through stockholders today.

    The Federal Election Commission did not exist until 1975.

    The Citizens United v FEC decision was not the first Supreme Court decision that recognized corporations have speech and press rights as “legal persons”.

    ________________________________________

    The campaign finance reforms following Watergate included a press exemption:

    2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) exempts newspaper, broadcast and magazine corporations
    from the definition of contribution and expenditure. The Buckley v. Valeo decision, which upheld these reforms, effectively redefined free press as the right of media corporations!

    ________________________________________

    When a newspaper corporation expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate for public office or describes a candidate in a favorable or unfavorable news story, it is not a contribution or expenditure.

    Giant newspaper corporations are allowed to raise and spend an unlimited amount of stockholder money influencing the political process in the U.S. because their political communications have no value.

    But if a group of Citizens pool and spend money to advocate the election or defeat of the same candidate using the exact same words that a newspaper uses, their communication is either a contribution or expenditure. And, under the Buckley v Valeo decision, that could create the appearance of corruption and justifies regulations that restrict ordinary citizen’s freedom to pool money to pay the cost of paper, ink and distribution of political advocacy!

    Since Watergate regulations based on the definitions of expenditure and contribution have restricted the speech and press rights of every U.S. Citizen political party and organization.

    Campaign finance reforms have given corporations speech and press rights superior to “We the People”! But corporations cannot interview candidates, write editorial endorsements or speak their political opinions on radio or television. Their employees do that. Campaign finance laws have given editors, talking heads and reporters speech and press rights superior to every other citizen.

    Even foreign owned newspapers and cable networks are exempt from U.S. election laws!

    I do not believe congress intended to give foreign citizens and foreign corporations more freedom to influence our elections than their constituents and the Democrat or Republican parties.

    ________________________________________

    My solution:

    Amend the language used in 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) with the definitions included below!

    The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen or citizens group, corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.

    The term contribution does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen or citizens group or corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.

    Press means any Citizen or group of Citizens of the United States that engages in any form of public communication.

    Media means any Citizen or group of Citizens of the United States that engages in any form of public communication.

    Newspaper means any form of printed material that includes any advertisement or other information for the purpose of public distribution, including information printed on paper, billboards, signs, fliers, web pages, and other electronic print material.

    Instructions for the federal and supreme court :

    Newspaper and broadcast businesses operating in the United States are free to fund the cost of their political communication from pools of stockholders money that is not regulated by federal campaign finance laws. The purpose of this legislation is to clarify that the speech and press rights of the flesh and blood Citizens of the United States are no less than the speech and press rights of legal persons taking the form of newspaper and broadcast businesses operating in the United States.

    Corporations are just another way for people to assemble to demand a redress of grievances from government. The 1st Amendment does not limit how people assemble!

    Richard asked that I include the following:

    Lovell v. City of Griffin SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 303 U.S. 444 Argued February 4, 1938 Decided March 28, 1938

    The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion. What we have had recent occasion to say with respect to the vital importance of protecting this essential liberty from every sort of infringement need not be repeated. Near v. Minnesota, supra; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra; De Jonge v. Oregon, supra.[note 2]

    Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates, structures and forms of government, the manner in which government is operated or should be operated, and all such [384 U.S. 214, 219] matters relating to political processes. The Constitution specifically selected the press, which includes not only newspapers, books, and magazines, but also humble leaflets and circulars, see Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 , to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs.
    ————————————————
    UNITED STATES v. ASSOCIATED PRESS et al. Nos. 57, 58 and 59. Argued Dec. 5, 6, 1944. Decided June 18, 1945

    It would be strange indeed however if the grave concern for freedom of the press which prompted adoption of the First Amendment should be read as a command that the government was without power to protect that freedom. That Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society. Surely a command that the government itself shall not impede the free flow of ideas does not afford non-governmental combinations a refuge if they impose restraints upon that constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not. Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests.

  • DavidL

    What a pathetic irony. The picture of the woman protesting at the top of this article is, in reality, arguing for her, and all women, to remain a pre-existing condition and therefore subject to denial of insurance coverage when she becomes ill. President Obama, most Democrats, liberals, some Republicans, believe that is wrong and should be corrected.

    • Ted Crawford

      If PPACA is necessary, in all it’s mammoth proportions, to solve this problem, then it seems that should my transmition fail I need to replace the engine, transmission , drive-line, rearend and get a paint job to solve the problem ?

    • firefight

      David,
      What are you saying here? Are you suggesting that insurance companies should automatically cover all pre-existing conditions? Having spent 30+ years in the health insurance industry, I can tell you for sure, that is NOT economically feasable. If this were the case, people would simply wait until they were ill to buy health insurance. That would like telling automobile Insurance companies they had to cover vehicles after they were wrecked. If you check out Obama’s health care plan, you would see that it contains a provision that the insurance companies did indeed have to cover pre-existing conditions……a provision that will definitely demand MUCH higher premiums and a much unwanted burden on the rest of us who are healthy. This is more of what conservatives do not want……….It is taking yet more from the haves and giving to the have nots. It is more redistribution of wealth which is the foundation of Socialism.

  • Big Woody

    Ok, Obama care is the law. All I want to know is how much WILL IT COST ME? All we hear is theory and suppositions. HOW MUCH WILL IT COST ME.? How much will it cost a family of 2 or 3 or 4 or 10? I want to see facts. I am sure there are charts like in the 1040 tax boooklets. When will we see these charts so we can plan our lives. I know the sky is falling and the end of the world is near, but until then. What will I have to pay? Does anybody out there have a clue or are we just going to sling mud until the IRS gets into our accounts and takes what they think is a FAIR amount?

  • brett

    attn. all sons of the confederacy! seems boldin and the editors of this site believe that s.c. secede over slavery.

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear brett,

      You write: “seems boldin and the editors of this site believe that s.c. secede (sic) over slavery.” I am the editor of this site and I have never said or believed that.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • brett

        i’m sorry bob for being a little presumptive there, but as editor, if you don’t believe this, then why allow this assertion on your site? and how do you spell secede?

        • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

          Dear brett,

          You write: “i’m sorry bob for being a little presumptive there, but as editor, if you don’t believe this, then why allow this assertion on your site?” Mr. Boldin pointed out that, according to the list of causes from South Carolina, Northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act as one of their primary reasons for leaving the Union. I will not presume to speak for Mr. Boldin on what he believes is the reason South Carolina seceded. Our contributors are given free reign to state their own opinions. None of them agree 100 percent with my viewpoints, and I don’t always agree with theirs. If our content was a mirror image from one day to the next there would be no reason for people to continue to return.

          You write: “and how do you spell secede?” You correctly spelled “secede” but the word should have been “seceded” in that case.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

    • brett

      fair enough, thank you! fun little site you have here, even though your content may not mirror, it certainly is consistent!

    • http://www.facebook.com/michaelboldin Michael Boldin

      I don’t “believe” anything in particular. I’m just quoting a factual statement from a factual document – of South Carolina complaining about nullification from the North……that’s what they said was their gripe.

      I figure that’s interesting, especially since people claim that the southerners were the nullifiers. Other than a few decades earlier, they weren’t.

      • GALT

        Ah…….here you are again…….

        So where are those (common) law and equity courts?

  • Darwin Shumway

    There was a Tea Party in Bosten Harber years ago, today there needs to be a WASHINGTON TEA PARTY 6throwing our socialist Govt. out & reinstate the Govt. of 1776.
    Corecting the mistakes of the past, limit all Govt. terms in all branches of govt, elected and appointed, raises,expence accounts by general election approvel only. Work 1/3 of year , git 1/3 of the pay,( no benifits for part time employees) No czars, no coreer buroceats.
    Clean up all voter registration lists & police them, only natural born citizens can hold office in any form of Govt. local to Federal. English to be the only aproved & official language. ALL OTHER COUNTRIES ARW THIS WAY & we should be also.

  • Hooder

    The so called supreme court hasbecome a political entity. They no longer use the rule of law to decide anything and have become a detriment to the freedom of all Americans.l

    • http://www.facebook.com/michaelboldin Michael Boldin

      Been that way for a looooong time, unfortunately!

      • GALT

        1938 on the federal level, 1960 on the state level……..and all kinds of CLUES for anyone who wants to LOOK……….I guess the problem is…….it’s real hard to make money off this,
        and it might be a bit risky to try…………but imagine the headlines you could write…

        UNITED STATES a military DICTATORSHIP since 1938 under ADMIRALTY and MARITIME
        LAW.

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

  • http://www.facebook.com/hbeeinc Paul Day

    FYI – If Democrat made this type of argument, you’d be screaming about how they want to destroy America.

    Just sayin’.

    Have fun storming the castle simply because you didn’t get what you want and, by all means, off a pig for me!

  • http://Yahoo George

    We presently do not have any sets of testicles worth the set who will remove the jerk we have sitting in the President’s chair in Washington. And then, the whole gang of 9 have forgotten that Liberty and Freedom MUST be exerted personally, in our own lives.
    Government is the Problem, NOT the solution.
    New Presidents have NO Power to exert his “crackpot ideas” on all of us just because he was brought up with people who “convinced” him that the World “should be this or that way”. This Nation is NOT some “Playtoy” presented to him at Christmas to “play with” for the next 4 years.
    The President is to “Preside”. NOT TO DICTATE HIS OWN WAY ( AS AN INCORIGIBLE
    BRAT CHILD!)
    We will have an opportunity to “FIRE” this brat child in November.
    God, Please continue to Bless America, even though, so far, we don’t deserve it!

  • http://gravatar.com/confusedincalifornia confusedincalifornia

    yes, and if the people in those states with governors who won’t accept federal money to set up the exchanges or to implement the law, lose healthcare and their kids lose coverage and get sick and die without the care they need because their governor was a stupid idealogue, I gues that’s just tough. I guess those kids should be out making a buck so they can buy their own health insurance. You people seem to have become the most selfish, greedy people on the face of the planet. Maybe you should actually read the Constitution. It doesn’t mean whatever you want it to mean. It doesn’t say what you want it to say. It is what our founding fathers wanted it to be. It says that the government’s job is to provide for the general welfare. Do you morons even know what that means?

  • David

    This may sound a little silly but the Federal government wants to all be like the Star Trek Borg and wants us all to believe resistance is futile. They want all of us to be part of their mindless collective and do as we are told.

    With the states help we can resist without violence. Most informed people now know voting more bums in will brings up the definition of insanity where we keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.

    Those at the Federal level are just too well connected, too far away and protected to worry about us minions and what we think. If they threaten the states to take away their money, then states out to tell the FED that their citizens will no longer pay homage to the mob in Washington DC. Just ignore them and cut them off.

    If you take away their allowance they will bitch and complain and make a lot of threats but we the people are are in fact the 99% and out number them thousands to 1. Time to quit investing in a failing scheme.

  • chuckb

    it’s time for the american citizens to take back control of the country. we have allowed the progressive movement to take over the reigns of government using the minority population, illegal’s, fed and state workers as their pawns. i doubt if if we have the votes to remove this welfare cancer, we have only one choice, use the bolshevik method, march en mass on washington and force their hand, tie up the capitol, shut down the nation and force these liberal rats out of their holes, if we do not, then we will be like the people in africa, cuba, the middle east and most of asia.

    it is obvious, we are top heavy with people living off the federal government, state employment, half the nation is on welfare of some sort. now they want to tax the rich, they have run out of funds, the rich for the most part are the life blood of this country, small business, etc. this is like living off your savings account.
    we have a “wanna be dictator” living in the white house, he is ignorant to what this country stands for, he is held in adoration by a large segment of white liberals and bleeding heart conservatives, mostly because of his color, the blacks kneel in his shadow and they don’t care what he does, he’s one of them and he has promised them everything for free.

    we have a very weak republican party, led by wimpy people such as people like karl rove, who by the way offered up the likes of john roberts for the supreme court, if this guy doesn’t scare you i don’t know what would, a conservative! lol. we don’t stand a chance with people like roberts on the sc. now rove has offered up mitt romney, we do not have a choice other than vote for him, “anyone except barry.” so you don’t have have to be a brain surgeon to figure out where we are.

    • http://www.restoringprivileges.com/GODHELPINGHAND Minister Willielewis Hicks

      Hello.
      we do need ‘JUDGES’.in the scriptures even Jesus Christ was judged,the ten commandments GOD LAW,we all are to follow.if you will not live by the commandments then you shall die by them;another example:Take Mr.George Romney,who kept ignoring the LAW.born in chihuahua mexico,kept on running for many positions or officies of the USA.no matter what the law stated and said.this man was totally illegal but became the governor in a few places in the US.and continuosly run for President.but was rejected by the letter of law,created byGOD ALMIGHTY,THE CONSTITUTION OF JUDGES ,LAWYERS,THE PEOPLE.now there is so much to say,for instance say both of your parents are illegal immigrants as Mr.&Mrs.Romney was.and make here in the US.to Detroit mich.and his wife conceive or gave birth to a child.THIS CHILD WOULD AND IS ILLEGALLY BORN.which disqualify Him to run for PRESIDENT.and this is a Federal Violation,and a crime,should you continue let Him ignore the law no,the Judges and law did not let His father do it and neither should He.Its time to dismiss him,and to remand all the peoples money becuse he don,t qualify

  • truesoy

    Michael Boldin proves what everyone have always known, and that is that conservatives love the Constitution and the Rule of Law as long as it goes their way, and when it does not go the ‘conservative way’ their ‘dissent’ is one of calling for violent opposition and civil disobedience.
    Conservatives are like children of the mist of ignorance, for they only believe in things they don’t understand.

    Sincerely,
    Truesoy

    • http://www.facebook.com/michaelboldin Michael Boldin

      would you say the same thing about me being a “conservative” when I write another article in favor of state medical marijuana laws? And, how 17 states are heroically defying DC on the drug war? Or is that now some kind of conservative issue too?

      Silly, indeed. Or, maybe just misinformed?

      • GALT

        Actually, you would be a “distraction”……..so, again…….since you seemed to have MISSED the very first response in this thread……….

        Two of the four jurisdictions in Article Three are MISSING???????

        Are you misinformed? I won’t know THAT until you answer the question………

        Where are the (common) law and equity courts?

      • Vigilant

        I’m sure he didn’t miss it, it’s simply not worthy of a reply. Your obssessive compulsive disorder is treatable, you know.

        • chester

          Actually, Michael, you are being a true conservative, trying to bring back that which once was, and, in my opinion as well, should be again. Marijuana should never have been classified as an addictive substance, unless you are willing to classify anything that lets someone relax and enjoy themselves as addictive, I do hate to say this, but about the only thing that isn’t being considered an addictive substance now is exercise, and even that is an addiction for some.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Laws are never right just because someone says they are. However there is this thing called the law. One cannot simply refuse to obey a law just because one is opposed to it. Now one may have strong opposition and I can respect that. However invoking the words nullification and secession I feel is a tad extreme. This law does not measure up to the kind of inalterable tyranny that can only be challenged by dividing the republic. Tyranny is an extreme that must be avoided. However this law by no means equals tyranny. Secession leads to anarchy and that is an extreme no better then tyranny. Nullification is not as bad but it is still a slippery slope I would rather we avoid. I disagree with certain areas of Obama Care and I would urge anyone and everyone to speak out, petition, vote, rally, protest and any reasonable ways one can to oppose this law and urge others to do so. However as this law is based on giving people access to healthcare I would say the law should be honored so long as it is in effect. Oppose and amend. Not depose and abolish.

    • truesoy

      Jeremy;

      Funny thing though, such an opposition from the right for something that conservatives have been trying for years to pass, but didn’t.
      And now all of the sudden is unconstitutional. You guys are so easyly manipulated, you’d make perfect puppets. Why? because one day they told you it was not only an issue for healthcare reform but one for personal responsibility, and conservatives applaude, even Newt saidonce uppon a time that Romney’s health care reform should be a model for a national plan.
      But now they tell you otherwise and you go for it.
      So much for individual conservative independent thinking.
      PUPPETS! that is what conservatives are.

      Sincerely,
      Truesoy

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I wouldn’t say so. I know several people including my father who would be considered conservative. I do not consider my father a puppet.

        • truesoy

          Jeremy Leochner;

          …then your father is not a ‘real’ conservative; not by today’s standard at least.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

  • Ali from MAss

    I’m in MA, doesn’t leave much of anything for us to do but move. Too bad my our properties aren’t worth much since our property TAXES and FEES are so damg high.

  • http://www.restoringprivileges.com Minister Willielewis Hicks

    Hello.
    we do need ‘JUDGES’.in the scriptures even Jesus Christ was judged,the ten commandments GOD LAW,we all are to follow.if you will not live by the commandments then you shall die by them;another example:Take Mr.George Romney,who kept ignoring the LAW.born in chihuahua mexico,kept on running for many positions or officies of the USA.no matter what the law stated and said.this man was totally illegal but became the governor in a few places in the US.and continuosly run for President.but was rejected by the letter of law,created byGOD ALMIGHTY,THE CONSTITUTION OF JUDGES ,LAWYERS,THE PEOPLE.now there is so much to say,for instance say both of your parents are illegal immigrants as Mr.&Mrs.Romney was.and make here in the US.to Detroit mich.and his wife conceive or gave birth to a child.THIS CHILD WOULD AND IS ILLEGALLY BORN.which disqualify Him to run for PRESIDENT.and this is a Federal Violation,and a crime,should you continue let Him ignore the law no,the Judges and law did not let His father do it and neither should He.Its time to dismiss him,and to remand all the peoples money becuse he don,t qualify.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Minister of whom are you? God never told his believers to be ignorant and stupid.

  • Tmag

    Bravo!!!!!

  • http://www.restoringprivileges.com/GODHELPINGHAND Minister Willielewis Hicks

    I DON,T KNOW ABOUT EVERYBODY,SOME SCHOOLS OR COLLEGES THE INTUITION OR COST IS SO HIGH,THE YOUNG HAVE TO DEPEND OB THE HELP OF THE GOVERNMENT TO EVEN HAVE FOOD TO EAT.THE FOODSTAMP HELP TO THE STUDENTS IN COLLEGES,ARE TO BE STOPPED,SINCE MITT ROMNEY OR EVERY SINCE HE MADE THE STATEMENT TO TARE DOWN THE OBAMMA CARES.ALSO IF YOU ARE DISABLED AND ON SSI,UNLESS YOU GET A DOCTOR OR PHYSICIAN TO TAKE YOU OFF DISABILITY STATUS,YOU CANNOT GO TO ON CAMPUSOR ONLINE OR OTHERWISE,BY THE HELP OF THE GOVERNMENT.”EVERYBODY WANTS TO BETTER THEMSELVES AND FAMILY” THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CURRENT STAFFS SHOULD NOT STOP HELPING,THOUGH THEY ARE BEING TAKING THREW IT BY TIS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT,THEY MUST NOT UP ON TRYING TO ESTEEM EQUALITY TO ALL CITIZENS OF THE U.S.,SSI.SHOULD NOT BE STOP BECARSE A PERSON FINDS HIMSELF TO BE RICH,AND THE CONTINUATION OF CLEAN WATER TO EVERBODY SHOULD NOT BE STOP. FORGIVE MY MISTAKES IN WRITTEN THIS TH MISSPELLIG OF ANY WORD ETC…THE POINT IS ALSO THAT WE NEED THE JUDGES AND THE USA LAWS TO B FOLLOWED NOT IGNORED

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003624642108 Leonard W. Giddens Jr.

    Smith you are on bath salt. You speak as you do when anyone tries to protect what belongs to them, their rights. You believe the liberals know what’s best for everyone.

  • Alan

    How r we supposed to believe in people who can’t pass a budget. Balance a budget. Follow a budget. Steal from Peter to pay Paul. Denounce the sovernity of the states. And accuse people of racism, just because we don’t agree with everything from Washington.
    And will not participate in programs dictated to the rest of us. Will not punish its members for ethics violations. Exempt themselves from entitlement programs(congress is the worst entitlement program in this country). Congress needs to be parttime and absentee appoints be limited to only those absolutely necessary. All others be vetted by congress.
    Czar positions eliminated. EPA’s role investigate and recommend to Congress. Energy Dept eliminated along with all duplicate govt programs.

  • Carl Manning

    Let’s get this straight. The apostate crime syndicate in the District of Criminals has decided to socialize healthcare, so that you and I must now pay for all of their criminal abuses. We must pay for the healthcare of the unemployed, which in many ways the District of Criminals have directly caused by sending our jobs and factories overseas causing a loss of at least 23,000,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs to the point where manufacturing now makes up only 9% of the US economy. We must now pay for the healthcare of the illegal immigrants whom the District of Criminals have allowed to invade us over our border in droves to the tune of around at least 35,000,000 people. These illegal immigrants have also taken jobs away from Americans. The DC Crime Syndicate has no intention of enforcing its own sovereignty/border laws it has passed itself. The Dc Crime Syndicate has no intention of enforcing or abiding by its Compact with the 50 States, the US Constitution. It has already demonstrated this emphatically with the current Crime Boss. The DC Crime Syndicate has NEVER ONCE since the founding of the US Constitution allowed the State legislatures to have a “mandatory” Article V Convention to rein in their tyrannical, immoral, and unpopular laws, yet several times already the 2/3rds requirement has been met. In fact, the DC Crime Syndicate isn’t even keeping a running tally on the number of State legislatures who have petitioned them for an Article V Convention. Thus, term limits on Congress, abortion, and a balanced budget amendment have all been buried by the District of Criminals along with any other concerns of the American People and/or the States. The District of Criminals perpetrated the lie of 911 on the American People and the lie of the Lunar Landings. The Lie of 911 was used to murder and maim our own soldiers and countless innocents around the globe on behalf of the State of Israel and the Military Industrial Complex. The Crime Syndicate allowed the murder of many US sailors on the USS Liberty by the State of Israel; murdered JFK, RFK, JFK Jr., MLK, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Judge Roll, Jeannette Palfrey, Senator Paul Wellstone, Brian Terry, Breitbart, and many others. The Crime Syndicate now routinely punishes whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds. All of these are manifestations of a diabolically evil totalitarian state recklessly out of control. We all know about the FEMA camps, the imminent drone deployments, and the 450,000,000 rounds of hollow-point ammunition the DHS has purchased for martial law. Nullification was all fine and dandy during the halcyon days when the “government” in DC wasn’t yet the District of Criminals. There are only two PROPER responses at this point in time. One response would be for delegates from State legislatures to meet with delegates from other State legislatures in their own Article V Convention WITHOUT WASTING TIME NOTIFYING THE DISTRICT OF CRIMINALS. In such an Article V Convention, these delegates would propose to formally no longer recognize the District of Criminals and form their own new federal government preferably somewhere in the middle of the country in the heartland. Many liberal State legislatures in the Northeast, the West Coast, the upper Midwest, some of the southern border States, and Hawaii would likely laugh this suggestion off, which is their right, and so be it. Otherwise, States could propose Articles of Secession to be introduced in State legislatures and confederate with other culturally and politically similar States as they so choose, which, considering the country’s vast cultural and political differences, may be the more practical and wiser choice these days. It is beyond stupid to remain in a Union whose foreign policy and domestic policy can only be described with one word: EVIL. It is beyond stupid to remain in a Union which no longer abides by its own Contract with the States. It is time for a divorce between the States and the Union because God said, “I am as far from evil as the East is from the West.” The Crime Syndicate in the District of Criminals is facing imminent judgment from Almighty God for all the innocent blood it has shed before His eyes. States that leave this Union may be spared the wrath of Almighty God.

    • David

      Hi Carl,

      Well said. I just posted George Washington’s Farewell Address and you would think he has just described what to avoid and what we have become. I am sure you have read it but here it is anyway. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp I think he had the DC thugs and Berry in mind when he wrote it.

    • Bruce

      Awesome post! It’s nice to see somebody with the courage to call our government what it has become. Criminal. There is a movement that intents to destroy the liberty of all people and nations. Mitt Romney would know that movement by the name Gadianton’s Robbers. I sometimes wonder if he isn’t one himself.

  • Mick

    Practice our liberties. In my mind, that includes the Second Amendment. No I don’t think marching through town with an M1 on my shoulder is smart; but civil disobedience in practicing concealed carry regardless of a “permit” is. That same permit puts one an a list to be targeted when the political winds blow a different way; being prepared to defend oneself without asking some bureaucrat’s permission makes sense. It makes sense to most street cops, too, as well as their bossed; they just can’t admit it publicly as they are in appointed positions. Other forms of civil disobedience can be learned from Ghandi, MLK, and others. And remember this concept if you are ever a juror: if you truly believe the law is unjust or unConstitutional, vote “Nay” without explanation.

  • David

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp Washington’s Farewell Address 1796

    Everyone should read the Farewell address. George Washington warned us!

    It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

    All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

    However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

  • Katherine Seabolt

    I for one just find it hard to believe all that is going on in our America!!!!! We are being forced to accept things that we do not want!!!! What happened to “for the people and by the people”?????????

    • chester

      Katherine, remember, this is a nation of laws, supposedly by the people, of the people, and for the people, yet it is also a country where in essence, the majority rules, except when the courts step in and override, the rules written by the majority because they are harmful to a minority. There ARE other reasons for the courts to act, and sometimes react, unless you feel every jury does exactly the right thing, and that anyone arrested and charged with a crime is automatically guilty. If all that were true, we might not need so many courts, but there always questions about the law that can not be answered, and have the answer accepted, by someone not learned in the law.

      • Bruce

        Chester, majority rules is also known as mob rule. That is why we didn’t set up a democracy but rather a republic. Democracy is just a step away from the tyranny known as Anarchy. The Constitution was written to give the government enough power to avoid anarchy and with enough constraints on governmental power to avoid monarchy and other dictatorial forms of government. It appears from your comment that you don’t understand this.

        • Eric Jones

          Anarchey by definition means no goverment so how can ther be a tyranney?

    • http://www.facebook.com/marvin.fox.526 Marvin Fox

      Government of the people, by the people and for the people still stands. However, it is being systematically destroyed by people who do not have freedom as their first principle. Freedom is not free but , I believe, we will keep it because we know what it is and it is worth fighting for. Our most serious battle is looming ahead and wiill happen in November. Please remember, a vote against any Democrat is vote against every Marxist.
      The definition of our Republic is its constitution; all other definitions are false or incomplete.
      Redefining our Republic as “our democracy” is false, and becoming more ridieulous every minute.
      Marvin E. Fox

      • chester

        Marvin, do believe if you actually STUDY Marx, you will find him far more conservative than the most right wing Republican Tea Party activist you can find in the US. Marx wanted only one change, everyone to his way of thinking. After that, no change would be necessary, as all would be perfect in the world, and every serf would know his place.

        • truesoy

          chester;

          Conservatives have a lot more in common with communism than they care to admit, but maybe it is so because they don’t know any better.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

          • chester

            Truesoy, in answer to your comment about the right and communism, will agree wholeheartedly, as seems one of the biggest communist haters, Joe McCarthy, was just as set in his ways as any liberal he accused, and in some cases, convicted of being a communist. He did get the power he craved, simply by threatening to break any company who, knowingly or unknowingly, employed any person he, himself, determined to be a communist. Of course, his determinations needed no proof, merely his word that it was so. A lot of good people were put out of work thanks to his declarations, and many of those actually had to leave the United States to make a living. Study a bit of history, then look at what the Tea Party is trying to do to us, aided by any who will follow their lead.

          • truesoy

            chester;

            What you say is true, but try to explain that to the likes of Vigilant or Mike, and you’ll get nowhere.

            Sincerely,
            Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        Chester and true boy both need to go to the books and recheck the left-right paradigm.

        All forms of statism (absolute monarchy, fascism, communism, etc.) are on the far left of the model because they advocate a total control of the economic apparatus and the conduct of individuals’ lives.

        The extreme right in the model is populated by Libertarianism and its cousin, anarchy, which supports little to virtually no control over anything by government.

        The long standing myth that fascism is a right wing mechanism is totally false. I know of NO right winger that has ever advocated fascism, and neither do you know such persons, nor ever will.

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          Just because some attach ‘left’ to communism doesn’t make it any more leftist than attaching ‘democratic republic’ to communist East Germany, made it a democracy, nor made democracy a dictatorial system.
          Get the point.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        trueboy, allow me to rephrase:

        All forms of statism (absolute monarchy, fascism, communism, etc.) are at point A of the model because they advocate a total control of the economic apparatus and the conduct of individuals’ lives.

        Point B, at the opposite end of the model, is populated by Libertarianism and its cousin, anarchy, which supports little to virtually no control over anything by government.

        Doen’t matter what you call it, left or right. It’s defined by the degree of control exercised by government over individual lives.

        Get the point?

        • truesoy

          Vigilant;

          …oh yes, Somalia, a ‘libertarian’s true paradise…and of republicans, too.
          Just tell me when you are ready, and I’ll drive you to the airport. I’ll even throw in the ‘happy meal’ for you.

          Sincerely,
          Truesoy

      • Vigilant

        It’s obvious from your ridiculous assertions that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I’ll not respond to nor engage in this child’s game. You have the last word, little boy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/marvin.fox.526 Marvin Fox

    Nullification of Federal law can go either way. The establishment of sanctuaries for illegal aliens that prevents the arrest and deportation of illegal aliens is an example of nullification of Federal law. That is a crime more serious than the one committed by the illegal alien it protects. That nullification may also involve aiding and abetting a felony of illegal entry.
    Since our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, those in government who are disobeying constitutional law are themselves committing illegal acts. It might be more productive to set up a team of constitutional lawyers and bring forth the charges against those who disobey our Contitutional laws. In the short and the long term, I believe that would be a superior choice to attempting to nullify Federal laws which are unconstitutional on their first face and were passed by those breaking our constitutional law.
    Marvin E. Fox

    • Vigilant

      ” It might be more productive to set up a team of constitutional lawyers and bring forth the charges against those who disobey our Contitutional laws.”

      Who chooses the makeup of the team? If you end up with activist judges like Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer, then nothing would be deemed punishable that fit their ideas of “social justice.”

  • Eric Jones

    I just think its adorable how you know more about our constitution then the people whose job it is to enforce.

    • terris

      Very well said, Eric.

      • Eric Jones

        Why thank you terris.

    • Vigilant

      “I just think its [sic] adorable how you know more about our constitution then [sic] the people whose job it is to enforce.”

      And I think it’s deplorable that you know so little about the Constitution that you believe the job of judges is to enforce the law.

      • Eric Jones

        Just out of curiousity what do YOU think a judges job is.

  • Bruce

    Just wanted to say, since when did we get our rights from the government? The Constitution is a grant of our power to the government. The only reason the Federal Government exists is to protect our rights under the constraints of the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court and every other court in this land is supposed to be interpreting laws using the Constitution as the measuring stick and not interpreting the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean. That’s like saying a foot is 16 inches one day and then saying it is 10 inches the next. By definition a foot equals 12 inches. The Constitution must be interpreted within the context that the Founding Fathers intended. That is the standard.

    • GALT

      Actually, interpreting the Constitution is not a power that was delegated to the judicial branch…………their job was to apply it. That it required interpretation, was an interpretation.

      • Vigilant

        ““The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

        A. Hamilton, the Federalist Papers

        The duty of interpretation was either supported or acquiesed in, by the Founders. Marbury vs. Madison sealed the concept and it has never been seriously challenged since the Civil War.

  • Independent Voter Not Tea Partier (Thank God)

    Citizen’s United decision you have no fault with, Obamacare you do. Typical conservative bull hockey. For you, hooray. Against you, ready to tear up the Constitution.

    • truesoy

      Independent voter…

      …and why should you expect any different from a conservative. Remember that these are the people that believe in things they don’t understand.

      Sincerely,
      Truesoy

  • Mike

    All through the course of history it has been the socialist/marxist types who clamor loudest for the shooting war to begin.

    It is their hope to move in and take things over as the dust is settling. They have done it in every country that is now communist/marxist in nature.

    Obama would send out the attack helicopters and mow down the “peoples army” if it got too close to the halls of congress. He won’t risk losing his herd of sheep who pass every little bill he shoves at them.

    Nope, shooting will not solve our problem.
    We have to overrule the commies by peaceful protest, by getting states to pass measures that will make the unConstitutional laws impossible to enforce.

    Ted Crawford suggested there are 200,000 NATO forces on American soil. I would very much like to know where they are. Or is that just a scare tactic?

    • truesoy

      Mike;

      Your are the sharpest bowling ball, or at least a runner-up for the award.

      Sincerely,
      Truesoy

    • chester

      Mike, on the NATO troops being here, they must be referring to the FACT that our forces HAVE worked under NATO command on a number of occasions. Where I live, if there were that many foreign troops involved in our training courses, there would be a good number of them evident here. There are some foreign personnel here, and always have been, but not in the numbers required to make that a legitimate statement.

      • truesoy

        chester;

        It is useless to try to reason with people that believe in the things Mike believes.
        Their state of mind is better left to science.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

  • Pingback: We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Judges! | Liberty Report

  • SPEED

    This might work in some states, however in California we have a democrat governor and way too many liberals in power …. we are doomed!!!

  • http://personallibertyalert.com FED up

    Lets just all quit our jobs, close our bank accounts, pull out all monies we have saved up to and including all 401k go golfing in the Hamptons take some lavish trip spend it all, not have to pay any taxes to federal or state or property tax because you will no longer have a job. Then after we are totally wiped out and unemployed sjgn up for government subsidized housing government subsidized medical care government subsidized food stamps. But you better listen and get what money you have left now because in the next six months there won’t be anything left of your 401k. This plan will completely shut down our economy which is exactly where we are headed. Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

  • George

    You know nothing about the law or the way our system functions. Pure ignorance.

  • don

    in the one response that said something about a constitutional convention to change the way this country was run ought to have petitions put out to go through with it. i sould sighn one in a heartbeat. all the debt would be dropped because it would be that the under the constitution the fed is illegal. it was inserted in by big banker elitists who had gained power through the years to get it in. now it so out of control and their runaway money printing with no value will catch up with them. the’ll probly print more if it is worth nothing to pay the bills. we need to get out of this. back in the 80s there was something called the refounding amendment going around. don’t know if it is still going. it would kinda fall under the constitutional convention. we need to take our country back to save it from falling.

  • WILDFIRE

    Robert Smith says:
    July 6, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    “Remember what happened to the solders from WW-1 in Washington D C . Look up the bonus army .”

    Don’t have to go to WWI. Remember Kent State?

    Rob
    _________________________________________________________________

    Yeah, I remember Kent State – I remember groups of students protesting and groups of students going through downtown Kent busting out windows of Furniture stores and coffee shops. People who have nothing to do with the Vietnam war, simply trying to run their business and make a living for their family and those students were terrorizing the City to the point that the National Guard had to be called in to break up the riots and destruction of private property. Quite similar to the current day OWS groups of misfits.

    When the national guard come in to stop the rioting and senseless destruction of private property and peoples businesses. These so called protester/rioters were throwing bricks at men with guns pointed at them and throwing balloons filled with urine at men with guns. Then when they were told to disperse they marched towards the national guard with intent to attack men with guns. What did they expect was going to happen?

    Thats your group of lefties and liberals who think they can destroy cities and public and private property at will with no recourse. They should have disperse as told to do since they were incapable of a peaceful protest. If they intended to stand their ground and fight men with guns, then they should have armed them selves

    Who was in the wrong? Some blame the National Guard, others blame the liberal mob that was rioting not just on the Campus but all through the city leaving innocent business owner in absolute ruins from their terrorist attacks on the City. Had they held a peaceful protest the National Guard would have never been there. They brought it on their self same as the OWS mobs do.

    If your going to riot and destroy and attack for a cause. Then attack those who are causing the problem not the innocent business owners of restaurants, coffee shops and furniture stores that have no control over the actions of the governments.

    Even still every year they hold vigil on that day, and even still there are always some individuals who are unable to hold vigil peacefully without causing disturbance via blocking the road and or causing some disturbance. There is still a piece of art there that bares bullet holes in it close to the building were many students were attempting to retreat into.

    To your point Robert – It was the radical liberals that was destroying the City of Kent and private property not the conservatives. Same as the modern day OWS. What morons think that they can throw urine balloons and bricks at armed men and they are not going to defend them self eventually? The students attacked the National Guard and they did it for several days until enough was enough. Typical Democrats, attack people and then when those people defend them self and the democrats and libtards get an a$$ beating they cry about it.

  • my 2¢ worth

    So, as I see it, the majority of voters (specifically pubs) views the supreme court selectively.. If the decisions are ruled in accordance to their ideologies then the court has done a job, it’s now the law.. Live With It!! But if it’s against their convictions then their a bunch of pansies with no brain matter and we’d be much better without them THEN go about rejecting that law, rejecting them ‘doing their job’ and definitely refusing to live with it.. Heads, you win.. Tails, we lose.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.