uvAggravator2.0

pander, pander, pander

Do you think this is a lasting “mainstreamization” of bold conservatism or a temporary reaction to the extreme liberalism of the Obama Administration? These polls seem to fluctuate over the years based on the issue(s) du jour. (I’m not disagreeing with you, just trying to dig a little deeper to see if we can find some long-term trends.)

Jack- No they aren't plants, they are genuine racists who keep popping up much to the Kst embarrassments.

Change- There are also about 100-1000 cops at these rallies, depending on the size.

Are they there to support the racists?

Debatable,... but most of us just have a job to do.

I heard that the underprivlege Fitsimmonds announced Monday evening he was going to Run for Colgans seat.

What a dope. He needs to keep his high paying job w/McQuigg.
Course they probably will try to hold on to both jobs.

Sure are going to have alot of Battles in the couple years.

Anonymous, your spectacular defense of the Tea Party has shivered my timbers. So, I'm swearing off my socialist tendencies.

But I'm wondering, if I join the Tea Party, do I have to wear one of those white robes with the hood to the meetings? Hey, it had better be free, I'm not paying for any kind of uniform.

Private roads!? The horror! What next, private liquor stores?

I honestly can’t say that I am bothered with the junk mail that I don’t even look at before I toss it in the paper recycling being delayed. I do get annoyed with the erratic delivery of publications I subscribe to. I used to get my USA Sports Weekly faithfully on Wednesday.

I think the point is the junk mail is the only thing that’s easy to prove… because everyone has that attitude toward it. But because Bulk Mailers are such a big business for the P.O. systems are in place to track their mailings- where as they aren’t with regular first class mail and periodicals.

In short with First and Periodicals it’s not Express Mail, and you aren’t doing the volume of mailing with the P.O., so you don’t have as much clout with them as the Bulk Mailer does.

Talk with anyone that used to work in at the Airport Annex in Cville who now works in Richmond and they will tell you that Richmond’s priority is Richmond’s mail, whenever they get extra time then they’ll run/process Cville’s mail.

The Sandston plant is short on the equipment and staff needed to process all that additional mail volume they now have. But hey mail is a dinosaur now so who really cares anyway.

One can only hope that Turkish voters wake up and realize the dead-end they are being steered down. However I would be concerned about the government subverting the vote to stay in power. Fortunately that will never happen here – I think.

Spock,

Aren’t you the one who said “I have attended too many Klan/Nazi/WP rallies…”?.

As far as we know you are the only one here who attends that kind of stuff; that does not leave you much room to insinuate that people are racists.

History will remember this speech as one of the signs of the future World War 3, when US decides to invade China as an excuse to stop them from taking their market.

It's an old trick -- plant a few leftist operatives in Tea Party rallies, have them shout some racist epithets and carry racist signs, then blame the Tea Party for its racists elements.

"Rules for Radicals"

Spock
Why do I care what gay activists put on their signs?

I read the story and there is no evidence there at all that her loss of employment had anything to do with her being convicted for changing the number of pills on her prescription. In fact, the story states very clearly that there is no indication of a connection.

It says that now. It certainly didn’t say that when I wrote this. I’ve updated the story because, after all, it’s important to get things right.

Personally, I don’t think that the error is quite so serious. It’s true that she was fired, and it’s true that she’s been convicted of prescription drug fraud. It’s simply not true that the two are connected. While a noteworthy detail, and bad because it’s wrong, it’s a far cry from erroneously reporting that somebody has been convicted of something or fired from someplace. (I’m looking at you, NBC-29.) That is, the basic facts are right, but the causality is off.

Anyhow, that’s really all academic—none of that is to excuse my error. Wrong is wrong, and that’s no good. I’ve updated this to correct my logical leap.

Look, Bubby, I agree with you completely on the Wall Street bankers. OK?

"...a family that has to move because of job transfer or unemployment (conditions beyond their control)..."

In most cases, those are NOT conditions beyond their control. Hard workers, and those who continually improve their skills, will be the last to get laid off, and will find work even in a bad market.

PU Conservative- plenty of the T-Baggers have painted up Obama with Hitler and Nazi references.

The reason that Wall Street bankers matter is that while they were engaging in criminal conspiracy (see Goldman Sachs & Co, Citibank SEC fines)they were bailed out, but a family that has to move because of job transfer or unemployment (conditions beyond their control) are talked down like deadbeat scum when they can't sell, pay two notes, or afford the mortgage.

Ruinous economic policies and lax oversight were pursued by the U.S. Government leading up to the 2008 economic collapse and they were done in the name of all U.S. citizens, so we all bear responsibility.

Now, because of sound issues, I cannot hear the thing so haven't watched it. However, I have heard this thought before, and to a greater extent, subscribe to it. Were you serious in suggesting it would be controversial? Then again, perhaps only some of us have ever heard this theory? It has, however, been around for a very long time, a decade or two for sure and maybe even since the 70's (or before?). I realize there were thoughts about things back into the first recorded history that sometimes hit home today, and I have only scratched the merest of the surface of that.

" We use the tax free status to encourage certain activity."

we do but the result is a stark dividing line between haves and have nots and people, acting in their own and family self interests do harm to a true competitive market economy as well as, ultimately harm to their own interests also.

people subvert their own ethics to hold onto a job that provides health care when if they were not held hostage would tell the crooked employer where to go and walk away.

People who are creative an perhaps destined for greater things have to play it safe and stay at a stifling job that they would not otherwise.

Our basic American entrepreneurship has been crippled by the quest to make sure you and your family have health care - and to prophylactically protect themselves from almost certain bankruptcy if their kid has a heart defect or similar.

getting that health care is the holy grail for most families in modern society.

the only problem is - more and more good, hard working, well-educated, motivated people are essentially denied the ability to work hard and prosper.

Two thoughts:

Larry G. and hydra RH need to get their own Blog.

Mr. Bacon needs to revise his Boomergeddon Blog. It has ugly grapic.

blog advisor

Ha ha. Orwell would be smiling. Or not.

Bubby, we agree on the Wall Street bailout, so you can stop bringing it up.

I'm just tired of hearing complaints from people who bought at the top of the market and now find they owe more than the house is worth.

It was a CF before and it will probably be a CF now, but at least it will be the same CF in every state.

And it isn't just health insurance, did you see the scam on life insurance?

As for inexpensive gap policies, you probably don't get what you pay for. Like those temporary or interim policies for between jobs: they open you up to prexisting condition problems so they cost more than they save.

If the employer wants to offer a cafe plan, he probably can, and the insurors probably don't make it easy: they would rather offer bundled plans.

But I'm opposed to paying income tax for stuff that isn't strictly income: if you go that route, people wo get free transit will wind up paying tax on that "money" in which case they will probably decide they would rather have the money and drive.

We use the tax free status to encourage certain activity.

Anyone who uses an idiotic term like "Rethuglican" has shown that there is no reason to pay attention to his silly rants.

It's a contract Jack. You pay your mortgage or you surrender the collateral - in this case the house. You don't need to get sanctimonious or moralistic about it, it's just business son. Banks don't want the house? Negotiate.

The rub is that only the little guys are having to risk living in the street. The Wall Street guys got a bail out. But now would be a great time to threaten your mortgage holder with home ownership and go live in a apartment for a year or so. They'll be giving those homes away soon enough.

In parallel with this concept from an ancient Welsh term, I thought that it has an approach much the same as Jung later viewed the person as patient. We all come from "a thousand year stem" (his words, in a letter) in terms of the past, and uses of inherited memory;or "habitat" as internal and external perceptions.

Spend,spend,spend while unemployment goes threw the roof ain't a good plan either.

So when did the blue blooded vertebrates (known for their distinctive call of “repeal the estate tax! extend the Bush tax cuts!”) evolve?

It’s a shame this type of article passes for journalism. Make a bold title statement; throw in a few paragraphs that make you think these claims might actually be based in fact. Oh, and then throw in a final paragraph that says everything is just speculation.

But I would be interested to see what the commenter Trvevor Reese was talking about (July 29, 2010 at 7:49 AM) “If you read the Police report you find out that she fudged the number on a prescription pad for Tylenol #3 to get more pills so she wouldn’t have to go back. She never even got the drugs and was so sick that the Police let her come in the next day to do the paperwork”

It is very easy to get unemployment if your fired for snorting coke while stealing money and sleeping on the job. All you need to do is apply for benefits and then get lucky if the ex-employer does not take care of the paperwork and interview to provide the “cause” for firing.

If they paperwork gets backup on the HRs desk and then they just toss it…here come the Unemployment checks. And since this is the government we are talking about, the paperwork is a pain and you have to set aside a chuck of your time for the interview.

I was pleased to hear Tom Frederick state at the RWSA Board meeting on Tuesday that a smaller Ragged Mountain Dam would not likely meet with regulatory problems from DEQ (directly countering the impression left by this article). And as Victoria said, the demand analysis almost certainly overstates how much water we'll be using in 50 years. I remain hopeful that we can come to an agreement on an alternative plan that puts conservation and efficiency front and center, meets our ACTUAL long-term needs, minimizes environmental damage, and costs the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle millions of dollars less than the current plan.

I was pleased to hear Tom Frederick state at the RWSA Board meeting on Tuesday that a smaller Ragged Mountain Dam would not likely meet with regulatory problems from DEQ (directly countering the impression left by this article). And as Victoria said, the demand analysis almost certainly overstates how much water we'll be using in 50 years. I remain hopeful that we can come to an agreement on an alternative plan that puts conservation and efficiency front and center, meets our ACTUAL long-term needs, minimizes environmental damage, and costs the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle millions of dollars less than the current plan.

I was pleased to hear Tom Frederick state at the RWSA Board meeting on Tuesday that a smaller Ragged Mountain Dam would not likely meet with regulatory problems from DEQ (directly countering the impression left by this article). And as Victoria said, the demand analysis almost certainly overstates how much water we'll be using in 50 years. I remain hopeful that we can come to an agreement on an alternative plan that puts conservation and efficiency front and center, meets our ACTUAL long-term needs, minimizes environmental damage, and costs the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle millions of dollars less than the current plan.

I was pleased to hear Tom Frederick state at the RWSA Board meeting on Tuesday that a smaller Ragged Mountain Dam would not likely meet with regulatory problems from DEQ (directly countering the impression left by this article). And as Victoria said, the demand analysis almost certainly overstates how much water we'll be using in 50 years. I remain hopeful that we can come to an agreement on an alternative plan that puts conservation and efficiency front and center, meets our ACTUAL long-term needs, minimizes environmental damage, and costs the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle millions of dollars less than the current plan.

I was pleased to hear Tom Frederick state at the RWSA Board meeting on Tuesday that a smaller Ragged Mountain Dam would not likely meet with regulatory problems from DEQ (directly countering the impression left by this article). And as Victoria said, the demand analysis almost certainly overstates how much water we'll be using in 50 years. I remain hopeful that we can come to an agreement on an alternative plan that puts conservation and efficiency front and center, meets our ACTUAL long-term needs, minimizes environmental damage, and costs the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle millions of dollars less than the current plan.

I was pleased to hear Tom Frederick state at the RWSA Board meeting on Tuesday that a smaller Ragged Mountain Dam would not likely meet with regulatory problems from DEQ (directly countering the impression left by this article). And as Victoria said, the demand analysis almost certainly overstates how much water we'll be using in 50 years. I remain hopeful that we can come to an agreement on an alternative plan that puts conservation and efficiency front and center, meets our ACTUAL long-term needs, minimizes environmental damage, and costs the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle millions of dollars less than the current plan.

I encountered an interesting twist to VA unemployment law when I was laid off at the beginning of 2009.

Had I merely been working full time, I would have been eligible for benefits. But because I was working full time *and* spending $100k to earn an Executive MBA from UVa-Darden on the side when I was laid off, I was deemed ineligible. (I was classified as a college student.)

Well, I guess that solves the noise problem.

(Note: The message “If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for reading!” is funny to see when the URL contains “utm_medium=feed”.)

Breitbart was the first conservative to use the same smear tactics the leftists used on the Tea Party and guess what? It worked - both the White House and the NAACP looked like idiots. Mission accomplished.

“when the NAACP can cry victim.”

At the end of the day, this is what it is all about. Me, I believe the NAACP and the pro-Latino groups are currently locked in battle over who can portray themselves as the more victimized special interest group.

Waldo,
Like Jack, I also read the story and I think you may have misread it. Please read it again and see if you think it agrees with your post.

“House Bill 2013” and “SB1070”

0 = Arizona
2 = USA/ Our Constitution/ We the People of the United States

This month of July 2010, our U.S. Federal courts have found the so called State of Arizona hate filled legislation namely “House Bill 2013” and “SB1070” Un-constitution (So much for the intellect of Jan Brewer, “Did you read the bills you signed?”). But we all know that they will go crying to the Supreme Court of the United States, please, please, please go. We will fight you in Arizona, any other state, and yes in Washington DC. We will not tire, we will not be silent and we will persevere, I promise you.

In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme of clans; the Baggers, Birthers and Blowhards (people who love to push their beliefs and hate on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win in November. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

It’s all about politics: Jan Brewer you were never elected to be Governor, but you have no problem trying to get elected on the back of undocumented workers, you loser (sure you may win but the long-term effects to your so called State is just beginning). Here is a partial list of your hate filled legislation;

1. S.B. 1070,
2. House Bill 2013
3. No permit conceal weapons law,
4. The famous Birthers law,
5. Banning Ethnic studies law,

6. Could she be behind the Mural in Prescott, Arizona, ordered to be whiten,
7. On deck to pass, no citizenship to babies born to undocumented workers,

8. If she can read she should look up Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago (which was un-constitution and failed when legally challenged),
9. The boycotted Martin Luther King Day, what idiots don’t want another holiday? Yes, you guessed it Arizona.

Well Arizona, you can keep boycotting new holidays, passing hate filled legislation and the rest of our country will continue to challenge you in court of law and Boycott your so-called state.

Lets face it, no one can real believe anything that comes out of Brewer’s mouth, in an interview, this year, in an attempt to gain sympathy, she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (which ended 1945) but of course we find out the truth that father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955. But we are suppose to believe everything else she says, right!

As they say in the World Cup: Gooooooooal!

" Because, as you say it is not compensation forwork."

If I said that I misspoke.

I said that it WAS compensation for work.

And most companies offer the same HC to all employees - for instance schools do.

But if the school teacher already is on the spouses plan, their school plan automatically becomes secondary insurance and only picks up what the primary pays - and between the spouse and the teacher, they essentially pay twice as much in premiums for not twice as much in coverage.

If they got the money instead, they could likely buy a much less expensive gap coverage plan and use the savings for other things.

The current Health Care system is a convoluted mess basically owned and operated by big business who did their best through their Republican supporters to turn ObamaCare into a CF - and did succeed.

Clinton Appointee disregards law and Constitution in support of meritless government arguments

Clinton Appointed Susan Bolton:

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law), by enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”— U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton
The argument is this, If the Federal government abdicates it’s Constitutional duties (which it has) which are to protect American borders and protect the American people, is a State within the Constitution if that State enforces Constitutional laws that the Federal government refuses to enforce?

Clinton appointee Judge Susan Bolton is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with America. She has made herself complicit in the Federal government’s violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. We are no longer a nation of laws; we are now, a nation of progressive judicial rulings.(see article)

Judge Bolden did not rule on the facts of Arizona’s immigration case nor did she rule on the law. Instead Judge Bolton ruled on the nonsensical “what if” arguments that the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration have been floating in the Progressive Leftwing Media. (Complaint)(Response)(Decision)

The Soetoro administration mischaracterized this case as a civil rights issue instead of the National security or National sovereignty issue that it is. And judge Bolton foolishly bought these unreasonable arguments instead of applying the law. This is exactly the danger of an Elena Kagan and a Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court because this is exactly what they will do.

The Soetoro administration argued “what if” resident aliens or even Mexican Americans are stopped and asked about their citizenship wouldn’t that be a violation of their civil rights? They also argued, “what if“ there is racial profiling would that be a violation of civil rights?

The Soetoro administration argued for the court to accept that there might be instances of civil rights violations, if Arizona police in the normal conduct of their duties ask someone in a lawful contact to show some identification. Judge Susan Bolton did.

The answers to these “what if” arguments where so simple that even a Federal judge couldn’t mess up a decision on the facts, until of course Judge Susan Bolton did. It is clear now that her apparent inability to adjudicate unbiasly and logically is probably why this Clinton appointee was selected to hear this case.

That notwithstanding, the answers are, one: we are all subject to being stopped and asked for identification. There is no undue civil rights burden placed on anyone asked to produce identification in this manner. As citizens, we carry identification with us at all times. Two, the Arizona law is explicitly written specifically to prevent and discourage racial profiling. Racial profiling is a politically correct trumped up non sequitur meant to cloud the debate and divide the America people by the Left.

Look every time you and I are stopped by the police we are asked for identification, but according to Judge Bolton’s ruling illegal aliens are now a special protected class complete with special rights, they cannot be asked the question that hundreds of thousands of Americans are asked every day, “May I see some identification.” Below are provisions of Arizona’s 1070 bill that Judge Bolton blocked.

Key parts of Senate Bill 1070 that will not go into effect Thursday:

• The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there’s reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.
• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers.”
• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)
• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

Andy McCarthy said that this decision is “nuts”

The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.

The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as “a thing apart,” and that Congress had therefore “manifested a purpose … to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system” that would not unduly subject them to “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. –Andy McCarthy (source)
Judge Bolton has done irreparable harm to the integrity and independence of all U.S. jurisprudence. Her ruling is further confirmation of the corruption of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the U.S. government.

It is apparent to everyone except the Radical Progressives and Judge Susan Bolton, that the Federal Government is engaged complicatedly with the enemies of the United States to fundamentally change this country. Change it from a country based on the principles of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers into a nation that no longer is a nation of laws but a nation of progressive judicial rulings.

http://creatingorwellianworld-view-alaphiah.blogspot.com/2010/07/clinton-appointee-disregards-law-and.html

I strongly support a gulag for Farmvilleans - no matter the cost.

I am so sick and tired of all those darn Facebook postings!

"...if they get dumped and lose their insurance."

Been there done that.

What people need to understand is that it is more a matter of WHEN, not if.

"why not allow employees who don't want the health plan to have the money "

=============================

Because, as you say it is not compensation forwork. It is not their money, it is the companies money, and the company might prefer to use it to keep employee contributions down for everyone else.

There is nothing to prevent a company from setting up a plan as you describe, why do we need a law to REQUIRE it?

"why not allow employees who don't want the health plan to have the money "

=============================

Because, as you say it is not compensation forwork. It is not their money, it is the companies money, and the company might prefer to use it to keep employee contributions down for everyone else.

There is nothing to prevent a company from setting up a plan as you describe, why do we need a law to REQUIRE it?

Spit on congressmen, call them n****** - video proof shows otherwise. Obama as Hitler - You mean the DEMOCRAT LaRouche Pac signs?
This guy is an idiot.

Larry is right about how we do health care.

I don;t understand why the Republicans haven't figured out that HCR could be the best thing to happen to small businesses.

Unless they only like big business.

because they are not compensation for work.

The law allows you to defer taxes on your pension...

and the law allows HSAs

why not allow employees who don't want the health plan to have the money go into an HSA so they can use it to cover expenses not covered by a spouse health plan or even a high-deduction plan?

What I am saying here - make no mistake - is that our current laws have screwed up health care and turned it into an anti-market, anti-competitive mess.

If the law changed to tax health care plans - on what grounds would people object to that?

We have government laws here that legitimizes winners and losers and haves and have nots for no explainable reason.

If we gave the money to every employee and required that it was only tax free if it was spent on health but let employees choose on how to spend it - we'd have competition in the market.

but neither the Republicans nor the anti-Obama-care have ever mentioned that as an alternative to Obama_care.

The Federal Government is violating its contract with the american people.John Lock would suggest the moral thing would be to have a revolution.

"And if it was, and you could take the money instead of the insurance - "

Now you are adding an additional qualification into the argument.

You can opt not to participate and keep your share of the payments, but you usually don;t get to keep the employers contribution, too. Thats one of the things that makes insurance different and why we don't tax it: you might not get it.

"The cost of the insurance is a compensation that ought to be taxed like any other."

================================

Why would you tax it like any other compensation? It is not the same kind of compensation.

If that is the reasoning, why not tax booze, cigarettes, and luxuries same as any other purchase?

What a funny screencap.

Sheiss occurs.

And this is all about votes. Since “illegals” don’t have to carry identification, then anyone will be able to register and vote in Arizona. Good for Democrats, good for Obama, bad for Conservatives, bad precedent for “states rights” as defined in the Constitution. Another successful execution of the strategy “Divide et impera”.

I think it is sad the way ACPS treated Bell, who has many years experience in education. Being a state legislator, and a teacher, should be a boon to the students and district, if we want the students to get a good "citizenship education." Unfortunately, Bell had to take the money and run as the school board forced him out.

" Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.

Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072900004.html?nav=hcmodule

Looks like Obama's ace in the hole on Obama_Care is more and more people losing their jobs and their insurance, eh?

Even the hard-core anti-Obama folks might have a change of heart if they get dumped and lose their insurance.

Hi! The Leadership Institute is putting on 3 seminars on grassroots campaigning and handling negative information. Useful stuff due to all the attacks recently on conservative values. If you’re at all interested in attending or promoting our cause please feel welcome. If you want the info you can find us at www.leadershipinstitute.org . Our schools will be held in Arlington, August the 14th, Virginia Beach, September the 11th and Christiansburg on September 18th. Thanks!

you're not getting health care as benefits. You're getting insurance the same way the company might offer you insurance on your health or car.

The cost of the insurance is a compensation that ought to be taxed like any other.

And if it was, and you could take the money instead of the insurance - it might benefit you better ...for instance, your spouse get's a family plan that covers you and you get to use the money for other things.

Hi! The Leadership Institute is putting on 3 seminars on grassroots campaigning and handling negative information. Useful stuff due to all the attacks recently on conservative values. If you’re at all interested in attending or promoting our cause please feel welcome. If you want the info you can find us at www.leadershipinstitute.org . Our schools will be held in Arlington, August the 14th,

And why are health care plans not taxed as income?

==================================

Why would I get taxed on benefits or services I don't necessarily get? My company pays part of my health insurance premium, but the monies are distributive: I may not use the health care benefits and therefore the money paid on my behalf is actually used by others, but I pay the taxes on it.

Unlike gasoline, we woul like health isnurance to be cheaper, and more widely used, not less. If you want less of something, just tax it.

I posted a comment on the Newsplex site questioning why they aired the story before doing adequate research. My comment didn’t make it past moderation, but comments condemning Ms Macko and calling the president a “thug from Chicago” did.

It’s extremely difficult to get VA unemployment if you are fired for misconduct or failure to perform. The idea that this woman is somehow bilking the system is highly unlikely. I hate that Ms Macko’s name is being dragged through the mud when some of the most basic questions weren’t even answered.

Deer evolved twice, too. Elk and whitetails look very similar, but their last common ancestor was a slinking little thing with fangs, no antlers, and no cannon bone.

the way we "do" health care actually harms government and private industry - large and small.

For fear of not having coverage, we have many folks who take "safe" (often govt) jobs as a conservative safe haven rather than work entrepreneurially by themselves or with others in small business start ups.

The number one reason why unions have such a stranglehold and won't give it up is - health care for their members.

Big companies are seriously hamstrung competitively against European/Japanese counterparts by the costs of their retirees medical care and are encouraged to dump people before they retire with benefits.

This is why 40-60 years olds cannot get hired and why many companies don't hire full-time positions that have benefits any more...

but I have a question for Jim.

Why can't an employee take the money instead of the employer-offered plan and act in their own best interests?

And why are health care plans not taxed as income?

What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say [Heather Mac Donald]

In enjoining Arizona’s landmark immigration law, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton maintains the Obama administration’s carefully cultivated fiction: that what concerns the White House regarding S.B. 1070 is its effect on legal, rather than illegal, aliens. Almost nowhere in the government’s briefs or the judge’s ruling is the arrest and detention of illegal aliens addressed. This fiction is transparent, however. The real threat posed by S.B. 1070 was that it would disrupt the de facto amnesty that the executive branch has accorded to the vast majority of illegal aliens. It would start to implement congressional mandates and the public will that the immigration laws be enforced. For that reason, it had to be stopped.

So determined was Judge Bolton to follow the Obama administration’s political strategy regarding the law’s putative impact on legal immigrants that she exploited a drafting error in the law that Arizona had already acknowledged and repudiated. S.B. 1070 authorizes local law-enforcement officers to check the immigration status of individuals they have lawfully stopped, if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally, and if the inquiry into immigration status is practicable. S.B. 1070 also required that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona stated in its brief and testified in court that the legislative intent behind that sentence regarding arrestees was that only people for whom there is already reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally would have their immigration status checked after arrest. The section does not apply to every arrestee.

Judge Bolton rejected that testimony, however, in order to buttress the White House claim that large numbers of legal aliens would be subject to immigration inquiries if S.B. 1070 went into effect. As the Justice Department portrayed it, and as Judge Bolton affirmed, massive categories of legal aliens by definition do not have proof of their legal status with them. If those legal aliens are now to be queried about their immigration status following every arrest in Arizona, they will be subject to undue harassment, the federal government and the judge concluded.

The only lawful aliens to whom the judge could point who would not necessarily have proof of status “readily available” to them, however (neither the federal government nor the judge asserted that proof of status was “unavailable” to such individuals), were visitors from visa-waiver countries, asylum applicants who have not yet received a green card, victims of certain enumerated crimes such as trafficking who are assisting law enforcement, and women who have petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. But presumably the lawful status of such aliens would be known to the federal government. If an Arizona officer inquired into those aliens’ immigration status, ICE would tell the officer that the person is authorized to be in the country, ending the investigation.

Furthermore, the number of such individuals who would also be in a position to raise an officer’s reasonable suspicion that they were in the country illegally is extremely small. In a petition for injunctive relief, a judge must balance the equities in favor of both parties. The interest of Arizona, where 500,000 illegal aliens reside, in restoring the rule of law should be weighed against the interest of those small numbers of legal aliens or aliens whose status is in abeyance and who might be questioned regarding their immigration status because they have raised a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

Judge Bolton’s ruling regarding S.B. 1070’s provision on the possession of immigration documents verges on bad faith. S.B. 1070 adopts virtually verbatim a federal law requiring lawful aliens to carry their immigration papers with them; the Arizona version merely lessens the federal penalties regarding the amount of the fine and possible jail time for violation of the federal document requirement. As the judge notes, federal registration power is exclusive; Congress’s registration scheme may not be altered by the states. But nothing in S.B. 1070 changes the rules for registration; the Arizona law merely confirms those rules in state law. Judge Bolton alleges that the Arizona provision “alters the penalties” in the federal law, without disclosing that the Arizona law lowers them. She concludes without the slightest trace of argument that the Arizona document provision “stands as an obstacle to the uniform federal registration scheme and is therefore impermissible.”

The only factually plausible objection to S.B. 1070’s document requirement and to the provision authorizing inquiries into an alien’s status is that Arizona may penalize someone for being in the country illegally whom the federal government intends to ignore. It is the effect of the law on illegal aliens, not on legal ones, that has most upset the Obama administration and illegal-alien advocates (the Bush administration would probably have reacted similarly). A large reason why S.B. 1070’s impact on illegal aliens was so carefully kept offstage in the federal government’s brief and the judge’s ruling is that Congress has repeatedly expressed its intention that local governments cooperate with the federal government in the “apprehension, detention or removal or [illegal] aliens,” as a 1996 federal law declares. The very immigration-information clearinghouse that Judge Bolton worries would be overtaxed by S.B. 1070 was created to effectuate Congress’s mandate that the federal and local governments share information regarding illegal aliens. As the Senate declared in 1996 when banning sanctuary laws (a ban whose disregard in Arizona led to S.B. 1070): “illegal aliens do not have a right to remain in the U.S. undetected and apprehended.” If in fact that information clearinghouse becomes burdened with “too many” inquiries from Arizona, it’s for the executive branch to seek greater funding. Congress never said: We want information sharing, but only up to a point. Moreover, many of Arizona’s own law-enforcement officers are capable of using the federal immigration database without needing to go through federal channels.

The vast majority of the public supports immigration enforcement. S.B. 1070 promised to make such enforcement a reality. For the moment, the public will has been defeated, which is why S.B. 1070’s effect on illegal immigration was the one aspect of the law that neither the Obama administration or Judge Bolton dared to address.

— Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor to City Journal and a co-author of The Immigration Solution.

Arizona Immigration Decision [Andy McCarthy]

On a quick read, the federal court’s issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.

In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’s preemption argument — i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.

The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as “a thing apart,” and that Congress had therefore “manifested a purpose … to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system” that would not unduly subject them to “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government — something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.

Judge Bolton proceeds from this misapplication of Hines to the absurd conclusion that Arizona can’t ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees — even though federal law prohibits the said arrestees from being in the country unless they have legal status — because that would tremendously burden the feds, which in turn would make the arrestees wait while their status is being checked, which would result in the alien arrestees being treated like “a thing apart.”

The ruling ignores that, in the much later case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court has emphasized that

Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.]

Furthermore, as Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation notes, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court similarly held in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987) that “No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation’s immigration laws.”

However this ruling came out, it was only going to be the first round. Appeal is certain. But the gleeful Left may want to put away the party hats. This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.

What Burden? [Mark Krikorian]

A key part of the Justice Department case against Arizona, which Judge Bolton seems to have swallowed, is that, as Andy put it below, “Arizona can’t ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees . . . because that would tremendously burden the feds.” Specifically, the claim is that too many legal-status requests will be submitted to ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC); in the words of the ruling:

Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.

The judge based this on the declaration of the guy who runs the LESC, David Palmatier. Sounds plausible, but my colleague Jessica Vaughan, in her own declaration, demolished Palmatier’s logic about the LESC somehow being overwhelmed (see paragraphs 40-62). Of course, the judge seems to have simply ignored math she found inconvenient

Re: Arizona Immigration Decision [Peter Kirsanow]

After a quick read of Judge Bolton’s decision in the Arizona illegal immigration case and based on a bit of experience in federal preemption issues in a previous life, I concur with Andy’s take on the matter.

Many in the media are reporting the decision as a major win for the Obama administration. That’s a sloppy description. It’s a temporary judicial win and a likely political problem — at least in the short-to-intermediate term — for the administration.

Today’s decision increases the probability that supporters of the Arizona law will see the federal government’s refusal to enforce the border as an issue in the fall elections. Those supporters, who outnumber opponents of the measure by more than two to one, will be motivated to vote this November — and again and again until the case is finally adjudicated on the merits. That might not be for some time, possibly extending to the 2012 elections. Obviously, that could complicate the reported long-term administration strategy of galvanizing those voters perceived as opponents of the Arizona measure. If the law is still not in effect in 2012, opponents of the Arizona law won’t be as motivated as its frustrated supporters.

Today’s biggest losers are Arizona Democrats, followed by any other candidates nationwide who will have to defend their opposition to the law and support for today’s decision.

An Abominable Decision [Mark R. Levin]

This is a typical example of a judge stating the correct legal standard, but then ignoring it and applying the test in a fashion completely divorced from the facts of the case in order to reach a predetermined decision.

First, the court states correctly that the sort of constitutional challenge brought here — a facial challenge — is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully. It requires that the plaintiff (here the federal government) must demonstrate that the law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical arguments — yet that is exactly what the court relies on in its ruling: the assertion that the AZ law will impose an impermissible burden on law enforcement, which is to determine the legal status of a person detained pursuant to the AZ law on the reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The court does not provide any empirical basis to support its conclusion. It’s pure supposition.

As the court notes, the burden a party must meet when engaging in a facial challenge of a given statute is established in United States v. Salerno. The court pays lip service to Salerno at the beginning of its analysis on the “likelihood of success on the merits,” but then proceeds to ignore the Salerno principles.

The court cites Salerno when it notes: “A facial challenge must fail where a statute has a ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’” In deciding a facial challenge, courts “must be careful not to go beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or imaginary cases.” Then the court doesn’t even attempt to actually analyze the provisions it overturns within the Salerno context, except in one instance — in fn. 18 — where it upholds a provision of SB 1070.

Distinguish the facial challenge from an as-applied challenge. At one point the court engages in a hypothetical example, when it talks about a potential unfair burden on a legal alien failing to have a dog on a leash, wondering whether he could be detained and subject to an impermissible burden for not carrying his papers under that circumstance. (The court talks about John Doe, a legal alien from Chile who was walking his dog without a leash and was stopped by Sheriff Smith and detained at the local jail for eight hours while his status was checked. It didn’t actually happen.)

The judge also worries that increasing the time a person is detained while his immigration status is being determined might be unconstitutional. Again, pure speculation. (Moreover, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has already found that such a delay is permissible where there is reasonable suspicion to check a person’s status.)

In the bulk of its legal analysis, the court applies a selective reading of the case to an incomplete reading of the statute. In particular, respecting the provision related to confirming a person’s legal status, the court largely ignores the requirement that law-enforcement officers are able to confirm a person’s legal status only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally. The judge essentially omits the reasonable-suspicion component of the law and concludes that the act implements a new set of immigration rules particular to Arizona, in violation of a case called Hines v. Davidowitz.

Hines is an old case dealing with a vastly different Pennsylvania law. Here’s what the Hines court correctly concluded: “The question whether a state law is invalid as conflicting with Federal laws touching the same subject is not to be determined according to any rigid formula or rule, but depends upon whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

The Pennsylvania act required every alien 18 years or over, with certain exceptions, to register once each year; provide such information as is required by the statute, plus any “other information and details” that the Department of Labor and Industry may direct; pay $1 as an annual registration fee; receive an alien identification card and carry it at all times; show the card whenever it may be demanded by any police officer or agent of the Department of Labor and Industry, and exhibit the card as a condition precedent to registering a motor vehicle in his name or obtaining a license to operate one. The Department of Labor and Industry is charged with the duties of classifying the registrations for “the purpose of ready reference,” and furnishing a copy of the classification to the Pennsylvania Motor Police. Nonexempt aliens who fail to register are subject to a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment for not more than 60 days, or both. For failure to carry an identification card or for failure to show it upon proper demand, the punishment is a fine of not more than $10, or imprisonment for not more than 10 days, or both.

“Our conclusion,” said the court, “is that [the challenger of the PA law] is correct in his contention that the power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens as a distinct group is not an equal and continuously existing concurrent power of state and nation, but that whatever power a state may have is subordinate to supreme national law.” Hines does not support the court’s conclusion respecting the AZ statute. That case clearly deals with an entirely new legal regime. AZ’s statute merely complements the federal statutory scheme.

Amazingly, today’s decision does not provide any substantive analysis of the very high standards required for mounting a successful facial challenge. The judge thinks certain events or difficulties will occur, and then uses her thoughts as a substitute for empirical evidence. The fact is that the AZ law does not create any new or additional federal responsibilities. It does not establish any new or inconsistent obligations for aliens legally or illegally residing in or otherwise found in Arizona. And, unlike the Hines case so prominent in the court’s ruling, Arizona’s law does not establish any new or extra forms, registration procedures, or other obligations for aliens, legal or illegal.

Respecting preemption, which is the substantive core of the federal government’s case, once again the court presents no evidence in support of its conclusion that AZ is likely to impermissibly interfere with federal law on multiple fronts, including the requirement that aliens carry papers or that state and local law enforcement may undertake constitutionally proper inquiries into the legal status of those they stop. AZ isn’t requiring the federal government to do anything. The federal government can choose not to take AZ’s calls and not cooperate. The court has essentially parroted the federal government’s claims about burdens.

Moreover, the federal government does not “occupy the field” in any event. Indeed, as a matter of federal law and long-standing practice, it encourages states to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law — both in practice and law. In fact, it relies heavily on them.

Federal preemption can be either express or implied: express where the Constitution says so (declaration of war), implied by conflict with federal law. In the immigration context, implied preemption exists only 1) if a statute falls into the narrow category of a “regulation of immigration”; 2) if Congress expressed “the clear and manifest purpose” of completely occupying the field and displacing all state activity; or 3) if the state regulation conflicts with federal laws such that it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” (De Canas v. Bica). Federal immigration law does not preempt AZ law, and the authors of the AZ law were well acquainted with the pitfalls they needed to avoid — and avoided them.

I think the word “abomination” does not overstate this court’s decision.

— Mark Levin is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, which has filed an amicus brief in this case.

Facts Should Matter [Mark Krikorian]

Not to get too far into the weeds, but to amplify a point Heather made below about today’s Arizona ruling:

The only lawful aliens to whom the judge could point who would not necessarily have proof of status “readily available” to them, however (neither the federal government nor the judge asserted that proof of status was “unavailable” to such individuals), were visitors from visa-waiver countries [my emphasis — MK], asylum applicants who have not yet received a green card, victims of certain enumerated crimes such as trafficking who are assisting law enforcement, and women who have petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. But presumably the lawful status of such aliens would be known to the federal government. If an Arizona officer inquired into those aliens’ immigration status, ICE would tell the officer that the person is authorized to be in the country, ending the investigation.

It’s actually better than that. Visitors from visa-waiver countries have their duration of stay stamped in their passports, so they do so have “readily available” to them proof of legal status, and the federal government obviously knows this. A colleague was shocked that DHS and DOJ would tell the court such a “complete bald faced lie.” Considering they also lied about the likely increased burden on the Law Enforcement Support Center, you’ve got to figure that the Obama people are desperate. Though if these lies are exposed in the subsequent litigation it may not make much difference anyway, since the Clinton-appointee’s ruling “verges on bad faith,” as Heather put it.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

I strongly suggest that you take this item down from Cville News or edit it immediately. I read the story and there is no evidence there at all that her loss of employment had anything to do with her being convicted for changing the number of pills on her prescription. In fact, the story states very clearly that there is no indication of a connection.

Enjoyed reading your blog. I just wished more people in the world today could be educated about homosexuality; I've found that education preceeds acceptance and leads to the understanding that we are who we are!

The first wave of baby boomers are retireing, and losing their health insurance in the process. They probably maximize dental and preventive care while approaching retirement.

While they remain healthy they will tend to do without, temporarily lowering health care demand from exactly those you would expect to need it the most.

"When government makes the cuts, it maximizes its own utility -- "

It is not either or, or does not have to be.

You can still buy your own service if you think it is worth while, after your government service runs out or is refused.

“This could go beyond the recession. Being a less aggressive consumer of health care is here to stay.”

===============================

Pipe Dream.

When push comes to shove most people will be plenty aggressive.


One thing about a recession is that no one wants to be sick for fear of losing their job, so they forego treatment,even preventive treatement, they might otherwise have had.

I honestly can’t say that I am bothered with the junk mail that I don’t even look at before I toss it in the paper recycling being delayed. I do get annoyed with the erratic delivery of publications I subscribe to. I used to get my USA Sports Weekly faithfully on Wednesday. Now its Thursday or maybe Friday, and sometimes later. Another weekly newspaper I get sometimes will miss a week and then have 2 issues the following week, or even get an earlier week’s after I get the issue for that week.
If the Jessup family still owns Pepsi I have no problem with that. They have done a lot of good things in the community.
Coke or Pepsi? For me its whichever has the best price that week. Do have a certain fondness for Pepsi because of the commercials the Dutchess of Kentwood made for them a few years ago(thats Ms Spears for the uniformed out there).

this is nothing new - happens all the time - everywhere.

Look at Palin, when she was elected mayor to wasilla, first thing she did was hire a federal lobbyist - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94203271

same old story.

i like the part about bringing in real jobs and not tshirt shop clerks and vendors at the oceanfront

Put Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Franklin Raines in jail. As soon as this happens, the whole nightmare will be over.

The crisis will not be over until the guilty culprits are behind bars. When there is no hope for a government bailout from criminal activities, the markets will quickly stabilize.

Unfortunately, many folks who could not afford to pay a mortgage will need to rent. Those who bought too much house will need to live in smaller houses.

When the Obama regime is thrown out, the economy will soar, the housing market will stabilize, jobs will return. But, the first step is to put Barney and Chris in jail.

" You see, when consumers make the cuts, they get to make the choice themselves."

Jim - with health care, that is simply not true.

The high-deductible plan dictates what won't be paid for - just as the govt plans do.

Tell me honestly, that your private insurance company doesn't decide for you what they will cover and not cover.

When your insurance company says they will only cover 50% of the cost of some prescription drug that your doctor says you need, how is that any different that Medicare not covering it either?

In both cases - what your coverage is - is not decided by you.

Unless you want to compare no coverage compared to some limited coverage for high deductible.

If the govt offered a high deductible Plan - would you then also complain that it's still a govt plan?

Larry, there is a big difference between the government cutting back health care spending -- rationing -- and consumers cutting back spending. You see, when consumers make the cuts, they get to make the choice themselves. In the words of the economists, they get to optimize their own utility.

When government makes the cuts, it maximizes its own utility -- or that of the medical special interests working the system through lobbyists, PACs and television advertising.

The folks buying the high deductible plans are likely people who lost their gold-plated plans or people who cannot get a job that offers such plans or they have a pre-existing condition problem.

This is also due to the steady ratcheting up of co-pays and caps for many employer-offered plans.

I've always felt that this is one effective way to cost-contain any plan whether it's is private or government and that is to require a significant co-pay for typical discretionary therapies but pay in full - preventive care - and catastrophic.

But you know what?

When the govt does this - it's called "rationing" but when the Private Sector does it - it's called "high deductible".

In order to put Medicare on a more sustainable track, it will have to be reconfigured to be similar to the "high deductible" plans.

The big differences is that since the govt is the rescuer of last resort, they cannot contain costs by doing what the private sector does - by just dumping people...

UNLESS - you and I are willing to see elderly people become homeless and dying at the entrances to the ERs.

so you have to pick your poison.

do you want the elderly to end up that way or do you want some kind of govt response to prevent it?

My view is that we are wooses when it comes to this but we won't make the other hard choices either to make Medicare sustainable.

People need to pay into Medicare from FICA from day one.

Because we know - from experience - that if we don't force people to set aside money for their inevitable medical needs - they won't.

And we have others who say that it is wrong/unfair/fascist to make young people who are healthy to do this.

but when these healthy young people get old and sick - and broke - we blame Medicare for being the poster boy for ineffective govt.

If you truly believe that none of the solutions involve the govt - then get ready to go broke when your own parents need 100K worth of medical care and the govt is not involved.

and be prepared to see others elderly without sons & daughters willing to go broke - abandoned to the streets.

What we need in my view - is just a tad bit honestly in the choices ....

and I'm confident once we really do address the likely realities that most people are going to find a no-Medicare world as just simply unacceptable.

The folks buying the high deductible plans are likely people who lost their gold-plated plans or people who cannot get a job that offers such plans or they have a pre-existing condition problem.

This is also due to the steady ratcheting up of co-pays and caps for many employer-offered plans.

I've always felt that this is one effective way to cost-contain any plan whether it's is private or government and that is to require a significant co-pay for typical discretionary therapies but pay in full - preventive care - and catastrophic.

But you know what?

When the govt does this - it's called "rationing" but when the Private Sector does it - it's called "high deductible".

In order to put Medicare on a more sustainable track, it will have to be reconfigured to be similar to the "high deductible" plans.

The big differences is that since the govt is the rescuer of last resort, they cannot contain costs by doing what the private sector does - by just dumping people...

UNLESS - you and I are willing to see elderly people become homeless and dying at the entrances to the ERs.

so you have to pick your poison.

do you want the elderly to end up that way or do you want some kind of govt response to prevent it?

My view is that we are wooses when it comes to this but we won't make the other hard choices either to make Medicare sustainable.

People need to pay into Medicare from FICA from day one.

Because we know - from experience - that if we don't force people to set aside money for their inevitable medical needs - they won't.

And we have others who say that it is wrong/unfair/fascist to make young people who are healthy to do this.

but when these healthy young people get old and sick - and broke - we blame Medicare for being the poster boy for ineffective govt.

If you truly believe that none of the solutions involve the govt - then get ready to go broke when your own parents need 100K worth of medical care and the govt is not involved.

and be prepared to see others elderly without sons & daughters willing to go broke - abandoned to the streets.

What we need in my view - is just a tad bit honestly in the choices ....

and I'm confident once we really do address the likely realities that most people are going to find a no-Medicare world as just simply unacceptable.

She didn’t loose her job because of her conviction, she lost her job because of her misconduct at ACAC.

Check it out……….

http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/99497354.html

Sadly, I read the title and thought "He misspelled 'Hans Brix'".

Laws restricting human migration are unjust, selfish, and immoral.

The government is self-destructing as it hypocritically tries to pander to middle class socialists who want to protect their socialist entitlements like social security, medicaid, medicare, government education, etc. The argument is that these soon to be bankrupt socialist programs will go bankrupt even sooner with the demands placed on them by "illegal immigrants".

Think about this. Obama is calling for a bigger crackdown on employers who hire humans without the proper government permission to work, while at the same time Obama is opposing requiring government officials in law enforcement from documenting which humans have the proper government permission to be geographically present while they committed a crime.

The courts seem to think it is OK to require an employer to demand documentation of government approval of geographic location before hiring a human, but not OK to require that the government itself after detaining a human for a crime or suspected crime demand the same documentation of government approval of geographic location.

And the courts have ruled you have to provide them with all the socialist programs regardless of the fact that they do not have government approval of geographic location.

In summary, crime is fine, welfare is fine, free medical care is fine, free education is fine, but get a job and actually try working for a living and we are going to fine those evil inhuman dirty capitalist pigs who are trying to help you feed and care for your own family.

Without the socialist benefits argument, how could any freedom loving human deny a hard working South American migrant the right to find a job here in this section of the globe?

Our middle class socialism ends up robbing the world's poor of the dignity of work.

Got to love all that money spent on wars for freedom overseas while the totalitarian fascist noose gets tightened here at home.

Your identity papers please or you cannot work!

DON'T FENCE ME IN

Kevin:

I can't disagree. And, of course, the postwar accounts need to be considered in light of social relations at the time. I've acknowledged that before. But there are individual examples which support my contention that service should be acknowledged and honored. My problem with both sides of this issue is that generalizations are made and the unique, and often fascinating stories of the individual gets overlooked.

C'mon Jerry, you know the answer: it's free, like ObamaCare will be "free" and just as effective. Until ObamaCare, I was free to choose not to go to the gummint clinic and I chose to pay for medical care out of my pocket. Soon, I'll lose that freedom unless I can somehow become one of our elite rulers. We go British National Health while they begin to dismantle their bureaucratic nightmare in favor of doctor-patient oriented healthcare. Ironic, ain't it?

Richard,

I certainly agree that army life would have brought slaves and soldiers together in ways that led to strong emotional bonds, but when it comes down writing history we need evidence of it. The problem, as you know, is that this evidence is very difficult to come by. In the case of free and enslaved blacks who were present with the army I would need their own accounts before I went ahead and spoke for them or assumed anything about how they experience/perceived the situation as it unfolded. I certainly would be weary of postwar accounts, most of which are not written by these men. That doesn't necessarily mean that they should be discounted, but it isn't much to stand on.

$41,000. minus government subsidy of $7,500 makes the cost $33,500. Price of electricity goes up 'cause Obama-ayers wants to save us from the ravages of coal-fired generating plants. So, the cost to keep on trucking goes up to a grand or two per month for recharging the car. I understand this 40 miles per electric charge also uses gasoline likely including gov't. subsidized ethanol. Gas price goes up inevitably. So, all in all, the Car to Save the Planet is a real bargain, yes? One also wonders if the union folks who make the car can afford to buy the car?

Kevin:

I'm certainly aware that the slaves who served in whatever capacity didn't have any choice. And I acknowledge the difficulty in assessing motivations. That does not negate, in my opinion, the fact they should be acknowledged for their service. We've had that debate at length before. Some of these men, like Jim Lewis, became attached to their units, if not "for the cause", certainly emotionally to the Confederates with whom they served. This is common in military units, even today. Those fighting may not be in favor of the "cause", but they bond with the men in their unit for practical and emotional reasons.

Note to Arizonans: When federal leaders have decided to sacrifice you for their own naked political gain - nullification. Just do it.

GM and Nissan are relying on a $7,500 federal tax credit for buyers of electric vehicles to offset some of the added cost...

So the expiring Bush tax cuts -- i.e. Democrat tax increases next year -- will go to the unions which gave Obama campaign money in return for his giving them GM. See how this works?

You don't understand, Jerry. We must have uniformity in order to promote diversity.

Richard and Michael,

I completely agree with the two of you. It is essential that we provide serious analysis of the roles that free blacks played in Confederate armies. However, claims of loyalty or anything having to do with motivation and assessment are going to be extremely difficult given the lack of primary source material. I am extremely weary of using postwar evidence such as images of reunions and pension records. It seems to me they tell us much more about about that period rather than the war. I would love to be pointed in the direction of wartime evidence that illustrates how white southerners assessed the presence of conscripts. We know that slaveowners believed that the conscripting of their slaves constituted a direct violation of their rights as property owners.

Dr. Bradely, -- You may want to look at Joseph Glatthaar's "Forged in Battle" and especially Dudley Cornish's "The Sable Arm" regarding Union conscripts.

King Salim Khalfani was born Edward Duane Hudson, but that was his "slave name." After watching "Roots," he decided that he is the direct descendant of an African king.

And I am a direct descendant of the Russian Romanovs.

Czar HisRoc

I like it. Gritty and realistic psychological thrillers like that are right up my alley.

Who says she lost her job because of the conviction? Her employer may not have even been aware of the conviction. Or knew and didn’t care. This is some seriously half-assed reporting on the part of the Newsplex.

Gerry is excrement. He's already been flushed by his base. He just doesn't know it yet.

Welcome Congressman Fimian.

The key word being "intentionally". According to you Bush was too dumb to do it on purpose. That's why Karl Rove and OFT guys in the Pentagon are to blame right? I'll buy the conservative argument that WMD wasn't the only reason, because it wasn't. Saddam got unlucky with his flip flopping ways and poor history of acting like a tinpot dictator. I don't disagree that our execution of the "War on Terror" had a significant amount of hiccups and we've learned, I hope, to tread a lot lighter, given our weak intelligence capabilities, but we were going to swing that stick sooner or later J. Personnally I'm glad it's not a DEM in office trying to do it. The way Obama is micromanaging this gig of his, disastrous. I can only imagine how detailed he gets getting his daily briefs on the number of terrorists shot at by his drones in Pakistan. He's using a tactical tool to try and win strategically, b/c the strategic stuff, meeting with Karzai and all his bubbas, with Hillary, talking ALL THE GOD DAMN TIME, ain't getting us anywhere. Pendulum is swinging back toward that peace dividend we wasted in the 90s not spreading our democracy in a more forceful manner. That got us Somalia, Khobar, the Cole, and that gig in Kosovo, oh wait, we're still there too. aHH, we could go all night

Brian,
Facts do not matter to most “democratics”, it is only name calling and parroting of Obambi talking points that are of concern.

Mr. Hudson, a.k.a. "King", is a thug. Why should anyone wonder that an organization that keeps itself alive by extortion has a thug for a leader?

I think you're wrong on a few accounts. Sure Webb didn't specifically say poor whites; he didn't have to. We all know high income or highly college-educated whites weren't the focus of his piece. Lower middle class and poor whites were. These are the populations that are seemingly disaffected by diversity programs.

What I'm criticizing Webb for is (1) reducing this issue to whites vs. non-whites; (2) offering zero way forward to actually add teeth to his argument; and (3) being plain wrong about what has caused the the circumstances of hardworking white Americans that haven't gotten their due.

I think you're wrong on a few accounts. Sure Webb didn't specifically say poor whites; he didn't have to. We all know high income or highly college-educated whites weren't the focus of his piece. Lower middle class and poor whites were. These are the populations that are seemingly disaffected by diversity programs.

What I'm criticizing Webb for is (1) reducing this issue to whites vs. non-whites; (2) offering zero way forward to actually add teeth to his argument; and (3) being plain wrong about what has caused the the circumstances of hardworking white Americans that haven't gotten their due.