Here's what McCarthy said:
Today's Democrats are controlled by the radical Left, and it is more important to them to execute the permanent transformation of American society than it is to win the upcoming election cycles. They have already factored in losing in November — even losing big. For them, winning big now outweighs that. I think they're right.I hope McCarthy's understanding of what's going on is wrong, and it shapes my view of Cox to know that's what she thinks is "awesome."
I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that "reconciliation," if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That's the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility [sic] of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with.... [I]f the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority....
पोस्ट्स
२०९ टिप्पण्या:
209 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Andy has it nailed, the Democrats figure if the structure is in place, there is no going back. Liberty has never been more under assault.
I don't think you are. Which brings up a point:
Look at this article and, then, the gushing comments that follow (forget the reasonable ones) what are we to do, in a world where people can be so daft? This isn't about a reasonable disagreement but pure insanity. I guess we survived it in years past, but I don't know how we will now:
The stakes are too high.
Nationalized health care is, as Mark Steyn keeps pointing out, the shortest route to a permanent left-of-center government, which will extend its reach into everyone's life.
It's the women's vote.
Wouldn't it be awesome if we found out that Obama's deficit spending was 3 times bigger than that cowboy Bush's spending?
reconciliation is old hat to the republicans, yawn.
Wouldn't it be awesome if we found out that Obama agreed with Bush on the Patriot Act?
This is why socialism isn't just a a failure, it's evil.
The people trying to do this aren't just expressing different political ideals, they're evil.
They want to force the country into socialism, despite enormous opposition. Once this is installed, the Constitution is no longer even a "living document", it ceases to exist.
It is no exaggeration to note that the collectivists have finally won, and won big. They have neutered the strongest nation the world has ever seen, and it will increasingly be spoken of in the past tense.
My anger at the people who voted these clowns in has waxed and waned over time. But people need to be aware that they have voted for leaders who are traitors to the US. They are smiling as they create a government boot stamping on a human face - forever.
I've been saying what Andy has said for quite some time now. It's been pretty obvious, especially in the light of Schumer's comment that they only need to enact their agenda one time, and the republicans will never be able to undo it.
It's part of their party discipline, comrades.
Yeah, you know, *awesome*, like a 15 year old means *awesome*. It's snark. I read her point as being, the right should relax, he's not that out there. And even under all this radical cover, he could be, but *pout*, he is not.
That makes reconciliation truly scary.
Yes. I'm still praying it fails. It does not seem as if Pelosi has the votes in the House to ram this thing through.
Ramesh Ponnuru over at the Corner has posted a number of times that the Republicans must pledge to repeal health care if the Democrats somehow do manage to get it passed. I think that could be a winning a platform. Whether or not they'd get a big enough majority to overturn a presidential veto is another thing. One thing -- perhaps the only thing -- that would make repeal possible is that, while the taxes and fees kick in pretty quickly, the rest of the new governmental bodies don't, and the whole thing isn't supposed to go into effect until 2018 (at least that's what I remember from the last detailed analysis I looked at.)
I do have a sense of impending doom, but the level of engagement of the political class (on the opposition side) and the general public on this issue is extraordinary. I do think, as Glenn Reynolds has said, that we're looking at a Great Awakening. I just hope it's not too little, too late.
I've chatted with a number of people on the left, who don't even seem to be the "extreme" left, who just don't think that healthcare reform, even if we were to shift to single-payer or some lesser "public option" is at all "radical" in any sense of the word. They've convinced themselves it's all just common sense type stuff. So even if they loaded reconciliation up with massive tax increases and punitive fines on the healthy and those with good health insurance already, she wouldn't believe that was evidence of the President's radicalness.
Pogo said,
"My anger at the people who voted these clowns in has waxed and waned over time. But people need to be aware that they have voted for leaders who are traitors to the US. They are smiling as they create a government boot stamping on a human face - forever."
Exactly right POGO. What is really disturbing is the smugness of the constitutional relativists. They all seem to be ingrained naturally with Alinsky (We're simply crazy racists). The fact is that the founders would have NEVER allowed a "citizen of the world" such as Obama to become President. That is the reason for the Natural Born Citizen requirement in A2S1C4,5. He admits that at birth he was a dual citizen with Britain (father was Kenyan, not US citizen). No matter WHERE he was born he cannot be a Natural Born Citizen (born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents). Over time the progressives and constitutional relativists have chipped away at our understanding of this Natural Law concept and the reason behind it (it's not relevant to today, it's racist, etc). Natural Law was the whole basis of the USC, and the perpetuation of the fiber of our society was supposed to be through Blood and Soil, of children born of US Citizen parents (Naturalized citizens can have natural Born children, so this is in no way racist).
The founders were so right and prescient, as you see the fibers of our society being torn apart. Obama obviously has shown that he has a lack of attachment and allegiance to this country. What's amazing is that smart people like Ann Althouse, who should know better, voted for him.
I agree with Andy McCarthy, and I think Pogo nails it pretty well. This is just the next incremental step towards socialism, and they can't afford to be 2 more decades behind, such as after the 1993 failure.
Skyler said...
Schumer's comment that they only need to enact their agenda one time, and the republicans will never be able to undo it.
While I agree that Obama, Pelosi, and the ultra Liberal House Committee chairs are willing to sacrafice Blue Dogs on the altar of Statism, they have 2 potential problems.
1. Some of the Blue dogs may not go willingly to their sacrafice.
2. The way that the Dems have structured the HCR bill to score well at OMB provides some probability that it can be reversed. Because they built it with 10 years of taxes and deferred benefits till year 5 and beyond, there would seem to be quite a period for Congress and the people to reverse course before the welfare state takes two permanent steps forward.
joan beat me to the same point
Random thoughts on the political future:The force needed to tip our constitutional republic back into a King ruled fiat state is a bankruptcy of the US dollar. That carefully planned crisis will empower a Czar with the ability to fairly ration our stolen money back to us. Then our desire to eat another day will easily justify Martial Law postponing elections. When controlled elections come back as a show, the results will be what the State count says they are. The smile of Obama's face will be everywhere to comfort us thru this hoped for change. The only question will be how long Obama stays in DC. He may let Soros live in the White House while is needed in the new world capital located somewhere between Belgium and Rome.
If you think McCarthy is being too extreme, you might find this informative.
Word verification: substan, an insubstantial fraction of "substantial."
Kaus basically says the same thing the other day, but couched in electoral terms
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2010/02/24/the-real-reason-cynical-dem-pols-should-vote-for-the-health-care-bill.aspx
I think Althouse may be a little slow on the pick-up here.
Cox is basically saying "like, wouldn't it be awesome, dude" as a way to mock what she sees as immature, paranoid fantasies of the right wing. It's intended to project the mentality of Spicoli from Fast Times on to someone else.
For example, when those teenagers were caught stealing a human skull from grave to make a bong, I think I commented "dude, wouldn't it be awesome to make a bong out of a skull." Not because I wanted a bong made from a human skull, but to mock them.
Although a skull bong would be pretty cool...
PS I am so glad Althouse went back to the old template!
wv-"sperms" = because nobody can eat just one?
No McCarthy's wrong. He sounds like one of those enviro-idiots getting misty eyed at the improvements our world would experience if 75% of humans died--always assuming they'll be in the 25%.
The Democratic politicians in question ARE considering that fact that they may be one of those 75% and McCarthy is some rarefied form of stupidity if he doesn't realize this fact.
It is amazing how easy it is for leftist gangsters to convince liberals that the ideal state will require a 75% kill off of humans to save the planet, BUT that they will somehow be safe. Anyone with a birth certificate will be in danger because the leftists ideal state is targeting for early death all persons born of women on this planet together with the unborn. Remember the slogan, "Carbon is filth".
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor.
Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich."
William F. Buckley
I don't think it's sarcasm, otherwise they would not be doing just that. They have lost their perspective, driven by a lifetime of hating most of the principles that make America exceptional and pushed over the edge by 8 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
They simply can't contain themselves and think straight. That's as generous as I can put it.
As Althouse claims she intended by her vote, the American people are getting offered a clear choice. We will see if a single generation can destroy the most amazing human miracle of all time built over centuries of advancement toward greater freedom. The boomers have one chance to redeem themselves from the effects of a lifetime of narcissism and arrogance.
Mick, you are bringin'the crazy....thanks for the laugh.
It's so awesome that Ann Marie Cox is so smart and talented.
The Democratic Party is to the left of the American people. The Democratic leadership is to the left of the Party. The Left Intellectual Elite, comprised of academics, trial lawyers and journalists, is to the left of the Democratic Party leadership. Cox is part of that elite.
I am a Conservative who always votes Republican who was laid off in May, has been out of work since and on unemployment and has no health care (none!).
I find myself wavering.
I'm sure you can understand this, right?
Is it craziness or just political reality that they've back themselves into a corner. Failure to not pass something called healthcare will hurt them. And unfortunately to start over will likely mean nothing will happen before the election. Additionally, just as the damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead approach upsets the Blue Dogs, I would wager that do over approach would upset the liberal base; bad timing as primaries approach.
The time for reconciliation was before Brown was elected.
And Pelosi's words are part true-believer and part rally the troops.
Unfortunate for the Dems, for such a time as this, they need a former-senator-turned-President in the LBJ mode not the BHO mode. Feel good elections are nice and all but then the legislating part comes...
PS Reconciliation will be bad for Republicans also. They could win majorities but then what?
Every undeserved American that receives health care is one more little crack in the Liberty Bell.
Cox is not a member of any "elite", she is merely a political groupie who makes a living by writing what the other political groupies want to read.
She will never have any power of her own, but just like the toadies who clung to the bullies in school, she has her ego completely invested in revelling in the idea of screwing over anyone who doesn't want to obey the thugs.
McCarthy's "understanding" (sic) of "what's going on" is not only no such thing, but is batshit insane, if not intentionally dishonest. The Dems today are timorously
"progressive" in their rhetoric while being feckless in their actions. They are whores to the same corporate Johns as are the Republicans, but they want to feign a higher standard of behavior; the Repubs, of course, don't care if their thuggish amorality is clear for all to see.
The Dems give lip service to moral rectitude while excusing their collusion with the corporate parasites killing our country by whining about their lack of a super-majority, which supposedly blocks them from doing anything.
They don't want to pass even the faint-hearted reforms they claim to want to bring about.
This is plainly obvious, and those who see it otherwise simply want to wallow in their partisan fantasies and resentments and therefore refuse to see what's in front of them.
garage, you should truly try having more coffee in the mornings.
wv: alisaw (What exactly did she see??)
This brings me back to Phil Gramm's comment during the HillaryCare fiasco that if it were passed, within 10 years, we'd be hunting Democrats with dogs.
If they push ObamaCare through on reconciliation, hunting season will open a whole lot sooner, and I wouldn't rule out the literal use of hounds.
Surely, if ObamaCare is rammed through using reconciliation, the legislation will be widely viewed as illegitmate - with recent polling suggesting that 80% of the American people think the government has lost the consent of the governed already, this will be seen as something on the order of the Intolerable Acts.
Does the radical left really not see they are tearing at the fabric of the rule of law? Or, is that what they want?
If it comes to that, who will win? The unions (SEIU, etc.) have lots of thugs, and for now the administration has the military and the police. But, if things really came to massive resistance, what would the military do?
I've felt for a long time that the objective isn't to enact a set of preferred policies but rather to break the system so badly that the people will accept anything in its place that offers stability.
Then the real ugliness starts. Who will be the new kulaks?
"The Democratic Party is to the left of the American people. The Democratic leadership is to the left of the Party. The Left Intellectual Elite, comprised of academics, trial lawyers and journalists, is to the left of the Democratic Party leadership. Cox is part of that elite."
Such idiocy proves conclusively what our elders warned: tv rots our brains. In our post-literate media world where image and sensation are the means of communications exchange, countless many walk around living in worlds of their own, entirely disconnected from any factual reality.
Robert Cook wrote: The Dems today are timorously "progressive" in their rhetoric while being feckless in their actions. They are whores to the same corporate Johns as are the Republicans, but they want to feign a higher standard of behavior; the Repubs, of course, don't care if their thuggish amorality is clear for all to see.
You know, I don't disagree with this. One can dicker over the meaning of the phrase "higher standard of behavior" (really? that's what they're feigning?), but "feckless whores" just about sums up our political parties.
Robert, you've just made the argument for a government with limited powers.
That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with...
First off it wasn't about-"reconciliation" who do they think they are kidding?
The American public, that's who.
"The Summit" was to frame Republicans as the enemy-like the Russians during the Cold War.
In fact that brings up the reason President Obama lost his cool with McCain.
McCain in about sixty seconds reframed the argument.
The problem is that Democrats have had the majority in both the House and Senate-and they've had to bribe the heck out of a significant number of their own members to get them to sign the Health Care bill.
Hence, McCain's list.
Special Deals huge ones for Nebraska and Louisiana,[ McCain even told the audience that it looks like the Nebraska one might get undone but only because of the fallout.]
But of course it goes on-special exemptions for-
Florida
Vermont
Massachusetts
Connecticut plus $100 million for the U of Conn Hospital.
And then, the final whammy-
80 Billion for Big Pharma.
McCain was very efficient, hence Obama losing his cool and all of the Democrat trolls being sent out to say that McCain was the worst Republican there.....
Well guess again.
Whether the Democrats have decided that achieving the agenda is more important than political suicidal is really moot. The question is what should we do?. How do we stop the agenda?
The liberal make a mistake. The mistake is what a opponent will do when forced to the wall.
Airplane hijackers won whrn the passengers figured they would survive if the acquiesced to demands.
That changed with 9/11 when the passengers figured resistance was the better option.
Winning on the health care bill will destroyed Democratic majority and doom Obama to one term.
There is a reason that Tea party people are demanding a totally revoking of the law if it is enacted once we win in November.
I personally do not think the House has the votes to pass the senate version. The senate version has PO conservatives, GOP and the progressive radicals.
So even if Pelosi and Co. decide suicide is OK, they can not pass the bill. If they could they already would.
It is the word-play of the radical, to pretend that he is not radical, to evince that he is but normal. It is the dance of the Menshevik.
If this health care bill doesn't lead to an armed insurrection in this country, nothing ever will.
Would the joke have been any clearer if she had said *totally bitchin'* instead of *awesome*? Were you people to busy having money fights in the 1980's to know that *awesome* and *radical* are synonyms? Like
oh, my gawd.
The Democratic politicians in question ARE considering that fact that they may be one of those 75% and McCarthy is some rarefied form of stupidity if he doesn't realize this fact.
@Tim Maguire,
It is true that the Dems are worried about their political fortunes after Scott Brown's victory. How ever that in itself is not a sufficient condition for them to vote "No" on this monstrosity.
My three reasons are
1.You have to remember that they still need financial help from the DNC if they want to run for re-election.They are not going to get a whole lot of support financially if they vote No on this bill - that is a given. So it is not going to be a cakewalk to vote No just because their constituents dont like it. Besides this is not going into effect till 2014 - so voters may not be so mad after all if it does not immediately hurt them, would they ?
2.Another thing to consider is that some of these people could be enticed with jobs on K Street should they lose re-election. Being a K Street lobbyist is of course,more lucrative - so its not such a bad deal for them if they lose in November 2010- a more lucrative job may be waiting for them in January 2011.
Every single one of them is a whore who can be bought for the right price.
3.If Dems themselves are going to bring down this plan they are going to essentially make Obama a lame duck President for the remaining 2 and half years. A defeat here is more than just a defeat for health care "reform". It is a resounding defeat for Obama personally. Not to mention Pelosi and Reid - whether you like them or not, you have to admit that they have worked their tails off to ram this monstrosity down the throats of voters.
Neither Pelosi nor Reid are going to go down so easily after working on this for the last 10 months. You can count on that.
McCarthy is right to be gloomy -unless Republicans win a veto proof majority (and thats not happening even with all the discontent), this monstrosity will go into law. There's nothing to stop it. not even the temporary jitters of the Dims.
McCarthy says the same thing I said in the TV health care debate thread.
They've clearly decided to do this by reconciliation. That means it is going to be even worse than the previous worst-case scenarios.
They do not care what the public wants and they do not care if they lose both houses next election. And people that are saying that a new congress can repeal this monstrosity are forgetting the presidential veto.
This is their one big chance. An opportunity to take over an enormous section of the economy for ever and always, to use as they see fit. Losing big this November is just collateral damage.
Our only hope is that they fail.
In other news, Ann, it looks like Tommy Thompson might actually make it a real race against Russ Feingold?
How say you? I assume you like Russ (principled lefty, hard to hate even if you disagree) but given that you live in Wisconsin and you're not foamy-mouthed partisan left, I assume you like Tommy too, because...well, everyone in WI does. Crap, he was popular even in Madison.
Actually, I probably should've just searched the blog to find out....
Calling the Democrats' health care bill "radical Left" does violence to the English language.
Triangle Man, why do you hate Person Man? All that hate will burn you up inside.
"Then our desire to eat another day will easily justify Martial Law postponing elections"
Nice scenario if you're writing an alt-history novel. But in real life? How many currently-serving service members do you know? In my circle I'd say there isn't a single one who would carry out any orders to enforce such a decree.
I'll just go ahead and make this a prediction, so you all can laugh at me come Nov 6, 2012: barring some massive physical destructive crisis like a nuke strike that levels DC, the day elections are postponed is the day the shooting starts.
Yeah, Ana Marie, it would be "awesome" like a civil war is "awesome".
It will be impossible for Republicans to undue this if it's passed since I don’t see them getting a 2/3 majority in Congress in 2010 to override The President’s veto.
Nor do I see them repealing this in 2013 if they get control of the Congress & the Presidency.
The sensible thing if this horror passes & the GOP gets both the legislative & Executive in 2013 would be to make it a catastrophe plan only, with co pays, & keep Medicaid for the truly poor. Fat chance. Even M. Thatcher could not undue the British socialized medicine.
BTW Loved something somebody said:
It’s hard to run against the Democrats. Because they’re the party that proposes to give people free stuff. And it’s very, very hard to run against people promising free stuff. You have to say, “We, by contrast, will give you the opportunity to make your own way, while keeping a net under you lest you fall too far.”
And as P. J. O'Rourke said:
If you think medical care is expensive, wait 'til it's free!
BTW, anybody got a pair of spare dentures left from a dead relative? My 96-yr old neighbor with Alzheimer’s just had many of her teeth removed & her cheap daughter is wondering about the need to bother with false teeth! No joke.
Let her eat applesauce. Or soft cat food. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
The proposed "health care reform" is of course a radical Lefty scheme. If it weren't, the Dems would be able to get their own moderates to support it.
The Dem leadership is committed to imposing this new Government bureacracy on our daily lives for the same reason they impose everything. To curtail individual freedoms and to sequester power and money in the hands of the political class.
Fortunately, the American people are way ahead of the curve on this one. Nobody believes that after a year of hiding their bill, lying about it's contents, and even being forced to pay bribes in order to garner support for it, that this time we should trust them.
Thanks but no thanks, Madame Speaker.
The Liberals have another problem.
Why all of the bemoaning lately of Democrat pundits-about Obama not being persuasive?
Well part of the problem could be that they don't trust the American public with-
their agenda.
Hasn't that started to become obvious?
Obama waffles back and forth says one thing then the next.
The American public gets the feeling that he will say anything and they're right.
First it's we don't review the viability of paying for some patients-"death panels" then it's "we'll take that out".
Then they said they would post the bill then they didn't , then they did. Then they promised they would do that before they voted, but they didn't.
Then it was "there is no public option" , wait maybe there will be a public option", no there isn't one.
Then there was the rapid realization that not too many of the Democrats have even read the damn bill-which was evident during the Town Halls.
Which brings us back to the Health Care Summit.
The concensus on that has been that the Republicans were more prepared.
Well again, maybe because they have read the damn bill , and the Democrats haven't.
It's also interesting how everyone is falling for the meme-" the Summit was boring" -not worth watching.
Well of course that seems to be Obama's primary method of persuasion-boring the American public.
And then the meme was-"all they had was their talking points".
This was repeated by the media-Shep Smith at FOX News became very emotional and repeated this over and over again.
Well interesting because that was a direct quote in one of Obama's rhetorts to one the Republicans at The Summit.
That was the critique that was instantly at the ready and passed out rapid fire for all the "talking heads" to repeat before the Summit was even over-straight out of Obama's mouth and repeated by the press over and over again.
So why?
Welll the Democrats don't want you to pay attention, they know what's best for you.
Even if the bill is unpopular. That sentiment was expressed exactly by Democrat House members on the Sunday talk shows.
"Once they pass this bill you will learn to love it."
This is a common theme with Democrats, they are the Mommy party, they know best and they don't trust the American public with the information.
The media telling you the Summit was boring-well...they want Republicans to have to PAY to get their message out.
There's an important first step that is missing in the current comment set-up.
Democrats may know something we don't know about the upcoming elections.
Maybe they don't figure on losing, even after passing a health care monstrosity.
Democrats have perfected the art of stealing elections. They've been doing so, in plain sight, for a while and they haven't suffered any severe or lasting consequences.
Now they have, through their "Secretaries of State" project, put in place officials that will NOT oversee free and fair elections, but will make sure that Democrats are declared the winners, no matter how the actual voting goes.
"It doesn't matter who votes; it matters who counts the votes."
They see it as a transformative moment. They have all worshipped the JFK-LBJ "civil rights, 1965 Open Borders Immigration, and Great Society" transformative period and CRAVE to do something as Great as their 60s icons did.
They know that it cost the Dems conservative Southern voters and fiscal moderate blue collar types that shifted to Nixon's Silent majority then later to "Reagan democrats" - but they figure the losses are worth it if institutions are transformed. Because once transformed, once they create broad new entitlements, broad constituencies will fight tooth and nail against reversals. There is no going back without ferocious opposition. And years of courts owned by the Left and progressive Jewish lawyers - neutralizing challenges. Even powerful Republican presidents like Nixon and Reagan could not overcome that.
Bush II decided to join the party with his Big Pharma-senior entitlement deal. Seniors get near-free drugs, Government pays Big Pharma full premium drug prices from Chinese IOUs.
We are stuck with that.
The Fed Government Bush II grew 25%to provide the "Heroes" to fight "the Evildoers"?? All on China loans? We are stuck with that, too.
Fiscal conservatives recognize how it goes. Those who only read about how Emmanuel Cellar, Ted Kennedy, Arthur Goldberg, LBJ changed everything in the 60s and its all distant past - only have to look at what Bush II did that can never be reversed - no matter how fiscally harmful certain Bush II actions were. A fresher example for them as they confront the massive changes SF and NYC Dems wish to foist on America with Obama signing off on it.
Of course a big problem is that from Carter, Reagan through Bush II, they knew healthcare costs and healthcare insurance was a massive problem that stood to bankrupt the USA, but they all kicked it down the road from when Nixon 1st brought up the issue and a comprehensive healthcare plan to fix the long-term threat to America.
For Reagan boosters - you can at least partially exculpate him because lobbyists convinced him that "the genius of the marketplace" and "miracle high tech" would give us the best, lowest cost healthcare in the world. And free trade and tax cuts would create oodles of great high-paying jobs to afford it. Reagan was "handled" and deluded. Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all see how tax cuts for the rich, "liberating Wall street", free trade with China and other skilled low-bid global labor supplies, and the frightening increase in healthcare costs each year since Reagan's days has panned out. They have no excuses. Nor do the Democrat and Republican Party and Congress.
master cylinder said...
"Mick, you are bringin'the crazy....thanks for the laugh."
Why is it crazy?
I completely agree with McCarthy. Why else would politicians say they don't care about being a one-term president, or that the long view is more important than the short (Van Jones)?
If they can push through this agenda, they won't need elections to run the economy and the world. They will own us.
If Dems lose the house, the then majority can put together and pass a bill to repeal whatever healthcare bill may have passed.
It (the repeal) probably wouldn't survive presidential veto.
However, the house can refuse to fund the bill through the annual budgetary process. It could even remove the tax provisions through such process.
While it would become a constitutional crisis, it is within the house authority to set both source and use of government funds.
Witness the supposedly passed virtual wall with Mexico - law but no funds.
wv: slystria
Of course a big problem is that from Carter, Reagan through Bush II, they knew healthcare costs and healthcare insurance was a massive problem that stood to bankrupt the USA, but they all kicked it down the road from when Nixon 1st brought up the issue and a comprehensive healthcare plan to fix the long-term threat to America.
I wish they had enacted it after WW2 when Truman wanted to. Think of all the expensive treatments, devices, and medicines that wouldn't exist.
Oh crap I thought the were calling the Summit a reconciliation... got too PO'd for a minute.
They mean they are going to back door this bill by actually not doing it as a bill but as a BUDGET reconciliation- which means they will only need 51 votes in the Senate.
I though Anna Marie Cox was being "cute" and calling the Summit that.
it looks like Tommy Thompson might actually make it a real race against Russ Feingold?
I think TT would be a good candidate, but not great. A great candidate would be one that is an outsider. TT is a DC insider through and through now, even though he does still sound like he's from Elroy.
The Republican Party does not appear to be serious about changing its image. If it were, it would run new candidates against the entrenched. Not just safe ones that can raise money. It makes the cynic in me think Republicans just want to regain power, not change things.
Thanks for changing the comment submission back to the 'old' way.
bagoh20:
We will see if a single generation can destroy the most amazing human miracle of all time built over centuries of advancement toward greater freedom. The boomers have one chance to redeem themselves from the effects of a lifetime of narcissism and arrogance.
It hasn't been destroyed in one generation -- America's downfall has been happening for decades now. This is just the generation for whom all the best-laid plans for our destruction are coming together.
Khrushchev was right -- he just didn't live to see it.
Garage,
Did you mean "undeserved" or "underserved"?
The divide between the two parties is right there, in that "r."
Well what's interesting is Cox is currently unemployed which is likely to make her even more interested in the health care bill passing, and yet another stimulus bill being passed.
Makes you wonder what the Democrats consider optimal unemployment to be.
What's the range...?
Unemployment gets them more voters -Democrats might think anything under 12% isn't really all that bad for them.
I have more confidence in Americans than most of you. A big, bad law can and will get overturned via the ballot box.
I sense even the young and brainwashed are waking to the fact that Obama and Ivy League and elites in the Beltway are not too practical nor smart.
Althouse - please confirm this with your sons.
wv = singuin = an upwardly mobile, single penguin
Apparently no one can rationally explain what about McCarthy's post is wrong. He is exactly, terrifyingly right.
Also, having been on the left for 26 years in a previous life, believe me when I say there is no such thing as "radical" over there except on the right. Every single lefty thinks he/she is moderate and the rest of us are insane and really should be euthanized.
I'm gobsmacked that any intelligent people still vote Dem, truly.
It's bad enough having one Phosphorious around. Why does Garage think we want a second one?
We can HOPE McCarthy is wrong. But is he?
I think he's right.
From Inwood:
Nor do I see them repealing this in 2013 if they get control of the Congress & the Presidency.
Why not?
Wouldn't it be awesome if Cox would choke on her husband's cock and die?
The Democrats may really be crazy enough to pass Obamacare via reconciliation. If that is the case, people need to start thinking about what the effects will be and what to do about it. First, I think everyone beyond the real delusional Left thinks it will lead to a complete electoral disaster for the Democrats in November. If they do it, I wouldn't be shocked if every single Democratic Senator up for re-election either retires or loses. I am serious. Barbara Boxer is currently considered to be only a "leaning Democrat" race. And that is before they pass it through reconciliation. If Boxer can't win, what chance do people like Lincoln or Landreau have?
Even if the Democrats get killed, I think they figure they can play defense through the veto and the filibuster and tell the country too bad so sad, you are getting Obamacare whether you like it or not. And then they figure Obamacare will become like every other entitlement and just a fact of life and "untouchable" and they win even if they have to spend some time in the wilderness. That seems to be the conventional wisdom. But I am not so sure that is true.
It is true that things like medicare and medicaide have over the years grown to monstrous proportions and become untouchable. But unlike Obmacare, those programs really were popular when they were past. Goldwater was certainly right in voting against them. But don't kid yourself into thinking he was anything but the leader of a small Casandra like minority. Since the majority of the country supported medicare and medicaide, they tend to blame their failures on other factors and to over look the problems with the programs. That is the natural tendency of everyone. No one wants to admit that they supported a dumb idea. So, instead people say "yeah medicare and medicaide didn't solve our health care issues but it wasn't those programs fault". Obamacare doesn't enjoy that kind of support. And for that reason, people are going to be all too willing to blame every health care problem fair or not on Obamacare. That is going to make it an entirely different political animal than medicare and medicaide. In fact, since it is being passed by sleazy methods with no support from the minority party and over the objection of every poll on the subject, Obamacare will give the Democrats ownership and responsibility for the entire health care system. Health care will no longer be a winning issue for any Democrat. Instead, it will be a club that is used by their opponents to pin them for the blame for every horror imaginable. I don't see how the measure ever gets popular.
Moreover, Obamacare is not like medicare and medicaide. Those were basically public service programs. People got benefits from those programs. Only later did the regulation and control come. In contrast, Obamacare is mostly regulation, control and mandates. For the average person, there isn't really any benefit. There is just a mandate from the government that they have to buy insurance. No one will be getting a monthly check thanks to Obamacare. A few people who can't afford insurance will. But the great mass of middle class won't be getting anything but higher insurance premiums. For this reason also, I don't see it getting more popular or engendering the kind of dependent docile behavior that Liberals so desperately want from voters. Instead, it is just going to piss people off. And every year it is in effect it will piss them off more.
I really don't think that things are going to work out quite the way the hard left and the hysterical "oh my God the Democrats are going to turn the population into socialist zombies" right think it will.
"I'm gobsmacked that any intelligent people still vote Dem, truly."
Very few of them do.
I lived in MA for 95% of my life, and the vast majority of the Lefty politicians, activists and media (new and old) that I knew were the C students of my childhood.
Not that they're all bad people or completely stupid, but they lack the true intelligence that would steer them beyond the platitudes and hysterical hyperbole that make up the Leftist spiel.
Is it too radical a thought to imagine that if the Marxists do take control of our health care "structure" and it can not be reversed because of the in place Progressive Courts and minions in the Congress that Americans take up arms, march on Washington DC, physically remove and hang the tyrants from gallows on the Mall.
This might also draw more tourists, who have never seen "justice" dispensed with political criminals. OK, I'm fantasizing and writing a book.
Every undeserved American that receives health care is one more little crack in the Liberty Bell.
Every undeserved American already receives health care including those 'undocumented Americans' who receive health care that the rest of the documented Americans have to pay for.
Sofa King, There are many angles to the story.
Peg C.
As a long-time liberal you must have noticed the differences between people on the left who supported Nader as a candidate and those that did not.
Cedarford's refrain: all lawyers are Jewish. No conservatives are Jewish.
No wonder he's nostalgic for Nixon.
"I'm gobsmacked that any intelligent people still vote Dem, truly."
It's called ideological blindess. I'm godsmacked that anyone with an IQ higher than my shoe size can see what is happening in Greece right now and think that adding another couple trillion to our national debt and defict is a good idea.
McCarthy's understanding of what's going on.. [with the dems] is very similar to his views on what he says radical Islam wants for us and for the world.
McCarthy believes that the ultimate goal of radical Islam is the institutionalization of sharia law everywhere.. to believe that the dems ultimate goal is socialism seems rational to me.
MadisonMan wrote, "The Republican Party does not appear to be serious about changing its image. If it were, it would run new candidates against the entrenched."
But where do those new candidates come from? What kind of emotionally normal person wants to run for office these days? Narcissists aren't necessarily known for integrity and acuity.
I find it funny that medical costs skyrocketing is a crisis...but college education costs doing the same at a faster clip isn't. I guess we can assume profs and faculty give more to Dems than docs do,
I'm gobsmacked that any intelligent people still vote Dem, truly
You must live in a place where the Republican Party fields sane candidates.
I rarely vote for someone. (I did vote for the present Mayor of Madison -- he's a neighbor). I am usually voting against something. Call me Mr. Negative.
Let her eat applesauce. Or soft cat food. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Or maybe, just maybe if she brushed and flossed daily she wouldn't have had her teeth fall out.
I mean seriously, the idea we need universal health care because people won't spend 10 minutes a day brushing and flossing is absurd beyond belief.
I find it funny that medical costs skyrocketing is a crisis...but college education costs doing the same at a faster clip isn't.
Just wait, that's next.
Once upon a time I was told by a German military historian how Germany became capable of doing what it did.
The watchers stopped critiquing and then they critiqued the style of those that fought back....
Funny how that's exactly what happened here in a smaller micro system.
Cedarford is an admired and valued member here.
Ironic isn't it.
And if you push back-"the watchers" will critique your style.
Really ironic.
Incremental...
Creeping.
You know you conservatives are hysterical.
If this health care bill doesn't lead to an armed insurrection in this country, nothing ever will.
I get it, garage, that that statement is meant to be read with an s at the end, but you've unwittingly stumbled into the truth about the anger of all the "batshit crazies," as you're compadre Robert Cook classifies us normals.
Socialism aint so bad compared to crony capitalism.
Nice to see Ana Marie Cox's true socialist colors coming out. I suspect we're going to see a lot of "moderates" coming out of the closet as socialism reigns triumphant!
Kirk Parker...You are correct. The serving military and the out of the service military-trained men could easily form a Covenant movement.That alone would cause a quick re-calculation by he who would be King. That would also put the SCOTUS 9 into a unique position. I wonder how many new Justices appointments will the One have made by then? But the resulting weakness from such a house divided would also open the door to foreign intervention of Chavez and Ortega driving thru Mexico to California with Putin's aid, and we could also expect an oil embargo by our Arab allies.
I first heard about Wonkette via a profile of Ana Marie Cox that was published in, if I remember correctly, the New York Times.
The focus of the article was about how wicked funny this woman was who had recently set the political world on fire via her take-no-prisoners lampooning of the Washington political establishment.
And was she a Democrat or a Republican, according to the Times? She was neither! No, she was one of those rare birds who took shots at both parties equally.
I could tell right then that they were lying about her, or misleading about what it meant that she took shots at both parties.
It was a very flattering profile, it made her seem really fun, smart, and sexy, and it was complete and utter bullshit.
I read McCarthy this weekend and (living in Blue Oregon and knowing too well how cold-blooded these leftists are) it struck me as true and terrifying.
His last graph (before quoting Steltzer at The Standard) says this: "For Republicans, it won't be enough to fight this thing, then deride it if Democrats pull it off, and finally coast to a very likely electoral victory in November. The question is: What are you going to do to roll this back? What is your plan to undo this?"
Great question. Do they have the fortitude and vision? And I ask, what are we willing to do NOW to keep it undone? I'm glad to have done my bit of tea partying, but it seems like now it's time to really stream into the streets like never before. And if the Republican leadership isn't out there with me, screaming the end of the world as we know it, why not?!
McCarthy is absolutely right. When DrillSGT says they're willing to sacrifice some Blue Dogs, though, he doesn't get it. The small c communists like Pelosi Galore and Henry Waxman are willing to sacrifice their own for this, because they figure the Conservatives will never be able to mount sufficient numbers to repeal it. Why do you thing The Zero has been talking about being a one term TOTUS? This is not about them, it's about Glorious World Socialist Revolution.
traditionalguy said...
Random thoughts on the political future:The force needed to tip our constitutional republic back into a King ruled fiat state is a bankruptcy of the US dollar. That carefully planned crisis will empower a Czar with the ability to fairly ration our stolen money back to us. Then our desire to eat another day will easily justify Martial Law postponing elections. When controlled elections come back as a show, the results will be what the State count says they are. ... (Obama) may let Soros live in the White House while is needed in the new world capital located somewhere between Belgium and Rome.
It's something Soros has lusted for ever since he was a teenage Nazi collaborator - the cultural, political, economic, and military destruction of Western Civilization. Take a look at what's happening in Greece. Think about who the big money man of the Demos has been the last few election cycles.
Cato Renasci said...
This brings me back to Phil Gramm's comment during the HillaryCare fiasco that if it were passed, within 10 years, we'd be hunting Democrats with dogs.
If they push ObamaCare through on reconciliation, hunting season will open a whole lot sooner, and I wouldn't rule out the literal use of hounds.
If they show they have no respect for the consent of the governed and the economy collapses, civil war is probably the result. Think back to Barry's call for a "civilian national defense corps (or corpse, if you prefer)". An SA to counter weight a military which took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not The Zero. All they need know is an Ernst Rohm.
Supposedly, Pelosi Galore hasn't got the votes and there's a rule problem in the Senate, but don't bet the ranch on it.
garage mahal said...
Let her eat applesauce. Or soft cat food. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
The useful idiots are always the first to go to the wall, garage. What makes you think you're so special?
And then Nancy Pelosi proves Andy McCarthy right:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/28/pelosi-lawmakers-sacrifice-jobs-health-care/
(Yes, it's on foxnews.com, but it's an AP piece, so cool your jets, moonbats).
Wouldn't it be funny, indeed.
The small c communists like Pelosi Galore and Henry Waxman are willing to sacrifice their own for this, because they figure the Conservatives will never be able to mount sufficient numbers to repeal it.
Longshanks: Not the archers. Arrows cost money. Send in the Irish. The dead cost nothing.
Braveheart
Interesting that McCarthy is making much the same mental shift that the Pentagon had to after 9/11, when they had to come to grips with an unconventional enemy consisting of suicidal maniacs.
The D's are right that repeal would be a huge problem with Obama in the Oval Office. While I expect a big swing in both the House and Senate, it will not approach a veto-proof majority.
However,there is another path to killing the beast. If the House goes R, the budget will be in the hands of the repeal forces. Then, they must refuse to fund anything and everything in the bill. Further, they must enact and across the board cut on HHS of 10-20%. You have to kill any discretionary monies that could be used to get elements of the program up and running. Force the administration to use any grey area funding to keep current services alive.
There is a high chance this would force a game of chicken over government shutdown. This would be a good thing, IMO. The D's will scream that a shutdown will murder women and children, and the media will help, but if the R's can stick to their guns they can win the battle - and keep the Obama from being insulated from the issue in 2012.
I think Obama misunderestimated the whole people want change theme. Obama and his ilk aren't very good judge of human nature which tends to resist change, especially big, vast, sweeping change. We like to think change is good but actually we're kinda adverse to it because its a leap into the unknown.
He screwed up by letting Harry and Botox craft a Frankenstein of a bill rather than simply address the rather small and easily manageable issue of 30-40 million uninsured by simply getting a bill that would cover catastrophic care for the uninsured.
Instead they wanted the whole honey pot including federally funded abortions for those folks who aren't smart enough to use birth control. So here we are, 14 months later with 25 million unemployed and we're still screwing around with health care.
Way to go Obama. I never thought it was possible to make Carter look good.
Hell, at this rate 3 more years of Obama and they'll have Bush on a coin.
Mick, there is an old saying,
It goes like this:
IF you have to ask......
it won't do any good to tell you.
Specifically, Im referring to your birther issues
Hoosier Daddy said:
"We like to think change is good but actually we're kinda adverse to it because its a leap into the unknown."
True, except I think we DO know what awaits us with nationalized health care:
The Canada and UK/Europe models.
It costs more (we all know that "free" health insurance simply means the cost comes out of some other orifice), quality care and access will be severely diminished, and rationing and wait-lines will occur all while un-sustainable costs and deficits skyrocket.
Socialism aint so bad compared to crony capitalism.
Well, good then. That is what Fascism (and Naziism) is. Socialism mixed with crony capitalism. And, guess what? That is where we are headed in a hurry.
If you are complaining about Republican crony capitalism, you sure haven't been watching what has been going on since Obama was sworn in. Somehow the investment banks giving the Democrats so much money are bailed out, with the rest of us picking up the tab. Ditto for the retirement plans for two of the big 3 automakers - and that time the Administration said, "to hell" with the rule of law as to priorities in bankruptcy. And then, the greens got many billions in the "stimulus" package a year ago. In short, crony capitalism on a scale we have never seen before here.
So, I have always chuckled when the left calls the right either Fascist or Naziis, when they themselves are rushing to implement the economics of Mussolini and Hitler.
BTW - this is why some question whether the Democrats right now are trying to implement socialism - they forget that communism is only one form of socialism, and the Fascist/Nazi brand of socialism of the 1930s into the 1940s is another one, one that integrates crony capitalism with socialism.
Mark Steyn responds and agrees:
"I tend to agree with Andy McCarthy's post from a couple of days ago. In shoving health care down the throats of the American people in the teeth of overwhelming public opposition and any sense of parliamentary decency, the Democrats are in effect taking a bet on Republican wussiness - that, whatever passes, the GOP will have no stomach to undo, no matter the scale of their victory in November.
That seems to me an entirely rational calculation. The Dems will be punished; the Republicans will take over the committee chairmanships and be content, as they often are, to be in office rather than in power; and after a brief time out the Democrats will return to find their new statist behemoth still in place. From their point of view, it makes perfect sense.
The question is: What are Republicans willing to do about it?
I think McCarthy is on to something but misses a main point. I responded to his piece this way, in part:
"But a real question is whether the Dems really think they are at risk in November. A refrain of the Democrat leadership, repeated during the summit, is that the American people have been wanting socialized medicine for 50 years, although the Dems are neither bold or honest enough to call it that. It's obvious that Reid, Pelosi, many other Democrat members and President Obama himself honestly think that Americans are suffering so harshly under the present system that there is a "silent majority" who truly want to government to take over. As for the polls showing the opposite, they are untruly representative of what people want because the administration has not succeeded in getting its side out: Obama said in his SOTU speech, "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people." And the Republicans, led by Rush Limbaugh, have been lying about the legislation anyway.
"So it may be that the Dems are willing to lose this fall to get this bill passed now, thinking that once it's signed into law, the chances of substantial repeal are low. But I think it's just as likely that they don't really think they'll lose, that once the bill is passed the people will see how wonderful it is and reward the Dems at the polls - for remember, the people actually want the government to run their health care.
Right after I posted my comment about the Dems thinking that the American people actually want socialized medicine, I found this transcript excerpt on Malkin. The speaker is Nancy-Ann DeParle, Obama's health-care czar. She said on "Meet the Press" this weekend:
MS. DePARLE: I believe that the president will keeping fighting and that the American people want to have this kind of health reform.
So there ya go.
"America's downfall has been happening for decades now. This is just the generation for whom all the best-laid plans for our destruction are coming together.
"
Perhaps, but the Boomers were handed the most prosperous, powerful, moral, and free country in history. It was young and growing, yet in their single generation they have worn it out, by dressing it up like Christmas tree with every liberal, well-meaning shinny bobble they could get excited about. Now the tree is dying, in fact it's not even a tree anymore. It's a trappings laden monument to excess and foolishness so heavy it cannot even support itself, let alone the other nations it once supported both militarily and financially. We all know damn well that what we are passing on to our children is pathetic compared to the nation we were born to.
All we can do at this point is admit our folly and point it back in the right direction. It will take the following generation to undo the knots we have tied around their ankles. I hope we at least go out showing respect for the miracle we were given.
If the Democrats *really* cared a whit about our health, they would first focus on the economy and after the people have been wowed by their 'great and wonderful' actions, *then* go after health care.
They would face far less opposition in the ranks and not be facing Electoral Armageddon in 2010, 2012 and for the foreseeable future.
But no. Instead, they choose a political suicide mission while America declines. So there is a reason they have chosen this health care jihad - and it has nothing to do with our health.
The most rational explanation of the Dem leadership's actions is that they want to carve out a massive new governmental function and install a skeletal structure that can/will be leveraged into a socialist-democracy that will, they *hope*, forever *change* America.
If the Dems Rahm the bill through it's all over:
* IF the GOP gains the majority, will they repeal the bill?
* IF they pass a repeal, Obama will veto and the GOP will not have more then a bare majority, so no override
* Will the GOP makes further gains in 2012 and regain the POTUS?
* Will the all-GOP government in 2013 repeal the ObamaCare?
It's all rather improbable, which means ObamaCare is here to stay. Suck it conservatives, just suck it. This is OUR country now!
Master Cylinder said,
"Mick, there is an old saying,
It goes like this:
IF you have to ask......
it won't do any good to tell you.
Specifically, Im referring to your birther issues"
of course you give no real answer other than the usual ridicule of those who don't really know. I don't care WHERE he nwas born. The issue that makes him ineligible is the admitted fact that Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen, and as such Obama was born a dual citizen of Britain. Natural Law (quoted in no less than 4 SCOTUS cases) says that Natural Born Citizens are born with no competing foreign allegiances. They are born Naturally the citizens of ONE country because both parents are citizens of that child's birth country. It is absolutely the original meaning of A2S1C4,5. Prove me wrong with something other than invective, but you won't.
"Like oh, my gawd"
It’s a new century, try, OMG.
"Crap, he was popular even in Madison"
Well, yes, he took very good care of the state workers (and not without long term repercussions, I might add).
"Well what's interesting is Cox is currently unemployed."
Well, actually, she's writing for GQ.
IMO McCarthy is spot on with this point.
In OCT08 I met a Vietnam-era LRRP, Enlisted, who maintains that posture with respect to finance and and politics in the USA.
He promoted a course of action which others were at the time: vote for the cat from Chicago, his backers and entourage, because, whereas fundamentally American society is broken, few Americans realize that it is and the cat will force them to realize and admit it.
Dangerous strategy, to be sure, has the tone of "playing God." But it's what's happened, and perhaps more quickly than the LRRP anticipated, which might be a welcome sign in the sense of "if't were done 'twere best done quickly."
His assumption -- and others' -- was that once they realized their society was broken, Americans would fix it.
That assumption may not be justified, or it may. Time will tell. IMO it is not, but I'm not destiny's senior advisor, either.
The point is, that strategy is playing with fire, and by the LRRP's wish, deliberately. Shades of Freud's misguided drive for ultimate fulfillment by proximate means, the mis-named "death-wish."
In any case, McCarthy's description of government party strategy is accurate and IMO that strategy carries a high probability of mission success (i.e., not passing the bill but controlling lives and government).
The basic weakness of the bill and the intent to control is comparable to the weakness of a pressure cooker: keep the steam building and the encasing metal will blow out somewhere.
Expansion is the law of life. Try to contain it and life will, inevitably, blow the container.
That is the weakness of the government party plan. Fundamentally, they are Puritans, despite their promiscuous venality.
McCarthy is noting, accurately IMO, their strategy for victory, and a powerful one it is.
Frankly, I'm marveling at the notion that it's news that Ana Marie Cox thinks awesome.
I believe that's been evident for quite some time now.
The useful idiots are always the first to go to the wall, garage. What makes you think you're so special?
My Axelrod/Soros Decoder Ring. I'm safe. Wheww!
madawaskan,
"Cedarford is an admired and valued member here."
Other than by himself? Seriously???? I'd like to see some evidence of that.
tradguy,
Could form? Isn't that what Oathkeepers already is--more or less a Covenent movement in being?
On February 7th 2010, Cox at the beginning of her bloggingheads video she claims to be unemployed.
In fact the title of the segment is called-
The economy will recover soon-Ana needs a job sooner.
Link
Maybe she has a job with now-if I were them Id only hire on a freelance basis...which could be the case.
I didn't listen to this whole video but I think she also claims to be pretty far to the Left-which would contradict the profile written about her by The New York Times.
You can go search for that-I don't know where in the vid she says that, but that's my recollection-I could be wrong-va chercher.
My Axelrod/Soros Decoder Ring. I'm safe. Wheww!
Garage is it a pinky ring or a toe ring?
If I told you I'd have to give up that great big fat Soros check I get every month.
Uh ya-by other commenters-he's frequently responded to favorably and told how knowledgeable and intelligent he is.
And also referred to as "a valued commenter" by other commenters-it's happened repeatedly.
He does get positive feedback.
Sad but there it is.
I think what he does here repeatedly negates his worth-but I'm not in the majority-the watchers always are.
If you need the threads I could produce them-but why is it me always fighting it?
Surely someone else has seen this? Aye?
In fact-you're critiquing me. Right?
My German military history prof-a genuis.
The sword Pelosi wants the Democrats to fall on will become our sword of Damocles.
. I don't care WHERE he nwas born. The issue that makes him ineligible is the admitted fact that Obama's father was a Kenyan citizen, and as such Obama was born a dual citizen of Britain.
Where one is born has everything to do with it. It's in the 14th Amendment.
Tweets Ana Marie Cox:
"Wouldn't it be *awesome* if Obama were as radical as the Rights thinks he is?"
Sylvia Plath:
"Every woman adores a Fascist,
The boot in the face, the brute
Brute heart of a brute like you."
"The economy will recover soon-Ana needs a job sooner."
Didn't she and wonkette get famous because she was blogging about being a hooker on Capital Hill? She could always go back to that.
And Garage, that was a pretty funny Soros quip. Bravo.
@bagoh20, Ana Marie Cox was born in 1972 and Andy McCarthy was born ten years earlier. Only the Census Bureau would put McCarthy in with us Boomers, but as a practical matter, along with President Obama he's part of the "Gen X" cohort. The Slackers.
And Ana Marie Cox is definitely a Slacker.
Most of the time you and I see eye to eye, my friend, but I am seriously fed up with people who reflexively everything that goes wrong in the world on the Baby Boomers.
"but I am seriously fed up with people who reflexively everything that goes wrong in the world on the Baby Boomers."
Blaming a problem on the boomers is an easy way to be right 90 to 95 percent of the time. So, you really can't blame people for finding it tempting.
"reflexively everything that goes wrong in the world on the Baby Boomers"
The Baby Boomers are merely pounding in the last spike on the final piece of track for the train first built by FDR.
Several commenters have challenged my "what if" points @9:55AM about a GOP majority in 2010 & a 2/3 majority in 2012 "not gonna do it", i.e., repeal this monstrosity if passed before the 2010 Election.
Asked & answered in my comment, & by Andy M & others following me in this thread.
let me say this, if I wasn't clear enough:
I hope that
(a) it doesn't get passed
(b) if it does get passed it gets repealed.
I hope that I win the lottery.
Naturally I can't prove a "what if", & naturally (a) & (b) can happen legally, but in realpolitik that's the way I'd bet.
Triangle man said,
"Where one is born has everything to do with it. It's in the 14th Amendment."
Nowhere in that amendment do the words Natural Born appear. Further Minor v. Happersett (1873) said that the definition of Natural Born Citizen is not in the USC, so since the 14A was in 1866 it's not in there either. Even the writer of the 14A (John Bingham) does not agree with you. Here's what he famously said.
"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ” (- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))"
"NOT OWING ANY ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY". Obama admits to being a dual citizen at birth, thus owing allegiance to Britain at birth due to his father's Kenyan citizenship. He knows that he is not a Natural Born Citizen (he's a Constitutional scholar), and that is dangerous and outrageous.
Hoosier Daddy said...
Hell, at this rate 3 more years of Obama and they'll have Bush on a coin
3 more years and the only people with money will be Bush's old cronies on Wall Street and the insurance industry that read the writing on the Wall and bolted to Obama to get the big bailouts from the Wall Street dereg mess.
They would appreciate getting all the golden coinage with Bush's clueless face on them. Bush was a great tax-cutting, hands off friend to the financiers and other plutocrats.
That they defected does not mean they do not have most fond memories of the guy.
===============
No, Madawaskan, no matter how hard you and folks like you beg for it - America will not unilaterally attack Iran for your "Special Friend's sake. NOt without permission from our banker of last resort - China's permission. Nor will be become complicit by allowing them to cross Iraqi airspace over Iraqi Gov't objections.
Two wars and a deep recession and no jobs coming back are bad - 3 wars at the same time, a Global Depression when Iran shuts off Gulf oil&gas and destroys production, and millions more jobs lost - is worse.
Strategically, going into Iraq and the machinations of people like at AIG/Fannie Mae/Soros//Goldman Sachs who bribed people of both parties to get their way - cooked our goose.
We can't afford to go into Iran unless it is in our essential vital interests and we are ready to accept Global Depression and full blame for it..and no allies but "Our Special Friend". If "terrorists rights are sacred!" progressive Jews and the Left have a problem with that - it's part their doing as well.
I can understand Madawaskan being a little cranky about that situation, but it might help him decide which country merits his commitment and loyalty. There are consequences blind support of doing another country's bidding.
Big Mike said...
@bagoh20, Ana Marie Cox was born in 1972 and Andy McCarthy was born ten years earlier. Only the Census Bureau would put McCarthy in with us Boomers, but as a practical matter, along with President Obama he's part of the "Gen X" cohort. The Slackers.
The "Baby Boomers" generation ended in 1964, so Obama is a Baby Boomer.
Obamacare is not medicare. It is wildly unpopular and will hand like an albatross around the Democrats' neck. It won't get more popular with age. It will get less popular. For that reason, it will get repealed if it is ever enacted. At some point the Democrats will decide they would like to be in office again and renounce the thing.
madawaskan,
Of course I'd expect you to produce a thread or two, especially since you claim he gets a favorable response frequently.
My own impression is quite the opposite: I think that he frequently gets roundly denounced, when his anti-Semitism is too unrelated to the subject at hand, or previous instances are not recent enough that the denouncers (and I'm certainly one of them) are simply tired; and that he gets mostly ignored the rest of the time. It's not like he's always wrong, mind you. Nobody can be that consistent--even our dear friend Garage has his moments of clarity. :-)
Also, C4 has a lot more going against him than just his tirades about the Joooos; he's got that precious faux populism, and numerous other issues as well, but if I said what I disagreed with about every single comment he made, then Althouse would be much worse for all the tangential distraction.
So yeah: put up the evidence, or retract your claim.
Mick - "Obama admits to being a dual citizen at birth, thus owing allegiance to Britain at birth due to his father's Kenyan citizenship. He knows that he is not a Natural Born Citizen (he's a Constitutional scholar), and that is dangerous and outrageous."
Mick - the Birther argument is a loser argument with no traction. Anyone making it is generally thought a nutcase.
One reason even conservatives who despise John McCain and would love to see his treacherous ass booted from the Senate - hesitate to endorse JD Hayworth? It seems the former Congressman have creedence to Birther conspiracy theories...and McCain is using those quotes to cook Hayworth's goose.
Sometimes conspiracy theorists or armchair constitutional experts gain traction. Other times they stay confined to a loony fringe.
The decision was made about a year and a half ago that the Birther and "natural born citizen" arguers were just dumb cranks. Best ignored.
That is why so few respond to your Birther posts.
I'm just reminding you -
Maybe there are other blog sites where your luck might be better. Have you tried the vaccine=autism people's website? Islamist websites? They might listen more to you...
Cederford makes sense about half of the time. Then just as you are starting to agree with him he runs off the rails and by the end of the post he is saying really crazy and offensive things. Cederford is nothing if not the real deal. Even trained experts can't fake that kind of insanity.
"Buffet to Obama: Start Over on Health Care.
Billionaire financier Warren Buffet, who is believed to have the president's ear, told CNBC this weekend that if he were President Obama, he would scrap the current health-care billand zero in on "cost, cost, cost" in a bill that could gain broad bipartisan support, instead of "dream[ing] up 2,000 pages of other things."
(via Insty and NRO)
Gee, thanks, Mr. Buffett.
But, um, weren't you the dude telling us to vote for him?
Well, at least you got your stash to tide you over the Second Great Depression, but go to hell, please.
"Most of the time you and I see eye to eye, my friend, but I am seriously fed up with people who reflexively everything that goes wrong in the world on the Baby Boomers."
The biggest mistakes the boomers have made has been the ideology that they have adopted and passed on tho the following generations. They have dramatically changed education, government, and the very ideas (mores) we live by, like personal responsibility. This was not a natural phenomenon cause by sunspots. This change was people generated. The people who have ruled the last 40 years. I'm a boomer, so I'm not blaming all boomers, but the left side is the dominate force of our generation and it wanted power, it got it, and that makes it responsible for the effects of it's "success". Sorry, but who else could possibly be responsible? If younger people have contributed, then where did they get those ideas, hammered home k - 12 and beyond? We are the senior generation expected to guide our civilization forward. My point is: Will we, or will we continue to drag it down with our enlightenment? If we can't admit our errors, we are just old and in the way.
John, that's exactly why I started the "C4 is a leftist Moby" theme--if you were going to infiltrate a mole with the intention of discrediting the respectable parts of the right, could you do better than Cedarford? You'd have to invent him.
Cedarford said,
"Mick - the Birther argument is a loser argument with no traction. Anyone making it is generally thought a nutcase.
One reason even conservatives who despise John McCain and would love to see his treacherous ass booted from the Senate - hesitate to endorse JD Hayworth? It seems the former Congressman have creedence to Birther conspiracy theories...and McCain is using those quotes to cook Hayworth's goose...The decision was made about a year and a half ago that the Birther and "natural born citizen" arguers were just dumb cranks. Best ignored."
The decision was made by whom? McCain is not a Natural Born Citizen either, since he was born in Colon, Panama. Maybe his rhetoric will blow back in his face. As usual, like most people that disagree with me, you use euphemism and ridicule rather than fact, thus not proving your point. Things like "is generally thought a nutcase", or "most experts have looked into", etc. etc. are not saying anything. WHERE does it say that any illegal alien can drop a baby on our shores, and that baby will be eligible for POTUS one day? I'm waiting.
Robert Cook: ...the corporate parasites killing our country...
I realize this is a standard meme of the left, but what do you mean by that? How are corporations "parasites," how are they "killing our country," what would our country look like should you succeed in getting rid of said parasitic corporations, are all corporations parasites and how do you determine the good ones?
Oh, and what is your and Obama's plan to create jobs to pay for his $2,000,000,000,000 deficit and $14,000,000,000,000 debt without corporations?
The US government and the states are broke and Obama and his Democrats keep spending.
Of course McCarthy is right. Once created, no socialist program or administrative bureaucracy has ever been undone, even if those programs bankrupt us. News flash: Wilson's tiny income tax has become a monster, FDR's affordable Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Medicaid is going under. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are underwater.
And for the Che/Castro/Stalin left -- who really do want America to die -- why not pass a bill that hangs us with our own debt?
Mission Accomplished ...without a shot fired.
The best contribution us boomers could make would be to forgo their social security, by accepting a much higher age limit, fighting to reduce public employee pensions and fighting against government heath care. These areas are where boomers will take out far more than they ever contributed. This is the juggernaut aimed at our children and our nation's future that is posed to run them into the ground and destroy an experiment that showed incredible promise just few decades ago.
bagoh - when pigs fly will boomers give up their SocSec checks. They would much rather their kids live a lower standard of living to support them. Disgusting. This is why Soylent Green will be made out of Boomers.
Robert Cook: ..."the corporate parasites killing our country...
Graham Nash" "Military Madness was killing the country
Solitary sadness creeps over me"
Geez, they can't both be right!
madawaskan,
Cedarford is an admired and valued member here.
...
Uh ya-by other commenters-he's frequently responded to favorably and told how knowledgeable and intelligent he is.
And also referred to as "a valued commenter" by other commenters-it's happened repeatedly.
He does get positive feedback.
Sad but there it is.
I think what he does here repeatedly negates his worth-but I'm not in the majority-the watchers always are.
On the contrary, I, like Kirk Parker @ 1:24, I think that you're in the majority here when you criticize C4.
C4s writings fall in the "Except for the anti-Semitism, what do you think of C4s ideas" category?
In the beginning, I for one, tried the diplomatic approach of “C4, for a knowledgeable guy who is obviously intelligent, why are you obsessed with Jews”, but to no avail. I have since resorted to ridicule, to parody, but he is beyond ridicule or parody.
And I do see many laughing at C4 for his anti-Semitism, his overvalued idea about Jews, his idiosyncratic reading of American History & his facile condemnation of the compromises worked out that satisfy no ideologue like himself.
But you're wrong if you think that we’d miss him if he deigned to leave us or that we agree with everything he says if we agree with anything he says. And you’re right if you say that we don't condemn his foolishness every thread. There's not enough time and the Blog is not about him.
Bagoh20 said:
"The Boomers were handed the most prosperous, powerful, moral, and free country in history. It was young and growing, yet in their single generation they have worn it out."
This seems overstated. The first Boomers were born in 1946, and didn't begin to vote until 1967. (The 26th Amendment, lowering the voting age to 18, came into effect in 1971.) By then all the Great Society programs had been established, and there hasn't been a similar expansion of the scope of government since then. The scope has increased, certainly, and the Boomers have lacked fiscal discipline, but the main source of our current problems lies in the 1960s, when the Boomers had little political influence.
True, Obama is a Boomer and is attempting an expansion of government similar to the Great Society. But he is encountering tremendous resistance, and most of the resistance comes from Boomers.
(BTW, I am a few years older than the Boomers.)
John @1:34
Cederford is nothing if not the real deal. Even trained experts can't fake that kind of insanity.
☺
Firsr let me say that, as I’m sure you know “insanity’ is a legal term.
Let me huff & puff myself up & refer to myself, misleadingly of course, as a “former psychiatry student” like another guy does here with regard to another profession.
OK, let’s be kind & say that, rather than being insane or “nuts” (to use another highly scientific term), C4 has an “overvalued idea”, a personal code of honor that admits no qualification. He is fond of saying that the judicial system is corrupt, that even GOP Administrations are completely thwarted by it, that Dem Administrations are insane, that the press is meretricious, & that it’s all because they all are under the influence of the Jews.
An “overvalued idea” as opposed to a mere obsession or delusion, has three characteristics:
(1) it is a self-dominating but not idiosyncratic position, given great importance by
(2) intense emotional feelings over its significance and evoking
(3) persistent behavior in its service.
See McHugh The Mind has Mountains @ pp76-77.
And C4 has the nerve to call Mick The Birther a “nutcase”.
Again, it is my would-be shrink theory that Birthers, Truthers, Earthers, or anti-Semites are not, just by espousing their respective idea “insane”. Just lost in an overvalued idea.
On the other hand what is that definition of insanity as “repeating the same thing over and expecting a different result”? C4 meet Mick, Mick meet C4!
Now I'm back to ridicule!
"bagoh - when pigs fly will boomers give up their SocSec checks"
I know it's unlikely to be voluntary, but at some point, the younger generation will take what they need to survive, as they should. We stole it first.
I never expected to get my social security and still don't (I've got over a decade to go), but I would voluntarily give it up, at least take no more than I put in. I've been saving since I was a teen, for my retirement, investing and working. That's how it was done once.
This really is the central problem of our country: Everybody is determined to get their piece even if it's far more than they have earned. This is tolerable to a degree when a country is growing and efficiently producing more than it needs. We are no longer efficient. A huge proportion of our population is not contributing anything, even if they are working. Many of the people who work in government bureaucracies like the IRS or the EPA contribute nothing to the nation and often inhibit those who do. Of course there are valid functions there, but I don't believe they generally pay for the ones that drain. Government work is not motivated by results or efficiency, in fact waste is often rewarded with larger budgets. This is the exact opposite of a healthy organization and is like a sick organ in the nation's body. We are currently experiencing general organ failure.
We can argue about who is a boomer and when it actually starts and ends, but the point is the problem is ours, we made it or made it worse, never fixed and the nation needs us to change direction, not slither away to collect our checks while fighting for every crumb we can hang onto and suck from the nation's future. We need to finally grow up.
The quandry of how to deal with C-4: He is a mixture of intelligence and historical knowledge together with an allegiance to time tested Jew hatred techniques. That is a problem because the abomination of Jew hating needs to be attacked for the horrible deception that it is, yet C-4's writing adds much to a discussion. So free speech wins. But please C-4 , do not post any of your collecton of heroic pictures of Heinrich Himmler and Hermann Goring. That would be over the top.
paul a'barge said...
"I am a Conservative who always votes Republican who was laid off in May, has been out of work since and on unemployment and has no health care (none!).
I find myself wavering.
I'm sure you can understand this, right?"
Paul, I'm in exactly the same boat as you, though for me I was laid off in April and not May.
However, I do have VA health benefits, so trust me, don't waver, stand firm. Government run health care isn't the answer, they have not told me anything, health-wise, that I haven't found doing internet research, good luck getting an appointment, good luck getting someone to answer a phone, good luck getting customer service of any kind.
Also, while nurses and aides seem fine, just remember, the doctor could be making tons more money in the private sector, so why aren't they? Bottom of his graduating class maybe, foreign educated and this is the only job as a doctor he could get?
Now, granted, my problems aren't life threatening, mainly a knee and foot problem. Though I do have something going on with my digestion, or lack of it, that don't seem to care much about.
If you need a doctor, make a payment deal with a private practice doctor, most will do it. They prefer cash to the headaches (and extra staff) brought by reams of paperwork for insurance companies or Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements.
@bagoh20, as far as I'm concerned nobody born after 1960 deserves to be called a Boomer, and I don't much care what the Census Bureau says.
I think you need to pay attention to what buster says and what I said earlier; we aren't resposible for the Social Security mess. Who killed off Bush's efforts to fix Social Security? That was Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats giving Bush a defeat purely for political reasons and not because they had any plan of their own to fix it.
Baby Boomers demonstrated for Civil Rights (I was there), against the Vietnam War (not so successfully -- it ended when Richard Nixon got around to mining Haiphong harbor and bombing the hell out of Hanoi, and not sooner), and I daresay we're responsible for ending the draft. We've been keeping Social Security and Medicare afloat pretty much all by ourselves.
Do you think I'm going to give up a single penny of the Social Security benefits I'm entitled to? Since I've been paying the max almost since I got out of college, you can believe me when I say that even collecting the full benefits will probably give me a lot less than I paid in, and vastly less than I paid in if you calculate based on constant dollars and include compounded interest. That's money I could have invested on my own in some conservative vehicle that would have survived the bubble bursts and left me comfortably provided for.
So don't sing a heartbreak song for the young folks around me. Barack Obama only narrowly won the Baby Boomers (and I think he actually lost among the group I call the real Boomers), but his biggest voting block were the young people you are emoting all over. They voted for him and his Democrats; they can go choke on it.
I grew up a long time ago. Many of my fellow Boomers grew up the way I did, when Uncle Sam sent a letter that started out saying "Greetings," and put us into olive drab uniforms with just enough training to serve as cannon fodder. Now you tell Gen X and Gen Y to grow up.
Ann,
If McCarthy is wrong, is the whole Dem leadership literally self-destructively crazy?
If you don't think either, how do you explain it?
If you think the Dem position is electoral suicide, assume the Dem leaders are as smart as you. So how esle do you parse this?
Other than wishful thinking, I mean.
From Inwood said,
"Again, it is my would-be shrink theory that Birthers, Truthers, Earthers, or anti-Semites are not, just by espousing their respective idea “insane”. Just lost in an overvalued idea. "
Overvalued idea? I don't know, but I thought Conservatives thought highly of the Constitution. What value does it have if the the very eligibility requirements of the POTUS are violated, by a Constitutional scholar no less. Ridicule of the belief that we should uphold the USC, though the heavens shall fall, is a sign of the rot of Constitutional relativism (even from those that think they are conservatives). Now I ask you the same question that NOBODY here can answer. Where does it say that children of illegal aliens, dropped w/in our borders, is eligible to be POTUS?
madawaskan, really, February 7? That was like...yesterday. She's been there about 3 weeks, actually. You need to get out more...
hey gen x here:
guess how we grew up?
Being told that we would never get access to any of the benefits we pay into, just like you. Social Security was always going to be bankrupt by the time we got there. Women had to share
sorry about that unfinished thought....
onto the next...Mick that is one HELL of a conspiracy
theory... Obama snuck into the presidency right in front of our very eyes!
What's really amusing is the vitriol and loathing expressed here against Obama. The whining and crying about creeping Socialism, Fascism, Marxism (any other isms?), the blame on the boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, are all just really the epitome good ole american self-centered nihilism. There is no right or wrong, the constitution was written over 200 years ago and has little value in the modern times, right? It means what we want it to mean? Meanwhile Obama's Kryptonite is staring all of you directly in the face. He is certainly not a Natural Born Citizen, but he has played all of America with the "birther" controversy. By getting everyone to focus on the Birth Certificate (he probably was born in Hi.) he has succeeded in covering the real Constitutional violation that is not a conspiracy theory and has already been admitted. That violation is the fact that his father was never a citizen of the US. Oh I know, that's just a technicality, an anachronism of an earlier time. It's unfair, and racist. Well the framer's security measure is showing to be very prescient. Obama, citizen of the World has shown that his attachment and allegiance to America are suspect. He is a Constitutional scholar, yet he put his hand on the bible and swore to uphold and protect the USC and lied. His government illegally took over private business, he wanted to sign climate treaties that obligated the US to World Governess, he wants to sign into law a bill that would penalize American citizens for not buying a product. Yet you all give him a pass on his very qualifications to hold office (and why no comment from Ann Althouse on this?). Not ONE journalist has asked the correct question, nor has ONE Constitutional Lawyer (except for Donofrio) asked it. Evryone assumes what Obama wants you to assume, that being born in the US means that you are a Natural Born citizen, eligible to be POTUS. All questions have been about WHERE he was born, and he wants it that way. The real question that should be asked every day, louder and louder is, since Obama has admitted that his citizenship was "governed" (his words) by Britain at birth, how can he be a Natural Born Citizen? Surprisingly (or not) no one can understand the rationale and the security reason for the Natural Born Citizen requirement when it is staring them in the face.
"Now I ask you the same question that NOBODY here can answer. Where does it say that children of illegal aliens, dropped w/in our borders, is eligible to be POTUS"
No one CAN answer or no one BOTHERS to answer, since it's a stupid fucking question and has no relevance to anything.
I am in no way a Obama fan, but he was born in Hawaii to a woman who was born in Kansas. And THAT makes him eligible.
Mick, I hope you have access to the big pharma give away.
master cylinder said...
"sorry about that unfinished thought....
onto the next...Mick that is one HELL of a conspiracy
theory... Obama snuck into the presidency right in front of our very eyes!"
Yes he did. And the real "funny" thing was that McCain was not a Natural Born Citizen either, since he was born in Colon, Panama. Ain't that a hoot? Everyone here should be embarrassed that they are letting a man they supposedly loathe
usurp the office of POTUS. All of you geniuses that hate him have the reason to oust him staring you in the face, yet your constitutional relativism won't let you. And I ask you again, where does it say that any illegal alien can have a child w/in our borders and that child be eligible to be POTUS? I'm still waiting.
@Mick, whether USC 1401(a) applies, USC 1401(g) applies, or USC 1409(c) applies, it's all the same. Barack Obama is a US citizen and has been one since the day he was born.
While it's techncially true that nowhere does the Constitution define what it means to be a "natural born" US citizen (nor does it define a whole bunch of other terms that it uses), but USC 1401 says that "[t]he following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth," which seems pretty definitive.
Now give it a rest, please. You're embarrassing the rest of us.
Big Mike says,
"While it's techncially true that nowhere does the Constitution define what it means to be a "natural born" US citizen (nor does it define a whole bunch of other terms that it uses), but USC 1401 says that "[t]he following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth," which seems pretty definitive."
I'm glad that you are trying to find the answer. But it you that should be embarrassed. No Naturalization Act of Congress can change the meaning of NBC. Citizens by birth are NOT natural Born Citizens, and none of those Acts say Natural Born Citizen. Sorry, try again?
@Mick, John McCain is a "national and citizen of the United States at birth" under USC 1401(c).
Look, if you're going to "defend" the USC then you really need to read it. Suggest you start reading ASAP and not post again until you've finished reading each and every paragraph.
The whole thing.
jeff said
"I am in no way a Obama fan, but he was born in Hawaii to a woman who was born in Kansas. And THAT makes him eligible."
Again, that is the question. Who or what says that born in US to ONE citizen parent makes one a natural Born citizen?
@Mick, if I follow your reasoning, nowhere in the Constitution, nor in the sections of the USC applicable to US citizenship, is the term "natural born citizen" defined.
Therefore, by your reasoning, we have never had a president who is natural-born and not a single one of them held their office legally.
Kind of silly.
Try again? Perhaps you can point out where anything says that a mother who was born, raised, lived and gave birth in the United States will have a baby that is not considered a natural born citizen due to the nationality of the father, and where the US recognizes that the fathers nationality supersedes the mothers.
"Again, that is the question. Who or what says that born in US to ONE citizen parent makes one a natural Born citizen?"
Where does it say it doesnt?
Mick for the record:
I love Obama
@jeff, actually the USC is pretty explicit about citizenship "at birth." If the marriage of Obama's mother to his father was not legal, i.e., if Barack Obama is the b*st*rd I take him to be from his first 13 months in office, then USC 1409(c) applies. Otherwise 1401(a) or (g) applies, depending on whether he was born in Hawaii (a applies) or some foreign location (g applies).
Big Mike said,
"Therefore, by your reasoning, we have never had a president who is natural-born and not a single one of them held their office legally."
Who, and why would they be ineligible?
"master cylinder said...
Mick for the record:
I love Obama"
You'd better.
You're gonna be licking his boots and eating his shit for the rest of your life.
with relish
Big Mike said,
Big Mike said...
@jeff, actually the USC is pretty explicit about citizenship "at birth." If the marriage of Obama's mother to his father was not legal, i.e., if Barack Obama is the b*st*rd I take him to be from his first 13 months in office, then USC 1409(c) applies. Otherwise 1401(a) or (g) applies, depending on whether he was born in Hawaii (a applies) or some foreign location (g applies)."
Again, some "citizens at birth" are Natural Born Citizens, some are not. Those born in foreign countries, like McCain, are not. Those born of less than 2 citizen parents are not NBCs, unless the mother is not married. Naturalization acts of Congress have no role in defining Natural Born Citizen, and the term can only be changed from it's original meaning by Amendment, not by Acts of congress.
master cylinder said...
"Mick for the record:
I love Obama"
That would explain why you don't care about the USC. But what about those that dislike Obama?
Martin Fox walks in, sees everyone carrying on a conversation with the talking parrot, as if it really was a conversation...
"Squawk! 14th Amendment! Natural-born citizen! Wanna cracker!"
...and just as promptly decides not to stay...
well is it a legitimate claim or not?
Whether we like him or not would be beside the point
if there was any there there.
Hey guys, I'm still trying to figure out how Herbert Hoover & Ike became Presidents since neither had, at the time of his election, "been fourteen years a resident within the United States".
Ya see, an earlier version of that clause contained the phrase "in the whole" & its removal could've suggested that the final version meant "consecutively". Gurgle, gurgle….
And then there's that chain letter I get advising me that the XVI Amendment was not legally adopted & that I don't have to pay any Federal income taxes. Maybe all those Obama appointees are aware of it & that explains why they did not pay their taxes.
Tip: Do not argue with Truthers, Birthers, Earthers, Jew Bashers, Catholic Bashers, those who rant about Bilderbergers, Masonic conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission, and black helicopters, or those who send conspiracy chain letters.
Jeff said,
"Where does it say it doesnt?"
OK so you want to hide your lack of knowledge, that's OK. There are a number of sources of the definition of the Natural born Citizen term of art. As you may know terms of art cannot neccessarily be defined by the dictionary. So while the literal parsing of the term to "Citizen at Birth" may sound good, it is not what it means. It comes from Vattel's Law of Nations 1753, a treatise on Natural Law that was a reference of the founders, and the only place that the term appeared around the time of the writing of the USC. It is the unification of Soil and Blood that forms a child whose citizenship is unquestioned. There are no competing allegiances.
Then you could look at the SCOTYS case The Venus (1814) and Minor v. Happersett (1873), which direct5ly quoted the Vattel defintion of Born in a Country of Parentsss (plural) who are it's citizens. You could also look at the statements of John Bingham, the writer of the 14A, who also quoted Vattel. Perkins v. Elg (1939) described 3 subsets of citizens Natural Born, Native Born, and Naturalized, with only the Natural Borns being eligible for POTUS.
Um, put me down as thinking highly of the Constitution.
From Inwood said...
"Tip: Do not argue with Truthers, Birthers, Earthers, Jew Bashers, Catholic Bashers, those who rant about Bilderbergers, Masonic conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission, and black helicopters, or those who send conspiracy chain letters."
What about pro- or anti-Brett Favres?
Why do I have the feeling that Borat would have a field day interviewing Mick & C4?
From Inwood said...
"Um, put me down as thinking highly of the Constitution."
I doubt it. And I will ignore the other silly 14 year resident relativist comment.
When I blame Boomers, I'm talking about those coming of age in the 60's who took a change of direction to abandon the values of their parents and everyone before them. Who chose to "not trust anyone over 30", to deconstruct everything that came before, except some cute aspects of stone age civilization. Those who abandoned reason for feelings, responsibility for rights.
A few of those were moves toward a better world, but most in the long run were lazy, weak abandonment of the responsibility to fix what was broken and pass on what was good. They decided to abandon it all, so that now even the good works they did have been taken to the extreme of dysfunction.
I'm a boomer, but have never supported this tearing down crap. I could have called the culprits liberals, but we have had those before. It was their ascendancy in the 60's that made the difference. That was a generational thing, so whether you agreed or not, it still happened on our watch.
It's not just Gen X and Y who will suffer for this, it's all those that follow. We took our hard fought heritage, and we dropped the ball.
If I blamed the liberals, I would have gotten little argument, but the truth is we all let it happen.
Obama was elected with the help of a weak turnout by the conservative base and lazy thinking moderates that chose style over substance, like their fellow citizens on the left always do.
I'm just hoping things will start changing soon and people will get serious about what is at stake - It's not how nice we look to the world or how enlightened we want to think we are. In fact, it's not about us at all...anymore.
From Inwood said...
"Why do I have the feeling that Borat would have a field day interviewing Mick & C4?"
So where does it say that less than 2 citizen parents can have a Natural Born Child on US soil?
Big Mike said...
"@Mick, John McCain is a "national and citizen of the United States at birth" under USC 1401(c).
Look, if you're going to "defend" the USC then you really need to read it. Suggest you start reading ASAP and not post again until you've finished reading each and every paragraph."
Uh Title 1401 is not the USC, it's part of Naturalization Law. No where in those Acts appear the words "Natural Born". "Citizen at birth" is certainly not Natural Born, especially since some are born abroad, like McCain.
what child is formed by less than 2 parents?
The Antichrist!
Mystery solved.
OK, I'll bite: what if Barack's mother was divorced at the time she gave birth to him in HI? what if Barack's father was dead when Barack was born? What if his father died the day after Barack was born?
secondly, why should Barack be ineligible based on definitions of "natural-born" coming from English common law, which we certainly did NOT adopt in toto when the Constitution came into being? Why should the US not be able to define natural-born as it sees fit, via statute? Why are extra-legal definitions considered dispository and final? What's this "dual allegiance" stuff, as a legal matter: after the Declaration of Independence George III certainly believed that all Americans in his colonies bore him allegiance, yet it's obvious everyone here (except Tories) thought otherwise. The Treaty of Paris formally ending British claims of sovereignty over the colonies wasn't fully ratified until 1784, so doesn't that mean that all Presidents born before that event had "dual allegiance" to the Crown when they were born, and were thus ineligible?
There's only one thing stupider than liberals: BIRTHERS!!!!!!
Pogo
My bad. As a lawyer I should've used the boilerplate term "including, but not limited to,” at the beginibg of my "laundry list".
Add Derek Jeter's fielding ability to my list of no discussion also.
And add whether the Dutch paid the Indians the $24 in Inwood (Upper - or in the local patois “Uppa” - Manhattan) or in the Battery Park area (the lower part of Manhattan).
BTW, both Farve & Jeter were residents of one team for 14 years & consecutive ones at that. So they are constitutional team members or something.
I’m not sure why a Birther would so readily dismiss my Article II, Section I, Clause 5, Presidential theory, which produced some discussion in an after-lawschool tavern long, long ago, along with Andrew Jackson supposedly being born at sea & whether US Grant was still a resident during the period when he was in the South, it having, you know, kinda seceded! And, hey, Taft was away in the Philippines for a few years before he became President.
And, recently, some wag asked whether a C-Section birth is disqualifying.
Ya think he realizes I’m ridiculing him?
Should I be flattered that he mentions me in the same sentence as Althouse & Volokh?
Maybe I should start using Law Latin: jus soli & jus sanguinis! Maybe that will bring Fr. Fox back.
Maybe Mick’ll ignore me like C4 does.
If they force it through reconciliation, the GOP should run on undoing the POS starting in January 2011. Even with a hostile president they can slow roll, undermine, and basically completely hose up the process of implementation. Anybody who has ever tried to implement cultural change at a big company can tell you that even with management pulling for it it can be an absolute bitch. When the majority of management is actively attempting to sabotage the the roll-out there is no way it gets done.
Let the Dems commit suicide. Let the GOP take the pledge: "Vote for us and we will kill ObamaCare."
Make that "beginning".
Hoosier Daddy said... Hell, at this rate 3 more years of Obama and they'll have Bush on a coin.
>>>
This "Miss me yet?" Bush nostalgia sets my teeth on edge. We have Obama because we had Bush. With his unnecessary war, irresponsible spending, and nation-destroying immigration policy, Bush set the stage for an Obama presidency. Bush was not the anti-Obama, he was the ante-Obama.
"when his anti-Semitism is too unrelated to the subject at hand"
Has it *ever* been related to the subject at hand? All c-fudd has ever done, on this or any other blog, is make pompous, turgid posts that fool some people into thinking he's knowledgable but are in most cases 100% lying horseshit. All for the purpose of grunting out his precious little dingleberries of Jew-hatred, before he masturbates himself to sleep in his flophouse room.
Paul said,
"This "Miss me yet?" Bush nostalgia sets my teeth on edge. We have Obama because we had Bush. With his unnecessary war, irresponsible spending, and nation-destroying immigration policy, Bush set the stage for an Obama presidency. Bush was not the anti-Obama, he was the ante-Obama."
I sort of agree. However there is a new burgeoning democracy in the middle east and a brutal dictator was caught and hung by his own people. The war has largely been won, to the chagrin of Obama and the left.
Jelink said,
"OK, I'll bite: what if Barack's mother was divorced at the time she gave birth to him in HI? what if Barack's father was dead when Barack was born? What if his father died the day after Barack was born?
secondly, why should Barack be ineligible based on definitions of "natural-born" coming from English common law, which we certainly did NOT adopt in toto when the Constitution came into being? Why should the US not be able to define natural-born as it sees fit, via statute? Why are extra-legal definitions considered dispository and final? What's this "dual allegiance" stuff, as a legal matter: after the Declaration of Independence George III certainly believed that all Americans in his colonies bore him allegiance, yet it's obvious everyone here (except Tories) thought otherwise. The Treaty of Paris formally ending British claims of sovereignty over the colonies wasn't fully ratified until 1784, so doesn't that mean that all Presidents born before that event had "dual allegiance" to the Crown when they were born, and were thus ineligible?"
Godd questions! First, if Obama's mother was single (either unmarried, divorced or a widow) at the time of Obama's birth then Obama's citizenship would be determined by his mother, and thus he would be a Natural Born Citizen (if born in Hi.). This would go against the tale he so stridently told, and the COLB he purports to be accurate, but it IS a reason to see the original BC and all the revisions that may be on it.
The definition of Natural Born Citizen comes from Natural Law, which the framers were very familiar with (that's where inalienable rights and the Bill of Rights came from). Natural Law also states that the Naturalization laws of foreign countries are to be respected, just like children of American citizens born abroad are citizens of that country AND the US (as does Perkins v. Elg 1939), it is the same visa versa. Natural Law is our Common Law doctrine that is embedded in the USC at A1S8C10 (law of nations). Vattels famous Natural Law doctrine (google Vattel Natural Born Citizen) is the unification of blood and soil that serves to promote and enhance the fabric of a society, that it advances on the births of children of citizens on it's soil.
A2S1C5 is the "grandfather clause" ("... or a citizen at the time of the ratification of this USC"). I believe there were 11 POTUSs were grandfathered in as Natural Born Citizens I think, because they were born British, but were made statutory Citizens eligible to be POTUS at the time the USC was ratified (1789). No one born after 1789 can be born a dual citizen and be considered Natural Born.
As Ann Althouse posted a while back. The Federalist Papers confirm that the requiremnet of a Natural Born Citizen to be POTUS was a National Security provision that sought to secure the highest possibility of attachment and allegiance, and to prevent foreign influence upon the highest 2 offices. The original Vattel Natural Law definition can only be changed by Amendment. Congress cannot change the body of the USC by decree or Naturalization Law.
From Inwood said,
"Should I be flattered that he mentions me in the same sentence as Althouse & Volokh?
Maybe I should start using Law Latin: jus soli & jus sanguinis! Maybe that will bring Fr. Fox back."
If you are a lawyer, then you should be ashamed at your lack of knowledge of the Constitution. Rather than throw around unproven relativist claims, maybe you should address the question. Where does it say that children of less than 2 US citizen parents born on US soil are Natural Born Citizens. Your failure to answer tells everyone that you have no answer.
Jason said...
"There's only one thing stupider than liberals: BIRTHERS!!!!!!"
Really? I don't care where he was born (although i might). Maybe you can answer the question, WHERE
does it say that a child of less than 2 US citizens born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen?
The State of Hawaii says he's a citizen. Therefore he's a citizen. Why don't you go join the Flat Earth society, or obsess over how 9/11 was an inside job?
See also United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866.
But most powerfully of all, if Congress had any problem with Obama's lineage, they could move to remove the President. They have not. The matter is settled.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा