The Goal was What Again?

Yesterday was the final day of Open Enrollment for ObamaCare. Maybe, kinda-sorta, depending.

And according to the REVISED required enrollment numbers where 7 million enrollees were needed, the goal was met, according to the Administration. But, then, no details or back up was available. We can take their word for it, right?

So; lets take their word for it, shall we?

Let's applause the fact that 7 million people now have health insurance. We'll ignore the fact that we don't know how many of these people have paid for these plans, or how many have actually received insurance cards or actually benefits from the insurance company. We'll also not look at the idea that it took 6 months to hit this revised goal; a goal that was revised because of the slow start the website had, or the multiple extensions it took to even get to this lower goal. We also won't question how many of these 7 million were a part of the 30 million previuosly uninsured, or how many were a part of the 7-8 million who lost their insurance because of ObamaCare.

We are going to focus on the what it took to get these 7 million enrollees.

It took over 600 million dollars to create the most dysfunctional website a government has ever produced- and that is saying something.

It took a total disruption of the health insurance industry- a disruption we have not seen the end of yet. Insurance is not a charity; it is a business. One that depends on risk management and costing. If there is no analysis of the risk pool, the costs cannot be assessed and policies costed effectively. Right now policies are priced by SWAT; Strategic, wild-ass guess. That system is unsustainable, and once true costs start rolling in policy costs will skyrocket. Or benefits will be drastically cut; take you pick.

It took the reassessment of staffing and hiring at companies all across the country, based on who was worth having for more than 35 hours a week, and paying the cost of benefits. All hiring is now based on the avoiding or complying with ObamaCare.

It took a possibly illegal maneuver to get passed in Congress, when the Senate passed a reconciliation to avoid Scott Brown's ability to vote on- and vote against- the bill.

It took the President of the United States to lie to the American People constantly and consistently. These weren't errors in understanding, these were calculated lies; lies considered and approved by the Obama Administration because they were needed to sell the program to the American people.

It took the Supreme Court to hear the Administration defend the program by definitely describe it as NOT a tax, only to approve the entire scheme only because the government has the power to tax, and then declared the NOT a tax program a Tax program.

And we still have, by the best figures available, 23 million uninsured.

Or more.

Now; you tell me; was it worth it?

Drones, Revisited

Rand Paul, my junior Senator from Kentucky, was in the news again this week; apparently for advocating drone strikes inside the USA, on American citizens.

Well, that's what the media was saying anyway. All the while managing to squeeze in the word hypocrite as many times as they could. Senator Paul has a slightly different position, as you can imagine. After all; this is the man who filibustered for 13 hours against the Obama Administration on that same topic.

Senator Paul said on a show on Fox that: "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him".

Here is the detail that makes this a non-news, non-event; detail that the folks wanting you to believe Senator Paul is a hypocrite hope you don't hear about.

Rand Paul used that exact same phrase in his filibuster. He has drawn a very bright line between the use of a drone as a law enforcement tool and its use as an assassination tool. The liquor store scenario shows that a drone, much like the bomb squad robots, can be used as a law enforcement tool to keep cops out of harm's way. A technology that, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't yet exist.

Small wonder- I agree with the Senator.

If someone is leaving a liquor store- or any place- they have just robbed, guns blazing and stolen cash in hand, law enforcement has a duty to protect the rest of us from this menace. Whether the cops protect me with their sidearm, their shotgun or the yet-to-be-developed urban drone, I don't care. This is a 'hot' situation, requiring instant reaction.

Let's say our bad guy gets away somehow, although the police have a description of him. 6 months later this same yet-to-be-developed urban drone spots our unindicted, but known, felon eating lunch at a patio table at your local Rally's.

And pumps 3 slugs into him; making him a former unindicted, but known, felon, now known as the recently deceased.

Do you see the difference in these two scenarios?

I would have no problem with eh Administration flying a few armed drones into a situation- like say the Benghazi Embassy attack- and dropping a few combatants.

But I would have a problem with them dropping those same combatants a few weeks later while they sitting at a cafe enjoying some spring sunshine.

The difference is all about when we can allow the use of lethal force as a substitute for a trial by jury and a legal- and possibly non-lethal- punishment.

Take for example the recent Boston bombing. The cops had a gun fight with the two bombers, and killed one. They searched for and found the second bomber, and now know where he is. Can the Boston PD walk into his prison hospital room and shoot him? Would that have been justified in shooting him instead of arresting him when they found his bullet-riddled carcass hiding in a Watertown backyard?

Of course not. It's the difference between an active situation requiring an equal reaction and a simple arrest.

So why should the use of drone technology be considered differently? Technology makes us more able to control a situation; it doesn't remove our moral or legal restraints from the action.

Rand Paul is once again on the right side of the issue, leaving the Democrats sitting on the wrong side, and being forced to defend their poor position as best they can.

Placebo

Everybody knows what a placebo is right? A pill or procedure that does absolutely nothing, but we are supposed to be convinced it is working wonders.

Kind of like the Republican Party.

They keep talking a good game- and have since 1988- but accomplish nothing.

They held the House, the Senate and the White House for 6 years.

6 YEARS!!!!

And government got bigger, along with the debt. Abortion is still legal, along with a host of other things they supposedly are against. But it's not there fault. It's the Democrats.

Don't take my word for it; spend a few minutes with talk radio.

I have become convinced that talk radio is our circus, designed solely to keep possibly expatriating Republicans on the ranch. Keep us convinced that the Republicans are doing their best and are deserving of our complete support.

And they cave again.

Just like on the 'Fiscal Cliff', when it comes time for the debt ceiling they will fold with the best of intentions. The debt ceiling will go up, debt will increase, spending will increase and taxes will rise again.

All things we sent them to Washington to OPPOSE.

I have faith in some of the younger members; ones who are now holding their first elected office- like Rand Paul- but the old timers have learned the ropes. When to speak out and when to act. Or not to.

Just start making real noise about a new third party; one to represent the people of this country, not the people and the companies sucking at the government teat, and watch the words fly. The only time most of these idiots can quote Ronald Reagan is when they say one of two things: 'Never criticize a fellow Republican', and 'we don't need a third party; we need a revitalized Republican Party'.

Just about the only two things President Reagan ever said that I don't agree with.

Yeah; It Was THAT Close

I found this post on Instapundit this morning, and while he talks about how close the election was, I am going in another direction with it. The author, Mike Harwood, is talking about how few voters, most influenced by Obama's reaction to Hurricane Sandy's destruction in New York and New Jersey. The email reads in part:

In Florida, with nearly 8.3 million ballots cast, the margin of victory was a mere 52,000 votes. Because this U.S. presidential election was a two person race, a takeaway by one candidate from another represents a two vote swing. Accordingly, if somewhere in the order of 26,000 Floridians, out of 8.3 million, decided that they were changing their vote from Romney to Obama ... those voters alone decided Florida’s 29 electoral votes.

The same argument can be made in Ohio. 5.3 million votes cast, margin of victory: 103,000. If the storm flipped about 52,000 votes or more from Romney to Obama, then no storm meant Ohio would have been a Romney win on election day.

In Virginia, 3.7 million votes cast, margin of victory: 107,000. If the storm influenced 54,000 voters or more to abandon Romney for Obama, the storm was decisive in converting a Romney win in Virginia to an Obama win.

In Colorado, nearly 2.4 million votes cast, margin of victory: 113,000. If 57,000 voters or more moved from the Romney camp to the Obama camp based on the storm, then Obama doesn’t win the state if the storm never happens.

A Romney win in these four states would have given him the election.

Less than 200,000 voters in four states, out of nearly 20,000,000 total visits to the polls in just those four states decided this election in Obama's favor.

Never let anybody tell you your vote doesn't count.

And never let them tell you voting fraud doesn't exist or doesn't matter. All it would have taken was 50,000 democrats to vote 4 times each over the course of a month, and Obama wins.

Every vote counts. In 2014 let's REALLY make them count.

Well, It's the Day After

The day for post-postmortems, recriminations and Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

What the Hell happened yesterday?

Yesterday was worse than 2008. In '08 I expected McCain to lose. I wasn't looking forward to it, but I was expecting it. And Obama could have been a decent President.

But yesterday? We know what kind of President Obama is, and will be.

And re-elected him.

Over 60 million people in this country think Obama is leading us in the right direction. Seriously?

That tells me one thing; It's not just the re-election of Obama that will send us down the road to ruin, it is the voters in this country who think we need to head that way.

And that is just sad.

Whether it is the over-educated Marxists or the 'Obama Phone' class we apparently have a majority who think stealing from the producers to give to non-productive is okay. And if the rich aren't rich enough, borrow the rest.

Or just print more money. That won't hurt anybody, will it?

Did you know we are currently EXPORTING gasoline? So why is gas so high? It's not short supply; it's too many dollars in the market place. Oil trades in dollars. When there are lots of dollars in circulation their value decreases with respect to other currencies. When fewer pounds or yen or yuan are required to buy a dollar the price of a gallon of gas goes up. and when producers can get a higher price on the world market than they can at home, they export gasoline.

It's not a short supply of gasoline that is keeping the price over 3 dollars a gallon; its the Federal Reserve printing money like its toilet paper that is doing it. I don't see Obama shutting down the presses in his second term, do you?

If you want to have some idea where this will end, do a search on 'Wiemar Republic'. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm not the only one who knows where this will lead. Did you notice that the Stock Market crashed today? Down over 300 points. Banks were especially hard hit. I wonder why? Could it be that the fear of new regulation will adversely affect profitability?

And watch the unemployment numbers the next few months. Right now new jobs are being added, and people are starting to look for work again. Look for that to change. the rate of unemployment may not change, but fewer and fewer people will be working starting in January, after the Christmas rush.

Or sooner, if consumers decide to keep their wallets in their pockets again this season.

The class that accepts money from the government may think Obama's policies are a good idea, but the people who fund that government do not. And they will vote a second time in the coming months. This time with their wallets.

Less investment in the market place means fewer jobs; fewer jobs means less money trading hands; less money trading hands means less revenue to the government; less revenue means another round of printing money.

And the Stock Market drops again.

But what the Hell will the folks who voted for Obama care? They'll be eating Government cheese and talking on their Obama phone.

As long as somebody else's money holds out.

Earners Versus Takers

As you may know I have 5 sons, 4 of whom are eligible to vote in this election. I'm not concerned about which way they will be voting; all five of my sons have sent me anti-Obama items. They are all registered to vote and are ready to send Obama back to Chicago.


The question is why? Why are these members of their generation so against government giveaways?

Maybe it’s because they all have jobs and all pay taxes. Maybe it’s because none of them have been contaminated by college. Maybe it's because they have worked for everything they have, and see how much more they could have, if they were allowed to keep more of what they earned. Nobody ever gave them anything; they don't have the receiver mindset.

That's the way they were raised; you want something, then you earn it. From a candy bar when they were 5 to fancy sneakers when they were 17. I kept them fed, clothed and housed. Santa made his periodic visits and birthdays were honored, but $20 shoes were the budget. You want Air Jordans? Then you earn and spend the other $80. I don't think any of my boys spent that $80 the second time. The amount of effort that went into earning that money was not worth the value of the shoe.

Oscar Wilde once said that "A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." I would argue that a liberal is the same; they know the value of nothing, because everything has been handed to them.

Look at our current President; what has he ever earned? Certainly not his college positions, up to and including Harvard Law review. Certainly not any of his elected offices, most of which he got by eliminating the opposition prior to reaching the voting booth. The Presidency? Remember; he ran against John McCain, probably the weakest Republican candidate since Taft in 1916.

How many democrats are that way? Were handed everything they ever had, from their first car to their college education, to their first job? Maybe that’s why democrats/liberals/progressives seem to think everybody is entitled to everything- they didn’t earn anything, so it’s unfair to make somebody else earn something?

I could be way off base. But I do wonder; has anybody done a poll showing how many folks with student loan debt are voting for Obama, as opposed to those with student loan debt and a job?

Corruption? What Corruption?

Here is a great (and fairly balanced) article on where this race will boil down to.

Basically the author believes that for Romney to win he needs to have more Republican voters turn out in Hamilton County Ohio than Democrats turn out in Cuyahoga County Ohio. Some very interesting numbers in the article.

Such as 916,000 registered voters in Cuyahoga County. Out of a population of 1,270,294; 22.3% of which are below the age of 18, 283,276 residents. 1,270,294 minus 283,276 equals 987,018, more simply, over 92% of the eligible folks in Cuyahoga County are registered to vote. Amazing number ain't it?

Given the same rate for the entire state (population 11,544,951; Sal-ute!), there would be  8,217,419 voters in the State of Ohio as of October 2012, there were about 7.7 million registered voters. Quite a difference; about half a million voters. State wide only 87% of eligible residents are registered to vote.

But in primarily Democratic Cleveland, 5% more.

Hell, Cuyahoga County is so corrupt even the press had to finally take notice. And these are just the guys they caught.

So; it looks like the entire election between Romney and Obama will be determined by whether or not Cuyahoga County is still as corrupt as it was in 2008/2010.

I am being to see why the Dems are so confident of a victory, no matter what the polls say.

Nostradamus I Ain't

I was reading this article yesterday. Amazing what the press won't report with a Democrat in the White House, ain't it?

I normally don't like making predictions, because predictions can go so disastrously wrong. So many little things go into an event, and all it takes is one of the steps to turn out B instead of A and you look like a damn fool.

Think "Dewey Defeats Truman".

But in this case I feel secure in my predictions. Because they are based on recent history.

I predict that once Romney is elected- and no, that's not a prediction; that is a fervent hope- we will start again hearing about the cost of the wars. We will start having body counts again on the evening news, and pictures of flag draped caskets in full color on the evening news.

I predict that once Romney gets elected, we will start hearing about the homeless problem in this country. We will see images of homeless children, living in cars, and barely surviving. The numbers of homeless won't go up or down, but the attention to them will increase dramatically.

I predict half of the people in this country will starve to death once Romney is elected, or it will at least seem that way. Every time an elderly person is found dead in their home it will be because of 'recent' changes to Medicare an Social Security.

I predict that after Romney's election half of the bridges in the country will collapse, or it will seem to appear that way. Every time a backwater two lane bridge is closed for repair it will be because of 'recent' cuts in the transportation budget.

I predict Romney's Presidency will result in a dramatic increase in teen pregnancy, teen suicide and teen alcoholism. All because of 'recent' changes to Federal programs. At least, that's what the media will try to convince you of.

 I also predict that there will not be any change in any of these areas. There maybe slight drops in some rates- a change that will not be mentioned anywhere, or you risk a charge of heresy- because despite the trillions of dollars cast at these problems for the last 40 years, there has been no dramatic change on the rates of any of these issues.

But all of the issue we have not heard a peep out of for the last 3.5 years will suddenly become urgent, and drastically increasing in urgency.

Just like they did when Clinton was President; all of these issues disappeared, from the press anyway, for 8 years, only to appear cicada-like moments after George Bush was sworn in.

That's why I can make these predictions so confidently; I have seen the media's playbook.

A Target Rich Environment

This morning the news was full of blogging material. I couldn't turn around without hearing something that set my teeth on edge and my blood pressure soaring.

There was some woman on the radio this morning talking about suing a local park district because she doesn't like the rules at the park; it seems that a rule against 'Garbage Picking' is code for 'We don't want the homeless in our park'. Who knew?

And then there was Obama and his speech today in Cincinnati. Apparently he feels there is too much government support of automakers.

Not in this country; in CHINA! apparently having your government actually, you know, OWN an automaker is not problem. But just financially supporting them is against the rules.

But the winner?

The Fed is going to print money to buy MORTGAGES!

Here is how this will help (allegedly):

By printing money to buy mortgages they will keep interest rates low (lower than 0%!?!?!?) by keeping the banks flush with cash (you mean more than the Trillions they are already sitting on from TARP and the other 'Quantitative Easing' programs?!?!?!?), so more people will be able to get a loan (based on WHAT JOB!?!?!?) and buy a house, increasing demand and raising housing.

And then all of the unicorns will fart a hundred rainbows and everybody will sing Happy Days are Here Again! and the economy will instantly recover. I made up a part of that. I'll let you guess which part.

They are completely missing that housing prices are a SYMPTOM, not a cause. The cause is TOO MUCH MONEY SUPPLY.

Which printing more money will not help, will it?

50 more days until we can get rid of these idiots.

Last Night Was Great

Best Quotes from the Republican Convention. I think they missed one; "I can't tell him to do that. I can't tell him to do that to himself."

Clint Eastwood was great last night. And you how I know exactly how much damage he did to Obama? Look at the reaction from the left. They have called him everything from dimwitted to senile. And Obama tweeted a picture of himself in his Presidential chair in response.

And then Marco Rubio. If we aren't calling him President Rubio in 20 years there is no justice in this world.

Now comes the hard part. The Republicans have talked the talk. Once we elect them will they walk the walk?

I freely admit I ain't much of a Republican; I'm a register Independent with definite Libertarian leanings. I have voted Republican since Reagan because I have never seen a Democrat I trusted enough to vote Libertarian.

We trusted them before, remember? They had the House, The Senate and the White House for 6 years. They screwed us in 2000, but we blamed the War on Terror. They screwed us in 2004; again, we blamed the War on Terror. In 2006, we fired a warning shot. They ignored it, and in 2008 we tried the Democrats.

Yeah, that really worked out well, didn't it.

In 2012 my guess is we will try them again, hopefully with both elected branches.

And then what?

The big trouble with our two party system is that it currently is a choice between Bad and Worse; Dumb and Dumber. In 2008 we thought nobody could out spend Bush.

We were wrong.

Lord, how we were wrong.

So its back to Dumb from dumber. Maybe.

We have Rand Paul now, and the Tea Party. All we can do is hope that makes a differnce.

A Fair and Biased Press

I was talking with some friends the other day, and as usual the conversation turned to the upcoming election.

Will we keep the House? Will we win the Senate? Will we dump Obama?

During the conversation I had an off the wall thought.

I will allow the Dems to keep the White House and the Senate and give them House. I just want one thing in return:

A fair and honest Press. I want every TV station and Channel; every newspaper and magazine to honestly report what is happening in Washington and every state capital. If that happens for the next 4 years, Then I'll happily vote for a Democrat.

I figure the odds of that happening are about the same as me hitting the Powerball and the Mega Millions in the same week. Twice.

You know what bothers me? We have had a Constitutionally had a free press in this country since 1787. And we have had a biased press since 1787.

The thing was, in the old days you knew the Newspaper was biased, and you read it because of its biases. Today it's CNN & MSNBC on the one side, and Fox News on the other. Back in the day, in Cincinnati at least, the Democrats read the Post and Times Star; Republicans read the Enquirer. You knew how the news would be reported, and expected that bias. The newspapers prided themselves on that bias.

I have access to a unique collection of old Cincinnati newspapers. One day in 1915 a carpenter hung a full length mirror on a bathroom door, and stuffed some of yesterday's newspapers behind it to keep it from rattling.

A couple of years ago they were pulled out. What the carpenter had used were almost complete editions of the Cincinnati Enquirer; the Post and the Times Star. The big news the day, at least internationally, was a German victory in a battle in WWI; a war the United States had not yet entered.

In the Enquirer, it was front page news; full page, with pictures. In the Post, it was a small article on the front page, below the fold. In the Times Star it was buried inside; second or third page, or maybe further back. The big news in the Times Star? A Gas and Electric rate hike.

Each paper played to its base, and unabashedly proclaimed its bias.

And then everything changed. It was subtle at first, but lately has become blatant. Like almost everything else in modern journalism, it hit about the same time as Watergate; when two reporters became bigger news that the story they were covering- Woodward and Bernstein.

Now you will not find a news outlet that with tell you they are biased. and adherents of any particular brand will not admit the outlet they follow has a bias; theirs is the one unbiased outlet; its the rest of them that are biased.

I also find it interesting that once outlets started hiding their bias, they started going under. Locally, the Post went under 5 years ago. The Times Star had merged with the Post in 1958. The Enquirer is hanging on solely because it is the last newspaper in the area. TV News is ratings wise in the dumper as well, and dropping. Can we even mention 'Ratings' and CNN in the same breath without running afoul of some liberal morality double standard?

So where are folks getting their news? Why from biased internet sites; sites that clearly proclaim their bias.

Gee; now ain't that interesting?

So Many Options

I had an email exchange with a friend today about the upcoming election, and Obama's chances of re-election.

An interesting fly in the ointment we discussed was Bill Clinton; the keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention.

First; nobody will watch the convention. Hell, even the elected officials with that capital "D" after their names are finding ways to avoid getting photographed with President Death Knell. So all we will get from the speech are the highlights.

So the first question: Whose side is Bill Clinton on? The obvious answer is of course, Bill Clinton's What does he care more about; Bill Clinton or the Democrats keeping the White House?

Before you answer that, think about this.

The next four years will be interesting in a lot of respects. Economically, politically, foreign affairs, the Middle East, domestically- I can't think of a single area that will not require massive effort just to control, much less put right.

Assume Obama wins. Also assume he will continue through the next four years doing what he has done for the last four. Unless the Sunshine Fairy rains her good blessing down on us because a unicorn smiled at her, I don't see us being in any better position in 2016 than I do now. I also think that even the last few Obama sycophants will be tired of the condition of the country.

If we don't go Republican in 2012, we will definitely in 2016. Which means the earliest Hillary can expect to win is 2020. How will that work out for Bill?

Assume Romney wins, and again assume that the Unicorn doesn't smile for the Sunshine Fairy. Romney is no Reagan, and the world economy is just as bad off- or worse- than ours. I have heard that a recession is usually caused by over production, while a depression is caused by excessive cash flow. It is easier to clear the excess cars and appliances from the system than it is to clear a hundred trillion dollars.

Chances are we will still be working our way out of the slump, even if Romney does everything 100% right. And I have no faith that he will do everything 100% right.

Which means we may be ready to switch back to a Democrat in 2016. How will that work out for Bill?

Also, Bill Clinton is the Only Democratic President to win re-election since FDR in 1944; a status he will lose if Obama wins four more years.

You see why a lot of pundits don't think Bill Clinton actually has Obama's back this year.

And still Obama chose him for the keynote address.

There is another possibility.

Obama knows what the next four years will be like, and wants to lose; knowing he cannot do anything that will make the slightest change, or he is bored with the idea of being president. Hell, four years is the longest he has ever held a "job" in his life.

Either way, we only have a few more weeks until we know for sure.

Is anybody really ready for the "Hillary in '16" bumper stickers?

Is You Is, Or Is You Ain't...

I watched O Brother Where Art Thou? last weekend for probably the fiftieth time. Yeah, I know it's a George Clooney movie; I like it in spite of him. The music is just flat great; the other actors are superb and it fulfills my basic requirements for a movie; a good story, convincingly told.

But that's not what I'm writing about today. Today our focus is a little tighter.

In case you aren't aware of the movie, and its various plots, one of the plots concerns the gubernatorial election in the state of Mississippi, where Governor 'Pappy' O'Daniel is being challenged by a fellow by the name of Homer Stokes. Toward the end of the movie Stokes is having a campaign event where George Clooney and his fellow escapees show up and barge the stage and sing a couple of songs.

Just prior to this scene Clooney  and company had busted up a KKK lynching that was being led by Stokes.

When he sees Clooney and his crew up on the stage he grabs a microphone and proceeds to denounce the crew in some rather vague but specific racial terms. He finishes his speech with the line:

"Is you is, or is you ain't my constituency?" (video at the link)

What the Hell is the meaning of this post? If you watched the video- and remember this movie is from 2000- I can't help but see Obama as Homer Stokes.

He is out on the campaign trail almost daily, and although they have not physically pulled the plug on his microphone or run him out of town on a rail, it is happening metaphorically.

Look at Nancy Pelosi, recommending nobody go to the Democratic Convention for crying out loud.

I can just see Homer Obama standing in the middle of an empty hall, shouting "Is you is, or is you ain't my constituency?", while Pelosi bends down to unplug his mike.

Sometimes Life does imitate Art.

John Roberts Did WHAT!?!?!?!

I'm not sure yet how I feel about yesterdays Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.

One side of me is adamantly, virulently opposed to the very existence of a law that controls a very personal choice. That side says the court made a horrendous mistake yesterday. And just the fact that Roberts joined the Dark Side of Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer is kind of disturbing.

But, some of the legal commentators I have been reading say that Roberts' opinion has gutted the power of the Commerce Clause. If that is true, then maybe the whole fargin' Obama Presidency has been worth it.

Barely.

The Commerce Clause is probably the most bastardized clause in the entire Constitution. Second would be the 14th Amendment, which somehow manages to have 'emanations from a penumbra'. But, I digress.

In order to get the Constitution adopted by the several states back in 1787 several of its framers wrote a series of pieces, called, collectively, The Federalist Papers, to be published in the newspapers of the day to explain the reasoning behind the various parts of the new Constitution to aid in its adoption.

One thing not made clear to a lot of folks today is the power the states had at the time. The power of the Crown did not devolve to the Continental Congress; it devolved to the various states. Each state became its own Nation, and adopting the new Constitution would cede some of that power to the new Federal Government.

The European Common Market and the Euro are a modern example, with the exception that countries did not lose their autonomy and the ability to remove themselves from the Common Market. It is solely an economic confederation. The Constitution created an economic and a political country, out of once were independent states. Four score an seven years later it was conclusively proven that the states did not have the power to secede. But again, I digress.

I have a copy of The Federalist Papers. 648 pages in paperback, including the index, notes, a copy of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation and the Forward. This is the men who WROTE the Commerce Clause explaining what it meant. How many of the 600 pages deal with the Commerce Clause? 8.

Yep. EIGHT. The single most powerful (in modern interpretation) clause in the entire Constitution earns about 1% of the comments.

It goes back to the realities of the post- Revolutionary States. Each was a sovereign country, and each had the powers of a sovereign nation, including the authority to set tariffs and have its own Customs House. Virginia would have its own tariff on goods from Europe, as well as import restrictions on, say, corn from Maryland or North Carolina,

Obviously, if we became a single country there could not be import and export duties between the several states, and the new Federal Government would set the rules for trading with foreign partners.

Like the majority of the (original) Constitution, simple and logical. And it took 140 years for this simple, logical language to become twisted.

And yeah, a Democrat was responsible. In my opinion the second worst President in the history of the Union; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; FDR. (First is of course Obama. Third and Fourth are LBJ and JEC- James Earl Carter). During FDR's 12 years in office he managed to persuade the Supreme Court that a farmer growing grain on his own land to feed his own cattle- in which neither the cattle nor the grain crossed any state lines- had an effect on interstate commerce, and was therefore subject to Federal Regulation.

So much for the plain and simple language of the Constitution.

Well, apparently I have once again taken the long way around the barn.

So, to bring this home; if the commentators I have read are correct, and this is another Pyrrhic victory for Obama, then maybe I can live with this decision.

One blog I read this morning (which I of course found through Instapundit) Five Possible Silver linings in the Obamacare Decision also lists as a Silver Lining the idea that by keeping Obamacare alive will energize the Republican base this election season, and create the perfect climate for its total repeal in Congress.

I guess I am too multi-faceted, because there is one side of me that's wants Congress to do a total repeal. I am totally against the Courts legislating from the bench, so maybe Congress is where the death of Obamacare needs to happen.

Now all we need are the votes to make it happen come next January.

A Very Regional Issue

I've always heard, and believed, that we could never have another Civil War in this country because we don't have any divisive regional issues any more.

I'd say this map kind of disproves that theory.

Obviously not all of these Red Districts, or Blue Districts for that matter, are as monolithic as they appear on this map, but still, it draws a very clear distinction between the coasts, the central cities and 'fly-over country', doesn't it?

Apparently, Nationalization of Health Care is a regional issue.

And, apparently we are fighting over it.

Here is a graphic of the states that have filed or joined lawsuits to overturn Obamacare:



I couldn't find a map with all 27 states on it; I had to modify the 21 state map; I guess you can tell which states I added?

The point is, again, its the south and the center of the country fighting against the coasts. If the courts rule in favor of Obamacare, how far will the anti-states go to avoid implementation of the take over scheme?

That is the big question, isn't it?

I guess the bigger question is whether or not the Federal Government gets the message before secession starts. Things are more civil than they were in the 1860's, so I doubt Civil War will immediately follow Civil Lawsuit, but I also doubt that a failure to over turn this legislative abomination will result in acquiescence.

Repeal of Obamacare has already passed the House; will popular pressure force a vote in the Senate; something Reid has said he won't allow? If it does pass the Senate. will popular pressure force Obama to sign it? Yeah I doubt it too.

That means we need to find a President and a Senate that agrees with the majority of the country. That should be easy to do in 2012, provided the Republicans keep their act together and actually pass some legislation that is in the country's interest, not Washington's.

On that point I am wishful, not hopeful.

Remember When I Said

That I wouldn't replace my flag until the people were back in power?

Well, I think today is close enough.

My wife says my flag is disrespectful.

It may be.

But is it more disrespectful to our country and it's Veterans than what has been happening in Washington since March?

Tough call, ain't it?

Does This Explain 'New Coke"?

Yesterday I, and a lot of my neighbors, got a letter from our electric company. They are offering to do an energy audit of my home so they can show me ways to reduce my energy usage.

WTF?

Isn't that like getting a letter from your brewery, offering a membership to AA?

Seriously, WTF?

Why are they offering to help me use LESS of their product?

Here's what I figure is going on:

If every home uses less electricity, then they need to generate less juice. When they need to generate less, they can do it with fewer power plants and fewer employees.

And then they apply for a rate increase, so although I am using less of their product, my bill stays the same.

Win/Win for them; Lose/Lose for me.

I went out looking on the internets for the old fashioned electric company logo; you know the one; a lightning bolt with a light bulb nose wearing a hardhat?

I found this instead, and thought "what a cheesy show that was", and realized the image fit perfectly!

Outside My Front Door

I thought about flying my flag upside down when Obama got elected; but talked myself out of it.

When they started talking about Cap and Trade, I was ready, but we dodged that bullet, at least temporarily.

But last Sunday, when they passed Socialized medicine I went ahead and started flying my distress flag.

I also have made up my mind not to buy a new flag as long as the Democratistas are in power.

It took a lot of thought to get to this point. I have an absolute love and deep respect for my country's flag. I know what it means to those who have fought for it.

And I also know what is happening to the country it represents right now. The country I fought for is becoming too much like the country I fought against.

When we take my country back I'll get a new flag.

And a taller pole to fly it from.

Rumor Has It

That for the first time in over 50 years come next January there will not be a Kennedy in Washington.

Apparently the last Kennedy there, Patrick, who was Teddy's boy, has received his inheritance and has decided to quit working for a living.

One more step in the right direction!

Congressman John Murtha Has Died

First my deepest and sincerest condolences to his loved ones. John Murtha was not a public figure to them; he was a Father, Brother, Husband and Friend.

But it's the Public figure we will comment on, and how his death will affect the future of this country.

Incumbents are always a special case. Usually (unlike this year) they are not seen as a member of a party, but as the holder of an office, and party affiliation is less important than when running for an open seat.

This means that as a Democrat he could win in a Conservative leaning district.

But can his possible replacement? Without the current anti-Washington trend a Dem maybe able to hold that seat. Now? I doubt it- unless that Dem has Tea Party support.

So another seat, in Democratic hands for 35 years, become Republican. Pelosi was only able to muster 218 votes the first time health Care went through the House. One of those votes is now a Republican; and one just died. It's beginning to look like we have (barely) dodged the Socialist agenda.

Hopefully it was close enough for the voters to see what the Democrats were all about, without any actual pain of living through it.