Main Menu

Quiet time

Starting April 4 I’ll be mostly not blogging for a few days, so you can have some quiet time. Get to know your family again. Pet your pet. Go for a walk. Read a good book. I’ll certainly be making the best of a little time off.

For those of our visitors in moderation status, I regret that your posts may be a long time appearing. Why not take a break too?

Print Friendly

70 Responses to Quiet time

  1. avatar
    Scapegoat Wall Street April 3, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    Good idea, Doc.

    It will give you a chance to reconcile the president’s real immature and crass behavior towards the judiciary with the mythical character you’ve squandered so much time trying to protect.

  2. avatar
    Paul April 3, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    Me too! Off to the islands for a week!

  3. avatar
    donna April 3, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

    ENJOY, DOC

    you deserve it!!!

  4. avatar
    Rennie April 3, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    This means there is sure to be some major breaking birther news, ala Obama releasing his “long form” while you were on vacay last year.

  5. avatar
    Rickey April 3, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    Scapegoat Wall Street:

    It will give you a chance to reconcile the president’s real immature and crass behavior towards the judiciary with the mythical character you’ve squandered so much time trying to protect.

    You seem to be confusing the President with Orly Taitz.

  6. avatar
    katahdin April 3, 2012 at 11:01 pm #

    Scapegoat Wall Street:
    Good idea, Doc.

    It will give you a chance to reconcile the president’s real immature and crass behavior towards the judiciary with the mythical character you’ve squandered so much time trying to protect.

    Scapegoat Wall Street:
    Good idea, Doc.

    It will give you a chance to reconcile the president’s real immature and crass behavior towards the judiciary with the mythical character you’ve squandered so much time trying to protect.

    donna:
    ENJOY, DOC

    you deserve it!!!

  7. avatar
    katahdin April 3, 2012 at 11:02 pm #

    I don’t recall the president advocating violence toward the judiciary, which is boilerplate for conservatives.

    Scapegoat Wall Street:
    Good idea, Doc.

    It will give you a chance to reconcile the president’s real immature and crass behavior towards the judiciary with the mythical character you’ve squandered so much time trying to protect.

  8. avatar
    Thomas Brown April 3, 2012 at 11:18 pm #

    Scapegoat Wall Street:
    Good idea, Doc.

    It will give you a chance to reconcile the president’s real immature and crass behavior towards the judiciary with the mythical character you’ve squandered so much time trying to protect.

    Not like the Birfers, who show nothing but respect to the Judiciary.

    You really have Wall street connections? How about you buy yourself a clue.

  9. avatar
    Thomas Brown April 3, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    Have a good respite, Doc C. You’ve earned it.

  10. avatar
    mimi April 3, 2012 at 11:31 pm #

    Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

    Just kidding. Have a nice time, Doc.

  11. avatar
    DivideByZero April 4, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    Doc, like Orly, just indiscriminately copy and paste your emails as articles. That will keep us busy.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2012 at 12:43 am #

    Heh, my emails? I got a doozey from Deep Birther just a bit ago:

    Is Snopes A Disinformation Operation?
    4-3-12

    For those of you that put your trust in Snopes…

    Many of the emails that have been sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.

    Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court’s Kagan. We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! You don’t suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do you?

    We’ve known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn’t known it to be financed by Soros!

    Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama! In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions.

    I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed, and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets. So I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep, you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there.

    So Here is what I wrote to Snopes:

    Referencing the article about Elana Kagan and Barak Obama dockets:
    The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking. Thank You. I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it.

    That being said, Ill bet you didn’t know this.

    Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly.

    Chicago Politics and the beat goes on and on and on. Once again the US Senate sold us out!

    Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it? The American people mean nothing any longer.It’s all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there.

    Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket: You can look up some of these hearings and guess what?

    Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!

    Check out these examples:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790..htm

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm

    Even WorldNetDaily debunked that one. See my article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/08/wnd-scrubbs-article-on-obama-kagan/

    DivideByZero: Doc, like Orly, just indiscriminately copy and paste your emails as articles. That will keep us busy.

  13. avatar
    John Reilly April 4, 2012 at 1:17 am #

    Ah yes, this has been posted by Dr. Taitz as well. No reason to let the truth get in the way.

  14. avatar
    Thrifty April 4, 2012 at 1:28 am #

    That “Obama nominated Kagan as a favor for her quashing eligibility issues” debunking on Snopes is one of my favorites. It is, as far as I know, the only one that generated so much E-Mail from idiots exactly like the one who E-Mailed you, that they penned a followup article. The followup wasn’t an actual debunking, but actually just them venting their frustration at the E-Mails they get from fools who clearly didn’t read the article.

  15. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter April 4, 2012 at 5:36 am #

    DrC:

    Have a nice vacation!!! Everybody needs a break from this insanity once in a while.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  16. avatar
    Lord Basil April 4, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    I figured Soros’ massive tentacles were behind Snopes. I stopped trusting themong ago because I suspected they were a leftist front, and now I know it.

    The truth is out there!

  17. avatar
    Judge Mental April 4, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    Before everyone disappears, some help with a dispute I’m having please…..I seem to recall reading that we know Obama had federal student loans of some sort (requiring SS registration to qualify) because of someone/somewhere (I don’t know why but Ohio keeps coming in to my mind) being prosecuted for accessing his student loan rcords illegally

    Can anyone recall the details of this and/or point me to any citation of it and/or point me to any other kind of reliable way in which we know that he did receive federal student loans that only an SS registered applicant would qualify for. My searching is coming up cold.

    http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm

  18. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 11:38 am #

    Your Honor (Judge Mental): Here is a story http://qctimes.com/news/local/article_187208c6-796a-11df-9bcb-001cc4c03286.html

    There were 9 people indicted. I haven’t heard what happened to the other 8, but this one pled guilty. If Obama had no federal student loans, no records would exist to break into. Of course, Obama has stated that he had student loans and has deducted the interest on his tax returns, but I suppose that won’t count for birthers. But arrests, indictments and pleas should count even for them.

  19. avatar
    clestes April 4, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

    What does student loans have to do with anything?

  20. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 12:37 pm #

    clestes: What does student loans have to do with anything?

    In order to get federal student loans or grants, one has to have registered for the draft if you are male (very unfair) and born within certain dates. The Dept of Education checks names against the Selective Service database. So, since Obama got federal student loans, he registered back in 1980 as required. The screenshot of the database also shows him registered. Hence, there would have been no earthly reason to forge a registration form in 2008.

  21. avatar
    clestes April 4, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    Oh, I get it now. These nuts think he FORGED a selective service record because the first part of the date is missing on the stamp??

    Jesus, they really are down the rabbit hole aren’t they?

    But really none of that matters. Student loans, Selective Service records or social security numbers all have zip to do with eligibility of being president.

    As I understand it there are 3 and only 3 requirements for being president.

    At least 35 years of age
    14 years residence in the US
    natural born citizen

    He satisfies all 3 requirements.

    To take simple facts and twist them into non-facts and to think up ridiculous scenarios like selective service records these people must have nothing else to do in their lives.

    They must need to be on meds and have no health insurance

  22. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    clestes: But really none of that matters. Student loans, Selective Service records or social security numbers all have zip to do with eligibility of being president

    That exposes, of course, how this is NOT about eligibility, but, rather, simply to make up stuff that might make Obama look bad to some low information voters. Of course , the polls show this only works with voters who wouldn’t vote for Obama anyway, so the effort seems wasted.

  23. avatar
    clestes April 4, 2012 at 1:28 pm #

    Scientist, agreed, the effort is wasted. I wrote long post in “Open Thread” about my idea that this is really about the ending of the Civil War and how the coming minority of the white population is at the base of this all this.

    These birthers are really racists, but they don’t want to admit that. They are few in number and are a demographic that is growing smaller and smaller. They like to talk big, but in reality they don’t have any real power. No one shows up at their rallys. No one in the mainstream media pays attention to them. Even Fox stays away. Every month they get further and further on the fringes. They have lost case after case after case, what is it now something over 100 court cases dismissed.

    3 years ago, they were news. Today they are jokes. Military defendents have been court martialed and jailed. One old vet was told that if he showed his face in court again, he would slapped with sanctions and court costs. There is no legit reputable lawyer that will take their case.

    I am waiting for Orly to get put on the stand in MS and get slapped by Tapper under cross-examination.

    Your average working American voter doesn’t pay any attention to them. Poll after poll show the president leading every republican candidate.

    After he is re-elected, I expect most of this to just dry up.

    All this talk about taking to the streets is just that, talk. When you hold a rally and get less than 5 people to show up, there just isn’t any thing there.

  24. avatar
    Paper April 4, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Well, I just checked snopes to see if this is true, and snopes says nope, not true. :-] :-p

    Lord Basil:
    I figured Soros’ massive tentacles were behind Snopes.I stopped trusting themong ago because I suspected they were a leftist front, and now I know it.

    The truth is out there!

  25. avatar
    JPotter April 4, 2012 at 1:57 pm #

    clestes: They must need to be on meds and have no health insurance

    God bless Obamacare! Birtherism will be cured!

    See A Clockwork Orange for preview. :D

  26. avatar
    clestes April 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    JPotter

    I made the comment as a joke, but in all seriousness, I’m willing to bet a good portion of them are schizos or bi-polar people that needs meds and don’t have them.

    And on the whole ACA healthcare, I think the individual mandate will be upheld. Did you catch that look on Robert’s face when Scalia complained about having to actually read the bill? I thought Robert’s was clearing saying “STFU before you embarress us further!”

    Scalia, Alito and Thomas do not belong on the High court. They were appointed as idealogs and do not have the brain power to be there. Now Roberts is a different case. Also he is Chief Justice. His reputation is going to be on the line here and that matters to him.

  27. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    clestes: I agree with your analysis and hope you are right. I find the idea that courts would involve themselves at all in matters of broad national policy to be repellent as a general rule. In a democracy the voters, not judges, ought to decide matters like health care, Social Security, war and peace, etc. The courts should have a very limited role addressing things that might impact small groups of people in a clearly discriminatory fashion. Since the mandate applies to everyone, it is policy, not discrimination.

    Unfortunattely in this overstepping of proper authority by the courts, both left and right are to blame. Both sides have used the courts to get what they didn’t want to spend the time fighting for in the political arena. I’m pro-choice on abortion, but I often think it would have been better to leave it to legislation. Many states, including New York and California (under Reagan) had already legalized it and more would have. Some benighted backwaters wouldn’t have, but, if you live in a benighted backwater you get low taxes and cheap housing, so you have to pay some price. I’m proud that New York legalized same-sex marriiage through the legislature, rather than a court decision.

    Let courts stick to cases involving actual parties and leave policy to the people and their representatives. They will get it wrong sometimes, but so do courts. The advantage is that the people can fix errors at the next election, while court errors are much more durable.

  28. avatar
    JPotter April 4, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    If it’s struck down as unconstitutional (since it isn’t discriminatory, I don’t see why it would …), that would be a tragedy. A conservative idea* was adopted in order to get something that would pass and survive the lobbying gauntlet. Expanding Medicare would have faced no Constitutional challenges, but would require defeating an entire industry, and every Republican vote. That the Reds will disown their own past and defecate on national interests just to spite the opposition and pay off their patrons is … typical. Typical won’t cut it. We need, and deserve, the extraordinary.

    __________

    * Reading the 1991 Heritage Foundation paper now amidst Red denials is a scream! …and it’s actually a great paper. Here’s a great history some would prefer forgotten: http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

  29. avatar
    Ramjomi April 4, 2012 at 3:58 pm #

    The email about Kagan is an oldie. You can actually use google and see that none of the cases had to do with eligibility, it is that simple. In fact, some of the cases were previously named vs. Bush II or even vs. Clinton (they changed when the new President came in, obviously). Furthemore, none of the cases were suing the President personally, but rather the Executive Branch itself or the Federal government. These people are almost as dumb as Presidents claiming that striking down Federal Laws by the Supreme Court was unprecedent. (Sorry, I had to get that swipe in).

    Having said all that, has anyone seen the new story? That the Obama campaign threaten to kill Chelsea Clinton, since the Clintons “knew” Obama was ineligible. This is trutherism 2.0. It is amazing how the birther conspiracy theories have moved along a similar pattern as the truther conspiracy theories. Maybe Corsi knows something about this.

  30. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    Over at NBC’s site http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/corsi-setting-up-friends-for-yet-another-disappointment . I thought the Masons were supposed to be the “bad guys”.

  31. avatar
    Egh April 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

    Happy Easter, doc. Rejoice in the resurrection, and live with the holy spirit to guide you.

  32. avatar
    nbc April 4, 2012 at 7:46 pm #

    Sef: Over at NBC’s site http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/corsi-setting-up-friends-for-yet-another-disappointment . I thought the Masons were supposed to be the “bad guys”.

    They are still the ‘bad guys’, why do you think they allowed Corsi to speak… It’s all part of the ‘plan’…
    But keep it hush hush for the moment.

  33. avatar
    Mr. Spock April 5, 2012 at 2:57 am #

    Sef:
    Over at NBC’s site http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/corsi-setting-up-friends-for-yet-another-disappointment . I thought the Masons were supposed to be the “bad guys”.

    You should study history more. The Masons are a front for the Illuminati. The Illuminati were founded by Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria. Adam Weishaupt came to America, murdered George Washington, and began impersonating him. It was really Weishaupt that was inaugurated as the first President of the United States, and whose portrait graces the one dollar note.

    Emerich de Vattel and Weishaupt were, of course contemporaries in Europe and both were anti-Papists. Furthermore, I have heard Vattel described as a Prussian, which is, of course, like Bavaria, a German province. That connection seems to be scrubbed from the internet now, and Vattel is now said to be from Switzerland, but we know that Vattel railed against the pope for violating the Law of Nations by voiding a treaty between Bavaria and Austria. Furthermore, Weishaupt was kicked out of Bavaria by an “elector”. Electors are Swiss officials, Bavaria has a king. And anyway, it is my understanding that they speak both German and French in Switzerland. How suspicious is that?

    Obviously there are some strong connections between Weishaupt, our real first President, and Vattel, the guy that really wrote our Constitution, and the Illuminatti the group that has controlled us all from the beginning.

    I report. You decide.

  34. avatar
    Keith April 5, 2012 at 2:59 am #

    Tricked by the back button once again.

  35. avatar
    Judge Mental April 5, 2012 at 4:46 am #

    Thanks Scientist. The witness may stand down. Court adjourned.

  36. avatar
    Keith April 5, 2012 at 7:34 am #

    Mr. Spock: I report. You decide.

    I know you couldn’t tell by this, but that Mr. Spock comment was really me. I screwed up the reply name when I made a joke response to someone’s Star Trek reference somewhere or the other.

    Not only but also, my I had a really hard time getting my tongue out of my cheek when I wrote it.

    My apologies.

  37. avatar
    bovril April 5, 2012 at 8:01 am #

    Keith, noot a problem I was distracted by a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock….. 8-)

  38. avatar
    Northland10 April 5, 2012 at 8:20 am #

    Keith: Tricked by the back button once again.

    Do we have to take away away your back button. If you were a Birther, we could just tell you to hit the “any” key instead.

  39. avatar
    Thomas Brown April 5, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    Mr. Spock:
    I report. You decide.

    Fascinating.

  40. avatar
    Keith April 5, 2012 at 11:58 am #

    Thomas Brown: Fascinating.

    Indeed

  41. avatar
    Linda April 5, 2012 at 1:29 pm #

    JPotter: If it’s struck down as unconstitutional (since it isn’t discriminatory, I don’t see why it would …), that would be a tragedy…

    I certainly hope it is upheld, but am not confident that it will be. Of the 4 federal cases decided, two upheld it, two did not. The two which said it was unconstitutional even disagreed with each other. One said the mandate could be removed and the rest of the bill could remain intact, the other said that it should all go.

    There was even a good debate by constitutional law professors at Harvard Law School on this. Harvard professors Charles Fried and Lawrence Tribe supported the mandate. Their former student, Randy Bennett, who of Georgetown University Law Center, was against. Bennett is credited as being the architect of the healthcare challenges. Here is a link to an article that contains video of the debate.

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/spotlight/constitutional-law/is-obama-health-care-reform-constitutional.html

  42. avatar
    Linda April 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    Sorry, that is Randy B-a-r-n-e-t-t, not Bennett.

  43. avatar
    clestes April 5, 2012 at 4:30 pm #

    Chief Justice Roberts is no fool and it is HIS court. I think it will be a 6-3 decision with Roberts writing for the majority.

    He will make it a narrow ruling, of course. He has a long time to be Chief Justice and I doubt he wants this hanging over his head. It will piss off a lot of conservatives, but undoing it will cause massive damage, not only to the provisions already in place, but to the economy.

    Because of the disinformation campaign, American people are really confused about it. When you ask them about specific provisions like no pre-existing conditions, no caps on spending, leaving kids on till they are 26, helping seniors with prescriptions, Americans overwhelming approve.

    But when you ask them do you like the ACA act, they are not so sure. But that is only because there has been so much GARBAGE AND LIES pur out there about it.

    One of the biggest problems is that there is nothing to replace it with. Everyone was unhappy with the old system. Costs were out of control and abuse rampant. What are republicans going to replace it with? They have no answer. Just like they have no answer to any of the myriad of problems facing Americans.

  44. avatar
    Thrifty April 5, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    I certainly hope that the health care law is not overturned. I’m lucky now because I’m young and in good health. However, due to some psychiatric care I received in my teens and 20s, I’m classified as having a pre-existing condition. Without the HCR law, my 3 choices in the event of serious illness are:

    1) Hope that at the time I am working somewhere that supplies insurance.
    2) Bankruptcy.
    3) Death.

    I guess on the upside, I’m really not a huge fan of being alive so I could probably cope with option 3, plus I can still get insured against sudden and unexpected injury.

  45. avatar
    Linda April 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm #

    Thrifty: I certainly hope that the health care law is not overturned. I’m lucky now because I’m young and in good health.

    I think the majority of people opposed to the new healthcare law are either healthy, wealthy, on Medicare, are ignorant of the act’s benefits, or any combination thereof.

  46. avatar
    Thrifty April 5, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    I’m thinking it’s mostly ignorance. Let’s be fair though, I think the individual mandate seriously bothers a lot of people. I think it’s a fair objection. I wouldn’t really like to be require to buy something just because I’m alive. At the same time, I recognize that it’s a necessary evil; without it people would be able to cruise along without insurance, pick it up once they got sick, then drop it when they got better. Either insurance companies would go bankrupt or they’d need to be propped up by huge amounts of federal money or premiums would skyrocket to keep them fiscally solvent. Either that or remove the prohibition on discriminating due to pre-existing conditions, effectively blacklisting people like me for life.

    Linda: I think the majority of people opposed to the new healthcare law are either healthy, wealthy, on Medicare, are ignorant of the act’s benefits, or any combination thereof.

  47. avatar
    Linda April 5, 2012 at 6:58 pm #

    Same here. I believe the govt has an argument for a mandate, but it is certainly not a slam dunk. Of course, the republicans were all for it when they proposed it in opposition to the Clinton plan, but now it is ever more convenient to be against it. I haven’t really heard a coherent explanation of that. How would it go? We knew it was unconstitutional, but wanted to do it anyway? Leaders of our party in congress were ignorant as to the constitutionality? The 28th Amendment was going to change that? It’s a head-slapper.

    The problem WITHOUT a mandate is that people currently without coverage can’t just pick up insurance once they are sick or injured (with rare exceptions). Accident victims are treated in ERs and ORs, as they should be, but that cost is passed along to those who can and do pay.

    I believe the prohibition on discriminating due to pre-existing conditions is in effect for minors and goes into effect for everyone sometime in 2014.

    My husband is a lawyer and the state bar is self-insured. If not, we would have been canceled years ago. As it is, we pay ever increasing premiums for ever decreasing coverage. We are lucky to have it, as even at $2500/mo, they still lose money on us.

    Thrifty: I think it’s a fair objection.

  48. avatar
    Keith April 5, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    Thrifty: I think it’s a fair objection. I wouldn’t really like to be require to buy something just because I’m alive.

    However, you are required to buy lots of stuff ‘just because you’re alive’.

  49. avatar
    Thrifty April 5, 2012 at 10:24 pm #

    Like what?

    Obviously you are required to buy things like food, water, clothing, and shelter. But these are dictated by nature, not the laws of any government. So if that’s what you were referring to, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.

    Keith: However, you are required to buy lots of stuff just because you’re alive’.

  50. avatar
    J. Potter April 5, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    If they would just call the penalty a tax…a tax against which healthcare premiums can be deducted, and considerations for income level, etc, made …. but nooooooo. Thanks Norquist, you weaselly $&%*. I replay Stewart handing your keister to you on a plate often. ;)

  51. avatar
    John Reilly April 6, 2012 at 12:19 am #

    Had it been justified under the taxing power, perhaps it would have had an easier time with the Supreme Court. We will know in a few months.

    There are a fair number of people in this country who always paid their mortgage, who have no credit card debt , and perhaps the house is now paid off. They always had health insurance, and now, if 65, have Medicare, which they paid for. They believe that bailouts, mortgage reductions, etc. reward bad behavior. They have the same view towards Obamacare, that it is a hand out to folks who don’t take care of themselves. Their opposition to bailouts of Wall Street feeds an undercurrent of anti-semitism. This hostility fueled the Tea Party, and it fuels the base of the current Republican Party. It is diffcult to argue with someone who always paid his debts and always had health insurance that some folks are not as fortunate. They view this lack of fortune as a failing, and perhaps as a sign from God. I don’t think the President or the Democrats get it. The folks I described are not bad people. They just feel powerless, and subject to unseen and dark forces, like Wall Street Bankers. (Yes, Misha, there is a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism in this.) So they react against folks who want to give them orders from Washington, or the President who does not look like them. They like Sarah Palin, not because she could or should be President (although they have a strong belief in the wisdom of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington), but because they believe Gov. Palin speaks directly to them and understands their concerns. For the same reason they were more comfortable with President Bush than with Al Gore (who invented the internet) or John Kerry (who went wind surfing – what’s that?).

    If the President wants to be re-elected or to have Obamacare succeed, he will have to figure out how to tap into this group. He has his opportunity, because it appears the only politician today less in touch with these people is Gov. Romney. I saw some polling the other day that suggested that wherever Gov. Romney went his negatives went up.

    This group of people includes my grandparents, my parents, my wife’s parents, etc. They fear the unknown (government takeover of healthcare) or change (Spanish language signs at Wal-Mart – in Indiana, of all places).

    This is not about the nuances of the difference between taxing power or the commerce clause.This is about perceptions. The sizzle, not the steak.

  52. avatar
    Paper April 6, 2012 at 12:21 am #

    We’re required to pay taxes, which are used to buy lots of stuff, including oranges I’m sure. ;-}

    Thrifty:
    Like what?

    Obviously you are required to buy things like food, water, clothing, and shelter.But these are dictated by nature, not the laws of any government.So if that’s what you were referring to, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.

    Thrifty:
    Like what?

    Obviously you are required to buy things like food, water, clothing, and shelter.But these are dictated by nature, not the laws of any government.So if that’s what you were referring to, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.

  53. avatar
    Paper April 6, 2012 at 12:28 am #

    Well, in certain respects, it may not matter in the slightest what it is called in terms of the Supreme Court. I suspect at least one or two of the justices who vote to keep the mandate will use the tax rationale somewhere in their opinion. Because it is a tax, no matter what it is called. The only way it is a mandate at all is through taxes. The justices are fairly clear about that point, whether or not a majority will rely upon that reality.

    Counting the months…

    John Reilly:
    Had it been justified under the taxing power, perhaps it would have had an easier time with the Supreme Court.We will know in a few months.

  54. avatar
    Keith April 6, 2012 at 1:21 am #

    Thrifty:
    Like what?

    Obviously you are required to buy things like food, water, clothing, and shelter.But these are dictated by nature, not the laws of any government.So if that’s what you were referring to, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.

    roads. police services. Governmental services of all kinds. The monetary system. military defense.

    OK, there are a few hermits up in the hills that more or less successfully opt out of society. Everyone else is part of the economy and there is lots of stuff that you pay for ‘just because you are alive’.

    Besides, as I understand it, you are not ‘required’ to buy health insurance. You can choose to pay a tax penalty instead.

    On the other hand, you are ‘required’ to buy insurance against foreign military invasion.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 6, 2012 at 1:45 am #

    From my limited information, most people are generally in favor of the health care law’s individual provisions, just not the law. That means they are ignorant of what is actually in it.

    Linda: I think the majority of people opposed to the new healthcare law are either healthy, wealthy, on Medicare, are ignorant of the act’s benefits, or any combination thereof.

  56. avatar
    Linda April 6, 2012 at 6:17 am #

    John Reilly:

    There are a fair number of people in this country who always paid their mortgage, who have no credit card debt , and perhaps the house is now paid off.They always had health insurance, and now, if 65, have Medicare, which they paid for.They believe that bailouts, mortgage reductions, etc. reward bad behavior.They have the same view towards Obamacare, that it is a hand out to folks who don’t take care of themselves. …

    You have accurately described my parents. Career military, now on Medicare (which they love) yet they rail against “govt” healthcare and believe being required to BUY insurance is wrong while still claiming that the new law gives free coverage to everyone.

  57. avatar
    Majority Will April 6, 2012 at 7:03 am #

    Thrifty:
    I’m thinking it’s mostly ignorance.Let’s be fair though, I think the individual mandate seriously bothers a lot of people.I think it’s a fair objection.I wouldn’t really like to be require to buy something just because I’m alive.At the same time, I recognize that it’s a necessary evil; without it people would be able to cruise along without insurance, pick it up once they got sick, then drop it when they got better.Either insurance companies would go bankrupt or they’d need to be propped up by huge amounts of federal money or premiums would skyrocket to keep them fiscally solvent.Either that or remove the prohibition on discriminating due to pre-existing conditions, effectively blacklisting people like me for life.

    Promoting the general welfare and providing for the common defense is an integral part of our social contract.

  58. avatar
    Travel April 6, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    That says it succinctly.

    A large part of the rationale for such an aspect to our social contract is that success is not possible without the general welfare. Having traveled extensively, I would rather be poor in a connected society honoring its social contract than rich in a broken society.

    The rich get or take from society more than others. They simply are more successful at leveraging society. Losers are part of our system, by necessity. Good behavior does not guarantee success. It guarantees our own sanity and character. If we don’t give back to the general welfare, which has made our own personal levels of success possible, then that is the bad behavior that matters most, that damages us all most. Inevitable losers in our system are going to respond to that loss in different ways, some irresponsibly, but not only are plenty of rich people irresponsible as well, the primary irresponsibility is to not give back and balance out the equation.

    Of course, hardly anyone in my family agrees with me. As John Reilly says, this is a slog.

    Majority Will: Promoting the general welfare and providing for the common defense is an integral part of our social contract.

  59. avatar
    Travel April 6, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    And that is even after one of us received actual transplants on the government dime!

    Travel:
    Of course, hardly anyone in my family agrees with me.As John Reilly says, this is a slog.

  60. avatar
    Majority Will April 6, 2012 at 9:41 am #

    Travel:
    That says it succinctly.

    A large part of the rationale for such an aspect to our social contract is that success is not possible without the general welfare.Having traveled extensively, I would rather be poor in a connected society honoring its social contract than rich in a broken society.

    The rich get or take from society more than others.They simply are more successful at leveraging society.Losers are part of our system, by necessity.Good behavior does not guarantee success. It guarantees our own sanity and character.If we don’t give back to the general welfare, which has made our own personal levels of success possible, then that is the bad behavior that matters most, that damages us all most.Inevitable losers in our system are going to respond to that loss in different ways, some irresponsibly, but not only are plenty of rich people irresponsible as well, the primary irresponsibility is to not give back and balance out the equation.

    Of course, hardly anyone in my family agrees with me.As John Reilly says, this is a slog.

    I’m particularly disgusted by the hypocrisy of politicians railing against democratic socialism and the Affordable Care Act while conveniently ignoring or refusing to privatize their own taxpayer funded health care.

  61. avatar
    JPotter April 6, 2012 at 10:17 am #

    I have heard report after report from country after country that health care is a basic human right. The other night I heard a report on the ongoing reforms in Brazil … they’ve declared that food is a basic human right. And the grocery stores haven’t all gone out of business.

    Society caring for its members. Socialism sure is evil.

    They’re practicing “trickle” up economics. A trickle upward from 99% will always overwhelm a trickle down from 1%…all teh more so because the 1% won’t leave the faucet on out of necessity.

    Happy Easter weekend, everyone!

  62. avatar
    Rickey April 6, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    Linda: You have accurately described my parents.Career military, now on Medicare (which they love) yet they rail against “govt” healthcare and believe being required to BUY insurance is wrong while still claiming that the new law gives free coverage to everyone.

    And of course everyone who works is required to pay into Medicare – it’s right there on everyone’s W-2.

    I’m not old enough for Medicare yet, but I recently was enrolled in the V.A. healthcare system as a veteran who served in a combat zone during the Vietnam war. I’m lucky to have an excellent V.A. facility three miles from my house. It is tremendously reassuring to know that no matter what happens to me, I have healthcare available for me.

    It would be interesting if someone did a study on what effect universal healthcare would have on the mental well-being of our citizens. Just the other day I saw a story about a man who has a heart condition and who has been unemployed for an extended period of time. On his own he has cut his heart medication in half (he splits the pills) because he can’t afford it.

  63. avatar
    clestes April 6, 2012 at 12:09 pm #

    This whole argument about whether the mandate is constutional is absurd.

    There is both precedence for it and need for it. Now I am sure that those dull knives Scalia, Thomas and Alito, who do not belong on the court, are incapable of thinking any further than their ideology.

    But both Kennedy and Roberts are not dull knives and are capable of thinking objectively. i wish I was a fly on the wall and was listening to Kagen making the argument for its passage. She is very persuasive and if all else fails, just tell Roberts how this is going to damage his reputation.

    Anyone who thinks he does not care about that is wrong. He would very much like to be thought of as one of the great Chief justices that precideded over a time where HIS court made positve lasting changes to the country and not one who did a great deal of lasting damage to it.

  64. avatar
    JPotter April 6, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    clestes: There is both precedence for it and need for it.

    What precedent / precedence do you have in mind, clestes?

    I would hope that the Justices decide this not based on concerns re: legacies or to serve politcal interests, or even on what is deemed “best for the country” …. but on the merits … on Constitutional precedent.

    Having a “do-over” would be terrible, but I’d like whatever reforms are passed to be bulletproof …. and eventually more extensive.

  65. avatar
    Linda April 6, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

    clestes: This whole argument about whether the mandate is constutional is absurd.

    I would certainly argue in favor of the mandate, but the federal courts split. Two for, two against. Even the two that ruled against differed in their rulings, one just striking the mandate, the other striking the entire act.

    What precedent are you referring to?

  66. avatar
    Majority Will April 6, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    JPotter: What precedent / precedence do you have in mind, clestes?

    I would hope that the Justices decide this not based on concerns re: legacies or to serve politcal interests, or even on what is deemed “best for the country” …. but on the merits … on Constitutional precedent.

    Having a “do-over” would be terrible, but I’d like whatever reforms are passed to be bulletproof …. and eventually more extensive.

    There is this:

    Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

    (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/)

  67. avatar
    J. Potter April 6, 2012 at 5:20 pm #

    Thanks for the reminder on that one, MW! Best Forbes story ever! :D

    Not much of an endorsement, eh?

  68. avatar
    John Reilly April 6, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

    I believe Forbes was distressed about Medicare in 1965. Had Forbes been around in 1776, it would have backed the British.

  69. avatar
    Linda April 6, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Majority Will: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

    I do love to use that on those who trot out what they believe the Founders would have thought, etc. As far as I know, though, it was never challenged in court.

  70. avatar
    Greenfinches April 11, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    Rickey: what effect universal healthcare would have on the mental well-being of our citizens.

    Try comsidering Europe? No panic here if you lose your job, since it means no loss of access to care. In the UK, the only change likely is that you don’t even pay part of the cost eg prescription costs.

    Talk about a load off your mind – speaking as one who was almost unemployed as of Easter, but isn’t.

    So it costs – but it is civilisation!