Here we go. The primary election is February 2, 2010. The unfortunate Roland Burris’s US Senate seat is up for grabs… appointed by the disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich. Burris was unable to garner support for a re-election bid and so announced his retirement.
Illinois Conservative patriot groups are backing solid Conservative Don Lowery (R), a retired circuit court judge, former County State’s Attorney and a VietNam veteran (R), and Andrew Andrzejewski, a Conservative businessman and political outsider running against the entrenched Illinois corrupt political machine. Both of these candidates are running uphill battles against well-funded political machines. Whatever you can do to to help them between now and the 2nd of February please do. Go online and plug into their websites.
If we can pull off another upset in Illinois it will send another unmistakable message to the Democrats who are STILL working behind closed doors to sneak a health care bill past us.
President Obama was invited to speak in front of the Republican Party Conference and went on an 82 minute diatribe, interspersed with some sharp questioning and pointed statements from Republican legislators. Obama took on the same strident tone that he used on the Supreme Court and his attempted bullying of the Republicans is probably not going to gain him many friends among the assembled Congressmen and Senators. read more »
Obama certainly looks down his nose in a condescending manner. Why do I hear "KNEEELLLLLLLLL BEFORE ZOD!!!" from Superman II in my ear?
In opening the State of Union, Obama mentioned the Speaker of the House, the Vice President and the American people. What, no acknowledgement of illegal aliens? Obama apparently is not as tolerant as made to appear.
Isn't Chris Matthews forgetting that Obama is Black more offensive then Harry Reid saying "negro dialect"?
By invoking Bull Run & the Bloody Sunday of the civil rights movement in the State of the Union, Obama implies disagreement with him is racist.
Obama claimed he took office amidst growing government debt. It's getting even worse under him.
Biden certainly seemed gleeful about hosing the banks. Biden looked like a bobblehead the way he couldn't keep his neck still.
Guess we’ll see at tax time if Obama is blowing smoke up our rears about not raising taxes.
If Obama is supposedly one of the greatest orators of world history surpassing Bush’s limited elocutionary abilities, why did he use the word “cops” rather than “police”?
President plans to toss $30 billion here; $30 billion there. Reminds me of the Simpsons bit about Internet stock.
And what if the job bill Obama demands “without delay” is delayed?
I guess all that clean energy technology China is inventing was the cause of all that smog at the Beijing Olympics.
Will Obama really allow offshore drilling or is this a phantom promise like clean-coal technology?
Pelosi’s grin is scarier than the Joker’s.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Naplotano applauds like a lethargic Walrus. read more »
Congress must listen to the anger of the American people
In his State of the Union address Wednesday, President Obama made a particular point about the mood of the public and the affect of that mood on elected officials in Congress. "To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills." That is, the President is telling the Congress that in writing and passing laws he supports, the opposition of the public should be ignored. What the President seems to have missed is the element of consent of the governed. Why should laws obnoxious to the public ever be enacted by their representatives?It might be helpful if the President reread the Declaration of Independence:
...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...
Mr. President, the American people will not long permit you and your party to enact laws and policies which they strongly oppose.
Comments on the State of the Union
The full text of the State of the Union address and interspersed commentary is provided below the fold. The response provided by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell in the chamber of the oldest legislative body in America was brilliant and a stark contrast to the address by President Obama. In Richmond, an address of optimism belonging to a free people who are capable, self sufficient and generous and who can govern themselves at government which is close to and response to them. In Washington, an address of a petty tyrant, that national government is the only answer to all problems for a people who are dependent serfs. Comments are shown offset by breaks and contrasting color.
Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the Presidentshall give to Congress information about the state of our union. Fortwo hundred and twenty years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty.They have done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. Andthey have done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments ofgreat strife and great struggle.
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that ourprogress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed.But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies firstlanded at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the marketcrashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten onBloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were timesthat tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of ourunion. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitationsand our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward asone nation, and one people. read more »
Critics of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s performance in his first term blame him for failing to recognize the threat of the looming subprime lending crisis; his supporters laud the aggressive policies he enacted in response to the crisis.
I fault him for both.
Before the crisis, Bernanke helped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives cover up their scheme to hide trillions of dollars in junk mortgages and give themselves enormous bonuses. In the process, he failed to address the growing housing bubble that precipitated the financial crisis.
His solution was worse. Having learned the wrong lesson from the Great Depression—that the government prolonged it by not intervening more, rather than intervening too much—Bernanke radically expanded government’s power and “reinvented the Fed,” as Time magazine put it mildly in their recent cover story on Bernanke.
Time glowingly continued: “[H]e conjured up trillions of new dollars and blasted them into the economy; engineered massive public rescues of failing private companies… lent to mutual funds, hedge funds, foreign banks, investment banks, manufacturers, insurers and other borrowers who had never dreamed of receiving Fed cash… revolutionized housing finance with a breathtaking shopping spree for mortgage bonds; blew up the Fed’s balance sheet to three times its previous size; and generally transformed the staid arena of central banking into a stage for desperate improvisation.”
“Conjured up,” “blasted,” “engineered,” “revolutionized,” “breathtaking,” “shopping spree,” “blew up,” “desperate improvisation”—somehow these don’t sound like particularly reassuring terms for investors in the world’s largest financial system. read more »
Those still not convinced should ask themselves before they run off and join such groups how much control they want to cede over their lives to the beneficence of the collective. For once one signs over the very right to ownership to one’s dwelling and possessions, where does it end?
Willing to relinquish rights to the conjugal affections of your spouse to the group? Don’t snicker.
In many cults, those not willing to surrender their spouses to the group are labeled as being insufficiently devoted to the group or "too individualistic" in orientation. Interestingly this allegation is invoked increasingly in the churches of today as they totter ever closer to the edges of apostasy and unbelief.
Those enamored with their own smug progressivism will claim such excesses are more characteristic of the religious mindset. Secularists would never stand for such outrages and the infringement on the most basic of relationships?
Think so do you? Though he might have started off religious, before the last drop of Kool-Aid was slurped, Jim Jones' position on the Scriptures and the beauties of socialism had more in common with the National Counsel of Churches than Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition. And for those that think Marx is the cat's whiskers, what do they have to say about this thinker's proposal that the individual family and private marriages should be abolished?
And even if one happens to have a proclivity to these bizarre living arrangements without all the kinky wifeswapping and such, on what grounds does one object when these compounds lay claim to your children? Some of these COMMUNITIES conspire to undermine familial bonds between parents and offspring in a group setting or by minimizing the time parents spend alone with their biological progeny. read more »
This year presents and uncommon opportunity to bring change to the senate.
This week's election of Scott Brown to the US Senate from Massachusetts puts the spotlight on senate races generally. One-third of senators are elected in each two-year election and serve for six years. That's 33 1/3 per election--and this is the year when that 34th senator is up for election.
Furthermore, in ordinary times incumbency is a strong advantage that almost guarantees reelection. So only where a senator is not seeking reelection is there a "competitive" seat. Two liberal Democrats (Dorgan, Dodd) have already announced retirement plans. Two others have been appointed rather than elected (Bennett, Burris) and only Bennett has announced that he intends to run. One more (Spector) was elected as a Republican and changed parties. (I wonder if he's regretting his decision right about now.)
The potential for change we can really believe in is great.
Larry Sabato predicts that if the election were held today, the Democrats would retain only 52 seats. He suggests that the political environment might be better for the Democrats in the fall if the economy improves. I don't see the Democrats making any changes in their direction that might make that happen. The more likely scenario is worse both for the economy and for them. read more »
Yesterday Democrats suffered a mortifying trouncing in Massachusetts’ special Senate election, in which Republican Scott Brown zoomed from 17 points behind Democrat Martha Coakley in the polls less than two weeks ago to winning by a handy 5%.
As AP reported, “Brown’s victory was so sweeping, he even won in the Cape Cod community where Kennedy, the longtime liberal icon, died of brain cancer last August.”
To be fair, Coakley did manage to capture 84% of Cambridge, Amherst, and Provincetown, which tend to serve as bellwethers for—well, themselves.
Coakley’s complaint that her poll numbers started to drop right after the Senate passed its version of the health care bill on Christmas rang a bit hollow, given that she campaigned vociferously to vote for that very health care bill if elected to Congress.
In the wake of the clear message sent to them by the people of Massachusetts, Democrats are slowly backing away from their suicidal insistence on passing a bill only 33% of Americans favor and that even they don’t like, considering more bipartisan/free-market solutions, and resolving to address healthcare reform in a more piecemeal fashion.
Gotcha! Actually, Democrats are considering a number of insane, Mission Impossible-style workaround strategies to thwart the will of the people and pass their health care bill without a filibuster-proof Senate. These include:
• Forcing the House to pass the Senate bill, word-for-word, with nary a change in punctuation. This option would throw out all of the heatedly negotiated agreements between the two chambers conducted in the past few weeks, including the major union employee exemption to the excise tax on “Cadillac plans.” It would also ignore many of the other differences between the bills for which Democrats in the House say they cannot accept the House version as is, such as language on abortion funding. House Democrat Bart Stupak, author of the Stupak Amendment, reported on Monday that “House members will not vote for the Senate bill. There’s no interest in that.” He added that when the notion was proposed at a caucus meeting among Democrats, “It went over like a lead balloon.” read more »
For decades, American motorists have been subjected to propaganda insisting that they either need to drive less or give up safe, comfortable automobiles in favor of what amount to motorized coffins in order to preserve natural resources and environmental quality. Now that this policy goal is pretty much on the road to being implemented, the elites running our lives are not content to sit back in the glow of their accomplishment but are rather laying the groundwork for the next phase in their grand dream of limiting the free movement of the American people.
One would think the increasing popularity of electric and hybrid automobiles would please transportation planners and social engineers. However, as most realize somewhere along life's journey, getting what you want is not always what you expected.
For while hybrid cars might cut back on emissions and fuel consumption, they also take a bite out of gas tax revenues. But instead of tightening their belts and learning to make due with less as they counsel you when you complain about rising fuel costs, government planners are now conniving to pass the hardship on to you by altering the way transportation taxes are assessed.
Currently, such taxes are gathered in about the fairest way possible (a concept seldom associated with taxes) by collecting it in an innocuously private manner from those cautious enough to pay in cash at the bump based upon how many gallons acquired. However, from a plan being considered in Oregon, motorized Americans will have to contend with another governmental intrusion into their lives of Orwellian proportions. read more »
Supporters of the Democrats’ health care bill offer the following take on Tuesday’s special election in Massachusetts between Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha “Kennedy” Coakley, a plea they hope will draw on voters’ sense of fairness and magnanimity:
If Brown wins, the health care bill will not be passed. It is a terrible shame that something this nation has frittered away a year debating and Congress has spent a year drafting, something that may not get another chance again—if at all—for a whole generation, could be dismantled because of the obstinacy of one man who wins a special election in a tiny state. Brown may even derail Obama’s entire agenda.
As if it will do any good, here’s a point-by-point rebuttal of this selfless appeal by Democrats to our leftist instincts:
(1) The point of a debate is to have two sides present their cases and see which makes the better argument. The outcome is not predetermined, much as Democrats would like it to be and have tried to make it so. Republicans spoke, Democrats spoke, and the American people made up their minds: Republicans won.
(2) The fact that we spent a year debating this horrendous bill, in all its myriad forms, is indeed deplorable, when we could have been talking about how to encourage the Iranian protestors, win in Afghanistan, or abolish the Department of Education. But just because gallons of ink have been spilled and billions of megabytes have been transmitted and trillions of cubic feet of C02 have been exhaled thrashing out numerous claims made by Democrats and debunked by Republicans, doesn’t mean we have to embrace the fallacy of sunken costs and pass something that stinks just to rationalize our squandered effort. read more »
A raw deal for workers in self funded employer plans
The health care reform bill H.R. 3590, which passed the Senate on December 24, 2009 contains in Section 9001 of Title IX a new excise tax on high cost employer sponsored health coverage.While some have described this tax as being aimed at 'cadillac health plans' a closer look at the bill reveals it is a death threat to health care coverage for those whose employer's sponsor self funded plans.The 40% excise tax this bill imposes on costs in any month of over $708.33 for any single worker and $1916.67 for any family will quickly lead such employers to terminate the health coverage of their workers covered by such plans. Any worker or family member with a hospitalization would easily incur costs which exceed the monthly cap. In any month the cap is exceeded the 40% tax is imposed on the amount paid for health care for that worker which is over the cap.Senator's Jim Webb and Mark Warner (both D-VA) voted for the bill with this provision in it. If you are a Virginian in an employer sponsored self funded health plan, you might want to let your Senator's know that you oppose this particularly foul pernicious section. (The links are to their web site email form.)
Weighing in on the controversy surrounding the Senate Majority Leader’s racially insensitive remarks about candidate Barack Obama, Kanye West declared at a recent benefit for Haitian earthquake victims, “Harry Reid doesn’t care about dark-skinned black people with Negro dialects!”
Oh, wait—sorry, he didn’t. According to Harry Reid’s electability criteria for black Democratic candidates—“light-skinned” with “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one”—I notice that the following are all A-grade presidential material: Hillary “I Don’t Feel No Ways Tired” Clinton, Rod “I’m Blacker than Barack Obama” Blagojevich, and Bill “Our First Black President” Clinton.
On the taboo list are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Marion Barry.
Also forbidden because of their complexion are many dark-skinned black Republicans, such as Clarence Thomas, J. C. Watts, and Alan Keyes.
Democrats’ response to Reid’s outrageous remarks, as revealed in John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s new book “Game Change,” was to get angry at… Trent Lott.
Last week my column “Liberal Syntax: A Noun, a Verb, and a Bush Smear” offered a rule that characterizes liberals’ defense of their mishandling of national security and the economy. For more general purposes, such as their defense of Reid’s remarks, I propose replacing “Bush” with “Republican.”
Since they brought up Lott’s comment, let’s drag it out into the light again and compare it to Reid’s sentiments. Lott: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.” read more »
Albert Mohler's sidekick Russel Moore denounced the Obama Effigy as "Satanic". Was this theologian as outspoken in condemning similar outrageous attacks against other political figures such President Bush and Sarah Palin? More importantly, would he now care to speak out against the Founding Fathers for similar protests against King George during the Revolutionary War, or is this form of protest only immoral when directed against a Black person?
New York City health officials in a pamphlet are teaching junkies the proper method for shooting up dope. Yet it must be pointed out that this is the jurisdiction where scholastic bakesales are on the verge of prohibition and where, if city officials had their way, table salt would be frowned upon apparently more now than hard narcotics.
French thought police plot to invade private homes. This is to be done in the name of preventing "psychological violence" by criminalizing robust domestic verbal disagreements. However, what advocates of this law might not be telling you is that, to the left-leaning man-haters out there, this offense consists of little more than simply disagreeing with a woman, verbally boring into a woman during a spat started by a woman, or merely speaking to one when they've basically told you to shutup.
It should be interesting to see how this law plays out. For you see, France is being overrun by Islamic immigrants and it is part of their religion to beat their wives and even kill them when they get out of line. Since France is a Western European social democracy, in most instances these multiculturalists lack the spine to declare that a foreign culture is in the wrong. Therefore, what will happen will be that the Muslims will continue to do whatever it is they do to their women and it will be the European male that will be further denuded for fear of criminal prosecution. read more »
When conservatives correctly point out that one disastrous terrorist attack and another catastrophic but thwarted attack both happened during President Obama’s first term in office, because his agencies either overlooked the perpetrators’ jihadist intentions or failed to act on relevant intelligence, liberals respond with an argument that was discredited nearly a decade ago: “But 9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch!”
Obama supporters mocked Rudy Giuliani’s recent claim to George Stephanopolous “We had no domestic attacks under Bush,” stubbornly avoiding Giuliani’s obvious implication that he was speaking post-9/11. Until last week, Democrats loved to excoriate Giuliani for making endless references to the terrorist attack that occurred while he was mayor of New York; now they claim he forgets it happened. Which is it?
Conservatives’ point is that Obama has forgotten the lessons of 9/11, which Bush did not have available to him until, surprisingly—9/11. The Ft. Hood and Flight 253 attacks happened in the first year of Obama’s administration, and 9/11 happened in the first year of Bush’s administration, but Obama had the example of 9/11 to learn from, and Bush did not. (Even if you count the thwarted attack by the shoe bomber in December 2001, that bomber tried to strike just months after 9/11, when fully revamped security procedures were not running as smoothly as they are now; also, the bomber used the novel, unprecedented technique of wearing the bomb on his person so that it would not be detected by luggage screeners.) read more »
Some may claim that this headline is a little strong. But if one goes back and studies history, one finds that Hitler also deemphasized the religious aspects of Christmas in deference to a generalized "winter holiday".
This was only Obama's first Christmas in the Oval Office. Yet the President has already tried to de-Christ Christmas in at least two instances.
It has come to public's attention that the White House considered not putting up its Nativity display. Instead, plans were considered for a "more inclusive" Christmas.
G.K. Chesterton said "Religious liberty might suppose to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it." So in the vain attempt to feign a posture of expansive sensitivity, the Obama administration was on the verge of excluding those who had someone sitting on the throne of their hearts other than Barack Obama.
The President provided more insight into his theology at the lighting of the National Christmas Tree on the Ellipse just beyond the White House. Obama said, "Tonight, we celebrate a story that is as beautiful as it is simple. This story of a child born far from home to parents guided only by faith, but who would ultimately spread a message that has endured for more than 2000 years --- that...we are each called to love one another as brother and sister."
That is only part of the story. While Christ did come into the world to teach us that we are to love one another, more importantly, that love is only possible as a result of the part of His message that Obama deliberately omitted. That is that Christ came into the world to die for our sins and to rise from the dead so that whosoever would believe in Him would have everlasting life. read more »
Each of the two ratified versions of the health care bill currently sitting in Congress was barely passed, by virtually the slimmest margin possible, in a hectic last-minute stampede. Dozens of harsh compromises had to be hammered out to cobble together the fragile framework now standing in each chamber.
The two bills are like delicate Jenga towers, swaying nerve-wrackingly in the breeze, that must now be reassembled by a team of 535 clumsy attention-seekers into a single tower twice as tall. And legislators across the two chambers—and even within them—are not even speaking the same language.
Here are a few of the myriad discrepancies legislators must reconcile to ensure that their monument to Obama’s greatness doesn’t tumble to the ground:
In the House version of the bill, a government-run insurance exchange is created on a national level and includes a public option. In the Senate version, exchanges are created on the state level and do not include a public option. Virtually identical!
The House completely bans the practice 0f charging those with preexisting conditions higher premiums. The Senate allows insurers to offer unlimited discounts for customers who engage in subjectively defined wellness activities: say, exercising, eating healthy, not having contracted lung cancer.
Insurance exchanges are implemented in 2013 in the House bill and 2014 in the Senate bill.
In the House version, employers are forced to provide insurance for their employees and pay a fine if they do not. In the Senate version, employers are not required to provide insurance, but pay a fine for employees who opt for government-run insurance and receive federal subsidies. The House has higher penalties than the Senate. read more »
Most Americans would agree that freedom of conscience ranks among our most cherished liberties. As such, the state should protect this particular right by almost any means necessary and reasonable (especially for citizens).
In California, an initiative has been undertaken to get a ballot before voters to determine the propriety of Christmas music in California public schools. Within the measure is a clause that would require schools to notify parents 21 days before the specified tunes would be played or performed so that students can opt out of being exposed to such material.
Those having embraced a rigorous interpretation regarding the separation of church and state will applaud the measure as a enlightened compromise as these voices will be among the first to point out that, in these swinging days of free thought, not everyone embraces the Christianity espoused by these Yuletide harmonies. One must ask then would the exponents of the unsullied conscience be as outspoken in defense of those wanting to be excused from exposure to more progressivist causes and material.
Absolutarian relativists claim that, in order to ensure the scholastic neutrality of the classroom, not even a whiff of religious material can be permitted to waft across young impressionable minds. That might be what is claimed in theory, but the reality falls far short as an exclusionary objectivity is applied only to Christianity with other worldviews and religions actually imposed upon students.
Any rational person will admit that, in order to have the most comprehensive understanding of the world possible, one must have an understanding of religion as one of history’s most influential motivating forces. However, there is a point at which education becomes advocacy. read more »
So much for the lie that poverty causes terrorism.
Despite the mainstream media’s refusal to accept it, there is one factor more reliable than any other in predicting whether an individual will engage in terrorist acts against the United States and its allies:
(1) It’s not whether he lives in third world poverty and resents being overshadowed by the imperialist West. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, was the son of a prominent, wealthy Nigerian bank chairman. Abdulmutallab attended the British School in Togo and University College London, the latter of which cost as much as Obama shells out for his daughters to attend a semester at Sidwell Friends. Abdulmutallab’s college dorm was a $6 million apartment in London’s West End.
If poverty caused terrorism, then a corollary of this argument is that a country’s efforts to relieve poverty should prevent terrorism. Yet the U.S. provided Arlington, VA-born Major Nidal Malik Hasan with a free medical education worth tens of thousands of dollars, which apparently did not console him enough to prevent him from murdering fellow soldiers on his military post in Ft. Hood, Texas. Indeed, Hasan planned and carried out the attack after having been promoted from captain to major, despite miserable performance reviews.
John Walker Lindh, the “American Taliban,” grew up in Silver Spring, Maryland and San Anselmo, California and attended a “California Distinguished School” in the Tamalpais Union High School District. read more »
Greenland Used to be Green
I've been a little obsessed lately with trying to get up to speed on the whole climate change issue. I've been ignoring up until now. Nevertheless, my quick review of the available information tells me two things: 1) The link between increased CO2 and increased global temperatures is greatly exaggerated, and 2) The proposed fixes for the U.S. are a 90% reduction in our production of CO2 - and absurdly drastic and unrealistic remedy. I think the more people study up on this the more outraged they will become. A couple of quick points bear mentioning. First, the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW)folks predicted that 2009 would be the hottest year ever and 2009 turned out to be an average year. Their prediction is based on the idea that increasing CO2 levels cause global warming. Since the world produces more CO2 each year, it would be shocking - from the point of view of their model - to see temperatures decline. The problem is that even their own data demonstrates that there is no causal relationship between these two factors. The cooler than predicted 2009 should cause grave doubts among the true believers who still think there is evidence of AGW. The video linked below will give you a nerdy look at the controversy going on behind the scenes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lt4vOp8QhY Here's another quick YouTube video that demonstrates the failure of the AGW hypothesis that I learned from John Stossel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd7M4Hqwdbg Take a look at Al Gore's global warming chart in An Inconvenient Truth. read more »
Senators are clueless
CNS News, an online news source, has been asking Democrat senators whether they think the healthcare bill is constitutional. Their latest "target" is Sen McCaskill of Missouri. When asked, she stated:
Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance, and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.
You gotta love the way these Democrats memorize their playbook. I've heard the "car insurance: argument several times before--including, tellingly, an OFA email. Trouble is, it doesn't track. The government doesn't
- mandate buying car insurance: only if you own a car and drive it
- tell you what kind of insurance to buy: only sets minimums
- doesn't sell car insurance: the "public option"
- doesn't tax you if your policy sets limits too high
But it does fine you or throw you in jail if you do drive and don't have insurance. Maybe that's what she meant. Those nice, caring Democrats telling you that you wouldn't have to buy health insurance if only you weren't breathing.
CNS News has been asking this question of quite a few senators, all just as clueless. The other "authority" given is the "welfare clause." To quote from the Constitution: read more »