In Dicta

We lost.

I’ve been studying the majority opinion on Obamacare and there are no two ways around it – supporters of limited government and the Constitution lost a battle to turn back the tide of “progressivism” in a big way. What is so stunning is not that we lost – because populist “progressive” programs have become de rigueur in our age of legislating from the bench – no, the stunning part is how close we came to a repeal of not only a program (Obamacare) but a repudiation of a political philosophy (“progressivism”).

The unity of the dissenting opinions is cogent and clear, including that of Anthony Kennedy, who normally is the wishy-washy “moderate swing vote” on the court.

Throw the damn thing out – all of it- as it is a massive violation of individual rights and therefore unconstitutional.

There a those who are now either taking up apologist roles for John Roberts or are trying to see the sunny side of the ruling as a victory for constitutionalists due to the inclusion of the comments about limits on the Commerce Clause. Some are even scheduling coronation ceremonies to crown Roberts the King of the Foxes for his guile and slyness in handing the “progressives” a defeat wrapped as a victory. I wanted to be one of these people because I wanted to believe that Roberts is a man who can be counted on to protect the rights of the individual, as the Constitution is written, and not bend it to fit the will of the collective – we don’t need the Supreme Court to do that – for that we have 435 members of the “People’s House”, the House of Representatives in the legislative branch.

I have read and re-read Roberts’ Commerce Clause comments and in my opinion, these should not be construed as an opinion but as “in dicta” comments, that is to say that they are authoritative and yet not binding. His comments on the mandate are helpful only in the sense that if we ever have another massive socialist health care program, the tax can’t be called a “mandate”. Other than having a “feel good” effect, they are basically worthless in a legal and Constitutional sense.

Conservatives are rightly up in arms about Roberts’ willingness to allow the Court to rewrite legislation by deciding that the mandate was not a penalty rather than just give it a thumbs up or down. In all due fairness, the Obama Administration did advance the theory that it was a tax, but only after the previous two lines of argument were clear failures. To me, that this process of multiple theories was allowed to progress (just pick the one you like the best) is more maddening than the decision itself. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and even Kennedy saw through all of this rhetorical fog.

Of course, Obama now has to try to “resell” the program to the American people with a tag around his neck stating “It is a tax!”…that’s going to get some traction with anti-tax independents but for the most part, those who cheered O-Care in the first place already had no problem with an unconstitutional mandate anyway. It is clear that the Democrats lied to pass this thing, passing the tax increases off as “penalties” – that much is clear today as they are using this very term even though the Supreme Court said it was a tax. They couldn’t call it a tax during the run up to passage via a reconciliation bill because a country in the throes of a depression would not have supported it in the first place…but the people who bought into it at the start won’t care about the dishonesty, they see lies as necessary tools to accomplish things for the “greater good” because they know we will “like it once we see what is in it.”

We did lose an important battle. The “progressives” won a victory, one that if it is not repealed under a newly elected Romney presidency and a Republican Congress in January of 2013, will change this country even more than the “progressive” movement changed America in the 1920’s and 30’s.

We are facing now, and actually have been for some time, a patient and determined Marxist movement wearing a populist mask. This isn’t a Bolshevik Revolution where our country is changed by war and public pronouncement of the intent of the revolutionaries, this is a dishonest stealth campaign bent on achieving domination and control through slow and deliberate seduction of indecisive people of few principles, weak convictions and malleable character…in short, products of decades of indoctrination in post modernist thought in government controlled schools.

I find nothing to cheer about anything that Roberts did. The thing that hurts the most is seeing in the dissenting opinions how close we were to putting liberty ahead of tyranny and missing that seminal opportunity to turn the tide.

Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has a roundup of similar, yet far more esteemed opinions than mine here.

92 thoughts on “In Dicta

  1. Roberts did no one in the United States a favor … save himself. He was so caught up in his self imposed role of “Keeper of the Court” that he succumbed to the scrutiny offered by liberals, and thus caved in. This decision reaches beyond Obamacare, an election result, or the next case they rule on. A precedence has now been set in his opine that other drafters of legislation will use to further their demands … at the cost of our wallets, and our liberties. And for what? A glass of wine with those that would have condemned him for not tipping the vote their way?

    And if four more of these people who are so faint of heart get appointed, this precedence will continue to grow well beyond our life time, and many life times to follow.

    • Augger,

      Weren’t you the one who told me to read “None Dare Call It Treason?” Well, I read the updated version. Put it with everything else I have read the past few years and I think I finally see enough of the Leviathan to understand.

      Thanks for turning me on to the book: I appreciate seeing reality as it is. Thanks a lot for turning me on to the book: now that I see that reality, it is even less easy to keep an optimistic outlook than before – especially after this week.

      :-/

      • B – I do not recall that book, or telling you about it. However, you have stimulated my interest enough that I may just have to go grab a copy for myself. 🙂

        • OK, then it was Mr. G (thanks, G). Yes, get a copy of the latest edition and read it. It shows how the communists and Progressives are connected and have been working from within all aspects of our society to undermine our society and system of govt. Most of the naysayers here on the RNL are among their ranks, though they are actually just useful idiots and do not realize it.

          Good read. Let me know if/when you pick it up. Would be a good discussion for a beer or two – or even tequila (yes, things are THAT bad). 😉

    • I just read the Gallup and Rasmussen polls. These boys are neck and neck. The similarities of this race and that of our country right now don’t ecape me: One half of the country supports the other, and the great divide in ideologies is also split in half. Interesting and pivotal times….the king will be crowned or will be dethroned. As Augger rightly pointed out on another post, the make up of the SCOTUS will be decided after this election…..

      IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

      • And Kells — the same thing happened back in the mid 1800s over an equally divisive topic. Just saying.

        • Unfortunately augger, this is an all new level of Power.
          The Federal Government has just been granted the power to tell you what to do under the auspices of Health care. Everything you do is related to “health care”. From what you eat and drink, to what you drive, to where you exercise, to where you work, to what your hobbies are. There is NO LIMITATION on the activities that can be regulated or the amount of the PENALTY/TAX if you refuse to comply with the EDICTS. Physically or Mentally. Stop and think. You can’t eat that because someone says it is bad for you and it raises your chances of heart disease, or cancer, and ergo your healthcare costs will go up. You can no longer ride that motorcycle, or 4 wheeler, or jet ski, because it is to dangerous. If you are injured your health care costs will go up…. There is nothing you do that does not impact your physical or mental health, and healthcare costs.

          • It’s even worse than that. I am following a group of physicians discussing a clause in the bill requiring a Child Health Information Program (Chip) to be placed in infants at birth! RFID implants….pretty spooky…

            • That just sounds goofy. I’m sure you’ll find the part of the bill that requires this and share it with us, right? Hard to believe that every Republican would have ignored this until now.

  2. Roberts could have been the “Paul Revere, George Washington or Thomas Jefferson of our time. Instead history will remember Roberts as the Benedict Arnold of our time.

  3. I love it! You guys claim all the time to be independent thinkers, and that you respect those who think for themselves, yet as soon as someone does a little independent thinking, out in front of the speeding subway he goes.

    Roberts did not rule on the rightness of the bill, I got the impression that he thinks it is bad law, he did his job and ruled on the law’s constitutionality.

      • Yep, it falls under the ‘General Welfare’ clause of the preamble to the Constitution, no matter how much B whines that the word’s meaning has changed.
        I do not like the law, however; it is a giveaway to the insurance companies,

        • Yes, it seems this legislation was driven more from lobbyists than the people. Perhaps it will be a wake-up call to the Legislative brance to reform rather than repeal it. (If that will be a possibility.) I’ve had several arguments about this law with one of my sisters….she works at the hospital….she has leukemia….she is insured….. and she is for Obamacare.

          • When I was in the hospital, only one of my attendants was in favor of health care reform, and he made sure that no one could hear him when he told me.

        • If that is true, then why didn’t they argue it under the “general welfare” provision?

          That’s because the Constitutiion actually says “to PROMOTE the general welfare”, not to PROVIDE welfare generally.

          • promote-” 1.to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
            2.
            to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc.

            welfare–the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child’s welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

            I think we both can agree that the Affordable Health Care Act does not rise to that standard

            • BECAUSE this NEW penalty, has never been attempted before, because it is not CONSTITUTIONAL. READ the opinion Roberts name is on. THEN read the DISSENT’s opinion to explain the TRADITIONAL, ACTUAL, CONSTITUTIONAL law.
              If you wish not, then you choose to be a subject, not an informed citizen.

        • @Greg; “I do not like the law, however; it is a giveaway to the insurance companies”

          A $60 billion tax on health insurers is written in to this bill that is “not a tax” (And we somehow believe that this will not drive costs for insurance up how?).

          Seems the “giveaway” heads a different direction than what you were told.

        • Greg is a totalitarian. He recognizes no limits on what he feels entitled to claim under the constitution. He has been shown repeatedly that the founders specifically and clearly said the General Commerce clause was NOT to be used as a blank check. He simply cannot and will not admit truth in his life: the only thing he cares about is power. There is no right and wrong anywhere in this man. Listen to him at your own peril.

          For the last time, take it from the premier authority – the man who wrote the bloody thing:

          With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

          –James Madison

          If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

          James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

          • You forgot to add that I am totally evil for not agreeing with you.

            B, United States vs Butler 91936) set the precedent that Congress determines what constitutes the general welfare, not me. Alexander Hamilton wins, Madison loses.

          • I don’t think Greg is a totalitarian. I think Greg has found himself caught between a rock, and a hard place. Stuck as Greg likely has an agenda that would keep conservatives from embracing him, so he sticks with the only side that would.

    • No Sir, he did not uphold the Constitution. John Roberts created “new law out of whole cloth” and violated OUR Constitution adopted in 1789.

      • My concern here is not the decision, but the cannibalistic response of the right wing nuts.
        Are you really going to sit there and pretend that you know more about Constitutional Law and precedents than the chief Justice of the United States, whom, until three days ago was your boy Johnny? I guess next will be the calls for impeachment from the usual crowd.

        • No Sir, Mr. melfamy,
          I suggest you read my newest post on the DUTIES of the SUPREME COURT as designed in the Constitution and explained in the words of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78.
          I also suggest you learn and use the accurate definitions of LEFT and RIGHT.
          The correct SPECTRUM when discussing Government is:
          TOTAL GOVERNMENT on the LEFT ranging to NO GOVERNMENT (anarchy) on the RIGHT.
          Accurately described LIBERALS, as INVENTED by our founding fathers, believe in LIMITED, CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, which is in the middle, or MODERATE.
          Again, Modern day ‘liberals” misnamed themselves PURPOSELY in order to mislead everyone to believe they were MODERATE. Modern day “liberals” misnamed their opposition as RIGHT, in order to get the uniformed to look upon true MODERATES as “right wing extremists”.

        • Well, I’m touched by your concern…but you should save it. Seems that I remember the left pillorying Roberts prior to the ruling and now he is a statesman.

          Sure, Conservatives are upset and angry because, as you termed him – our boy – did the one thing Conservatives hate – he legislated from the bench. This law should have been sent back to Congress for reworking as a tax bill instead of Roberts defining the language for the Administration. If the law is so peachy keen, is would pass again. If you want to see why this is bad law, look to Kennedy’s dissent.

          I appreciate “independent” thinkers but the job of the SCOTUS isn’t to find novel ways to make a law constitutional, it is to rule on the law as argued based on the text of the law and nowhere in the bill was the word “tax”. Since what was written was different from what was argued, the proper course would have been to simply return it and let the legislative branch correct their mistake or malfeasance, whichever term you prefer.

          • Utah,
            Is correct, Roberts has JUDICIALLY created an ENTIRELY new PENALTY/TAXING authority. EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL. A PROGRESSIVE WROTE THE MAJORITY OPINION WHICH JOHN ROBERTS HAS ALLOWED HIS NAME TO BE PUT ON.

            • Greg (melfamy) wants us to play a game of “Are You Smarter Than A Supreme Court Justice?”

              In this case, I think the answer is “Maybe not smarter but not as stupid as we are taken for.”

              The only difference between the SCOTUS justices and many people is a black robe. There are many Constitutional scholars out there that are brighter than most on the Court – Eugene Volokh and Randy Barnett are two. Visit the Originalist Blog in the blogroll do this site and you will find more.

              Hell, I’m smarter than Sotomayor and Kagan put together and I haven’t passed the bar exam.

    • @ Greg – yet you refuse to believe the obvious conundrum of the discussion. Obama sat on TV with George Stephanopoulos arguing that this act was (and I will quote him) “NOT A TAX”. In case you didn’t hear that loud and clear, lemme provide for you a visual … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdgPauuMmJI

      Yet Justice Roberts [very clearly] rules that the individual mandate is in fact, unconstitutional, and that if the law was to survive, it would survive as a [TAX].
      Read if for yourself: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

      “The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27. […] 3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.”

      You see, the attorneys argued it [BOTH] ways, and thus allowed Justice Roberts to re-write the bill from the judicuary bench. At first, Obama and his cronies where happy with the decision … hell, they were elated. Then they read the rest of it (homework for you … my friend), and suddenly, the very next day, they had that clown Carney on TV announcing yet again … Obamacare is not a tax.

      ***If they insist on this logic, I think the Supreme Court should re-access its verdict, and give them what they way … a commerce clause (which would rule the whole piece of crap legislature unconstitutional. ***

      So now Greg … is that a good enough example of “Independent thinking” and “research” for you … my friend? Don’t get caught up in the liberal lies of late. Your a much better man than that, and next time … Don’t patronize me. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I am no intellectual pauper either.

      Have a great day.

  4. EVERYONE ! Respectfully,

    I would ask you to ponder this question. It IS as simple as this:

    Are you a “statist/progressive”, or do you choose to be a “Jeffersonian/classical liberal”?

    There is no middle ground.

    You can settle back and be a “subject”, or CHOOSE to be a “citizen.”

      • Kells,
        You are incorrect. Both sides or ALL sides, are not pulling the same crap. The PROGRESSIVES, are all pulling the same crap.

        • If democrats is a side and republicans is a side then kells is correct. Both do the same stuff all the time. Now if you’re acknowledging that there are progressives in the republican party, the tex is correct. Once people understand that, and the republicans stop allowing progressives within the party, then the situation will improve. This kind of thinking is a big part of the problem:
          “The differences are now clear, Democrats = Marxists = total control over you, Republicans = free enterprise = freedom for you.”

          Republican doesn’t equal conservative. Yeah Yeah I’ve heard of all the “they’re the closest to” analogies. That logic is flawed though. There has been too many republicans that also fit the above democrat description. When the republican party purges itself of progressive members, they’ll be a better party because of it. They don’t need to sign a contract with America. They need to sign one to uphold the conservative principles that the party was founded upon. If they can’t do that, they should be dismissed. Until then, Quigley’s statement of two parties representing opposed ideals and policies is correct.

          • Yes, I think Republicans need to replace the moderates in their ranks with the likes of Joe Miller, Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell. 🙂

              • Not surprised: we have always agreed on this point. In fact, it is I who have moved closer to your position as you where here before I was. So, in this case, you taught me.

                • I don’t think I taught you that as you knew this all along. I just reinforced it. It’s human nature to want to take people at their word when you’ll get far greater accurate results when you measure them by their actions. We only do ourselves a disservice when we don’t hold republicans accountable for progressive actions in the same manner a parent makes excuses for their child’s misbehavior. We’ve spared the rod way too long.

                  I just can’t in good faith jump on the bandwagon anymore. In attempt of being true to myself I’m not going to vote for any presidential candidate from either of the major parties this year. Maybe it won’t solve anything, but at least I’ll know that I didn’t cast a vote toward the continued financial collapse of the country.

                  Carter G Woodson said, “When you control a man’s thinking you don’t have to worry about his actions”.

                  So as long as the political parties control the way we think (democrats stand for this or republicans stand for that), they don’t have to worry about who we will vote for. Continuing to “toe the party line” is just an example of doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result.

                  • I agree with everything you just said. But it also brings me a sense of great shame as – now – I realize that I was fooled into thinking Party loyalty = loyalty to America. I don’t like to think of myself as someone who is fooled that easily…but I know now that I was.

                    From now on, I will vote principle no matter what the consequences. I have posted the quote from our founder many times telling us this was the way to insure the survival of this republic, and I understand how right he was. True, it may be too late, but I have to join you in your stance and vote for what’s right – not what’s politically expedient. I see where that has gotten us and I’ve had enough of it.

                  • GO TO HELL!

                    The very next person who tell me I am wasting MY vote had better show me their COMBAT ACTION RIBBON. I PAID for my right to do as I damned well please with my vote, and if you do not hold a CAR, I paid for your right, too.

                  • You addressed what WM said he was going to do. As I plan to do the same, you addressed me equally. Remember, you called it unpatriotic, that means you are making a universal statement based on the qualifications you addressed. This includes me and my reply was warranted.

                • Forever falling fantasically fast feet forward into falacious fanatical fantasies? Agreed; your reasoning is a fallacy. If I could remember the website, I would point it out to you.

                • Let’s take this step by step, shall we? Step 1 Here is my comment: “That’s very patriotic of you to ……………waste your vote!! That is what you are doing, Wills.” Step 2 Note that I refer to Wills. Step 3 I refer to Wills specifically because he had stated on another site that he would vote neither R or D. Step 4 I assume you mean for me to imply from one sentence in your comment that you will vote neither R or D. I’m guessing it is this sentence: “From now on, I will vote principle no matter what the consequences.” Step 5 You have not said that you will not vote for either; if you did than it is my own memory lapse, thus I addressed Wills. Step 6 You misquoted me. Step 7 You attacked me. Step 8 I will not back down from bullies. Step 9 I’m glad my husband prefers fellatio over fallacies. Step 10 I love to laugh, and I find you especially funny………..

          • Progressive are in BOTH parties. EXACTLY. Agree with your statement. Our only hope for a peaceful “saving from ruin of our country is to PURGE the progressives from the Republican party.

            • Agreed. Republicans need to replace the moderates in their ranks with the likes of Joe Miller, Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell. 🙂

    • John Roberts, is a PROGRESSIVE. Read his opinion. Roberts has ignored his DUTY as a Justice of the Supreme Court. I will only refer to him with the honorable title of Chief Justice if I am ever before him in the Supreme Court.

  5. Utah, I agree with your analysis. Roberts recognized that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. As inept as our boys and girls in Congress are, they know how to write a tax bill. They intentionally did not write a tax bill. Had they intended it to be a tax, the bill would have originated in the House instead of the Senate. Roberts was worried that the Court was seen as being a politicized institution aftder the Citizen-United case and he wanted to prove it was not politized. What he did was judicial activism; pure and simple. He could have been a hero; but chose to be a coward.

    • The STATISTS (or Democrats as they now call themselves) wrote an UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX BILL. That is why they did not call it a TAX bill. John Roberts, or whomever wrote the majority opinion, has allowed, or created NEW LAW out of “WHOLE CLOTH”.

  6. Ah, if only we were in the 1920s or 1950s, when people actually bought into “red scares.” Perhaps you can start lobbying for Hollywood blacklists, too. 😉

      • Wrong again, texas. Re-read the post, which clearly states, “We are facing now, and actually have been for some time, a patient and determined Marxist movement.”

    • I guess that none of the people on those blacklist were confirmed to actually be communists – oh, wait…they were. Do the names Hiss, Meade, Chambers and Massing ring a bell?

      What feature of “progressive” programs like Social Security and Obamacare isn’t dedicated to government control, central planning and concentration of power in Washington? If you can answer that without equivocation or parsing, maybe we can have a conversation. It seems that liberals spend most of their time claiming that something is one thing when it is really something else, O-Care is a case in point.

      What part of “progressive” ideology supports increases in freedom for ALL Americans? It seems to me that to achieve their goals, they have to compromise someone else’s freedom, private property or restrict some behavior to be able to give it to another. Mutually shared misery is not freedom, nor is it equality.

      • Some were communists; some weren’t. All were blacklisted regardless of evidence. And communism is/was not illegal, and had nothing to do with the vast majority of their jobs. But if you like blacklists, maybe we should keep track of Randians, huh?

        • First, you implied that my statement about active Marxism was wrong and cited blacklists as an example – I merely negated your premise by providing you names of people from that time period that, not only were confirmed to be communists, but also involved in espionage on behalf of the Soviets. Communism isn’t a crime but spying against your country is. In that sense and in the context of these individuals, communism did have a lot to do with their jobs.

          In the 40’s and 50’s the Communists in the USSR were actively working to overthrow our government and continued to do so until the 80’s – perhaps you remember it, it was called the Cold war. There is also a KGB letter that came to light well after the USSR collapsed indicating that Teddy Kennedy was working with the Russians to attempt to influence Reagan’s election effort in 1984. It is detailed here.

          Second, you answered none of my interrogatories. I know that it is hard to break away from Marxism when the only openly socialist Senator sees so much in common with you that he caucuses with the Democrats and the Communist Party USA endorses your candidate for president in 2012 by stating:

          “Millions who have to be at the core of this party still operate under the umbrella of the Democratic Party, albeit increasingly in an independent fashion…Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren’t identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people’s agenda.”

          He also argued that it wasn’t time for the Commies to go it alone and to separate from the Democrats now:

          “would be contrary to our strategic policy of building maximum unity against right-wing extremism now and in next year’s elections. We are keenly aware of the fact that the agenda of the far right is to bring this administration and country to its knees, with a heavy dose of racism, lies and economic sabotage, setting the stage for a full blown return to power of the most reactionary, racist, anti-labor, anti-women, homophobic and militarist grouping in U.S. politics.”

          These statements are from Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA, as he threw his support behind Obama’s re-election bid in an article last July, published in People’s Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA.

          Funny, that sounds exactly like statements that have been coming out of the Debbie Wasserman “Sergeant” Shultz’s DNC and shock of all shocks – Obama’s own mouth.

          I don’t seem to remember a repudiation from Obama or him declining the support. You lie down with dogs, James, you get up with fleas…

          • “We are keenly aware of the fact that the agenda of the far right is to bring this administration and country to its knees, with a heavy dose of racism, lies and economic sabotage, setting the stage for a full blown return to power of the most reactionary, racist, anti-labor, anti-women, homophobic and militarist grouping in U.S. politics.”

            So which part of that is incorrect? If a description is accurate, it really doesn’t matter who provides it.

            • Yes, I would agree – it is nice to see a “progressive” finally own up to their alliance with communists. Thank you for that moment of honesty, as unintentional as it might have been.

              I must also note that I am the one providing factual linkages to my assertions of “progressivism’s” links to Marxism, you have as yet to grace us with your wisdom on how your favored policies are not Marxist or even denied that there is a link to Marxism.

              I would also agree with you if we are talking about the “far right”, the anarchists, but as for mainstream conservatives, libertarians, Tea Party folks and classical liberals, there is not a single policy or proposal that can be described as reactionary, racist, untrue or even anything remotely resembling ‘economic sabotage”. I accept some association of the term “reactionary” because we do want to return to a time when the Constitution meant what it says. There is nothing racist about wanting to reduce the size of government, especially since, as we have pointed out, the bulk of aid goes not to minorities but whites and if we want to talk about policies that are passed on lies, well we have a case in point in O-Care. “Economic sabotage”? Nothing here but trying to restrain a government that has produced debt on a record scale and, now thanks to O-Care being called what it is, has imposed the largest tax increase on a population in the history of the world. You want to sabotage an economy? Obama is using the book Atlas Shrugged as an instruction manual of how to destroy economic growth.

              We are also not anti-women, if we were we would pay women less than men while claiming the other party does it (like Obama and the White House) or we would fund selective abortion where parents can abort female babies simply because they want sons (like Planned Parenthood, a subsidiary of the Democratic Party). We are not homophobic, simply against the institution of marriage being destroyed because the gay lobby wants to stick a hot poker in the eye of the church. We are not anti-union but we are anti-public sector union, just at the great hero of “progressivism”, FDR, was against them – and for exactly the same reasons.

              And yes, we do support a lethal military and define their role as killing people and breaking things, not handing out pamphlets and manning a drum circle.

              All of the “points” of you and your friends at the Communist Party USA are nothing but leftist fantasy and are absent of proof.

              You may take this as an invitation to prove me wrong and provide such proof here on these pages.

              • Considering that you devoted two entire posts to me while having no clue about who I really am–and then declined to respond to my corrections (let alone apologize), I feel absolutely no obligation to prove anything about myself to you (or the other two members of your Axis of Ignorance).

                It’s easy enough for anyone who cares to find out who and what I am–and it has become clear that your clueless merry band here aren’t all that interested in facts that don’t happen to fit your paranoid little narrative. So I’ll keep dropping in from time to time to point out your team’s most obvious oversights, without devoting any more time or energy than an entertaining diversion deserves.

                • Oh we are interested in facts, just not the disingenuous distortions proffered up by a “progressive” reporter.

  7. “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
    sunday
    Marcus Tullius Cicero quotes (Ancient Roman Lawyer, Writer, Scholar, Orator and Statesman, 106 BC-43 BC)

    • Coulter’s book is called “Treason” but there is another good one called “Blacklisted By History” by M. Stanton Evans.

      • Yes, yes, thank you. I haven’t read the Evans book…

        Do you know Scottish boys are very naughty? My son’s friend has two boys from Scotland over, and they decided to disobey Kells. Um, one word: Mistake. I have dealt with boys far too long to deal with their shenanigans. (Probably why I can put up with y’all.)

      • I would look to the book Utah cited. It is sitting on my shelf, and is fully sourced and cited. For the most part, McCarthy didn’t have many “innocent” victims – but he was one, himself.

        • I should like to trade a few books with you. I always give them to the church garage sale, and then I cannot reference them because my memory is not what it used to be….I hear that if you take chromium picolinate, it will enhance your memory….what the hello was I talkin about? Oh, books! Name where and when, pal Joey.

          • HellsBells…..does have a nice ring-a-ding-ding to it. My bad AC DC already owns that.

            Sorry Kells, I couldn’t help it. It was pretty funny though you guy’s exchange there. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear you 2 were husband and wife. Or at least brother and sister. Which in some parts could be the same thing.

            I don’t think it’s a waste or unpatriotic any more than you showing up at that wet t-shirt contest forgetting your t-shirt. I said I wouldn’t vote R or D. If I don’t like any of the other candidates then I won’t vote at all. Plus, do you really feel comfortable trying to persuade someone to do the wrong thing? Or is all fair in politics?

            • Why the hello does everyone think I’m married to B.??!!! ZOIKS!!!! (Admittedly, when Mr. Kells pisses me off, I now refer to him as B.)
              Wills, your definition of the “wrong” thing versus mine is obviously completely different. Until there is a third party established or a candidate who kicks ass, you will be wasting your vote just as I would were I to vote Ron Paul in Nov. As I’ve said before, you must choose a side….. say what you will about their ideologies, but one will be a centrist and the other will remain to the left (far left.) Ever read Dave Ramsey? Baby steps, baby. You and B. (apparently) are taking steps backwards. Do you understand? Also, do you understand the repercussions of a wasted vote?

              • Romney: I am a progressive – same side as Obama

                Romney: I will repeal and REPLACE Obamacare – different version of Obama, but still Obama.

                Not sure I see two sides in there, but, if you do, I guess that double vision thing you suffer from periodically must have returned. 😉

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.