One of the two main criteria for nullification to work is passion and the sheer number of states involved. If 20 or more states nullify ObamaCare there would be no way to enforce it. Read on.

The time to step up is now. We fight not just for our country, but for our families and for those not yet born. The information below is voluminous and it is merely a primer. Taking back our country requires understanding the power of the states in contrast to federal power. It requires we grasp the historical context of how the federal government absconded with powers the founders clearly never intended it to possess.

Michelle Malkin makes an excellent implicit case for why nullification is the only way back to federalism and the Tenth Amendment Center provides extensive education and commentary on the subject itself. Let us start with Michelle as she questions the ability of Republicans to lead us out of the sinkhole:

Now, I want you to read every word of what Andy McCarthy has to say about the GOP leadership’s abandonment of Jim Bunning — and what it says about the lack of Republican fortitude in the war against the permanent, ever-growing Nanny State.

Andy speaks the truth. Hard truths. And fiscal conservatives/Tea Party activists need to shout them from the rooftops. I’ve invoked Phyllis Schlafly many times over the past year in urging the GOP to provide true choices instead of echoes. Actions speak louder than words. So, alas, does feckless inaction.

Maine’s Susan Collins took to the Senate floor to assure Americans that Bunning’s radical views about Congress’s not spending yet more billions it doesn’t have “do not represent a majority of the Republican caucus.” And sure enough, they didn’t. Once Bunning backed down, the measure passed by a whopping 78-19.

Think about that. We are talking about $10 billion in a year when Leviathan is slated to spend a total of $3.6 trillion. The majority of Senate Republicans joined Democrats in concluding that the allocation of every one of these 3.6 thousand billion dollars is so vital that not one of them could be sacrificed in favor of unemployment insurance. So another $10 billion just gets heaped on the already unfathomable trillion-dollar deficits stacking year upon year.

Read the entire post. The realization that salvation exits with neither political party is an a priori and tacit argument the federal government is responsible for creating this mess and cannot, by design, be the architect of solutions to restoring fiscal responsibility and individual freedom. This is not to say principled politicians do not exist in Washington – I can think of a few – but most politicians are just that…politicians. Self-interested, disconnected, contemptuous elitists. For those in the Tea Party, it is a calculated risk that your candidate somehow is cut from a different cloth. In reality, you will fare no better than the average citizen. As I write these words, salivating, power hungry impostors wait to prey on the wishes and dreams of Tea Party members everywhere. I am your candidate, they will say. Even those with honest designs are not immune to the corrupting influence of Washington, for the system is fundamentally broken and it is impossible to remove a sitting member of Congress member. It is not, however, impossible to recall a governor or a state legislator in some states and it is here that Tea Parties, nullification, and real power collide in the perfect storm of the restoration of constitutional governance.

Those of you who follow this blog recall that a group of organizations successfully changed Senate GOP healthcare policy. The history of those efforts are here and cross-posted at Politico. Be forewarned, you will not like the narrative:

After weeks of refusing to embrace the “obstructionist” label as a virtue, Senate Republicans finally saw the light and late last week began to use the parliamentary tools at their disposal to delay a final vote on health care.

Until then, with the exception of South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, Republican lawmakers had refused to use Senate rules and procedures to obstruct the passage of the health care bill being pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and run out the clock on Obamacare. Some prominent Republican senators and members of their staffs had even let it be known they actually believed passage of the Reid health care bill and enactment of Obamacare would benefit GOP candidates in the November midterm elections.

This GOP strategy of expedient complicity enraged the conservative base, roused talk radio show hosts and bloggers and even provoked a backlash from the chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Social Security Institute and the National Tax Limitation Committee joined with Tea Party Support and Gun Owners of America to convey this outrage to the Senate Republican leadership through letters, e-mails and telephone calls from the grass roots to GOP senators’ offices.

It took a figurative gun to the collective head of the GOP to add a little starch to collapsing spines. Had the switch occurred just a smidgen later, Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts may well have occurred after the passage of ObamaCare.

To the GOPs credit, they continue to stick to obstruction and the promise of obstruction regarding ObamaCare. Their performance at the bipartisan healthcare “summit” was nothing short of amazing. However, the same tendencies against fiscal restraint still exist for many in the party, as outlined by Michelle in her post.

So what is one to do? The answer – nullification. No, nullification is not secession and no, nullification is not a violent act. The Tenth Amendment Center describes nullification as follows:

First, nullification has, in fact, been somewhat successful in the past and more recently as well. Second, as President Obama loves to say, “Let me be clear”: “Official” nullification has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

Nullification carries with it the force of state law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the US Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court. It is the people of a state asserting their constitutional rights by acting as a political society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.

With the exception of a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), a state’s decision to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still affirm that might does not make right.

There is no question as to whether or when “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:

25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law [REAL ID Act]..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void…

…There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.

Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.

More on federal tax escrow accounts and the willingness of federal agents to execute orders deemed unconstitutional below.

For more information about nullification I strongly encourage the reader to visit the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) and type in nullification in the search bar. Lots of very interesting reading. Additional information can be found at the Social Security Institute.

The TAC also writes Our Goal is Federalism, not “States’ Rights”:

Foundationally, states don’t have rights as a government, states have power. Power at the federal and state level is derived from the consent of the governed, the people, who do have rights our governing agreements were designed to protect. Inspired by careful historical study, years of debate, considerations, and the declarations of colonies, towns, and associations (prior to July of 1776) the fundamental rights of the people were articulated in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence…

…Let every member of every organization supporting state sovereignty and federalism cleanse the language so our opponents cannot easily attack the wrong target. Should they target federalism and the original meaning we can defeat them with truth. Freedom is not outdated, federal government is an agreement among the people of different sovereign states, the 10th Amendment has never been repealed, and virtue is still necessary for securing our posterity’s future rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

So if I were to ask you to identify the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution, the correct answer is not the U.S. Supreme Court, but rather the states themselves. Allowing the U.S. Supreme Court – part of the judicial branch of the federal government – to rule on federal powers presents a problem. Dr. Larry Hunter informs us (emphasis mine):

The resolution explicitly disclaimed that the national government was the judge of its own powers. Allowing it to judge its own powers would be akin to permitting an agent, rather than the principal, to determine the breadth of the agent’s authority. The law of agency at its most basic level recognizes that an agent can act as such only subject to the consent and control of the principal to whom the agent owes a fiduciary duty (see Restatement [Second] of Agency, sec. 1). Just as A, B, and C, the partners in a business firm, decide what authority to give their agent Z, so the parties to the Constitution decide the powers of the national government. In light of such logic, Jefferson proclaimed in the resolution that “each party [to the federal compact] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measures of redress” (Virginia Commission 1964, 144). For Jefferson, the people acting through their states — the authentic organs of government — were the final arbiters of constitutional interpretation. Jefferson feared that giving the federal government the exclusive power to interpret the Constitution through the Supreme Court would lead to arbitrary government. As John Taylor later wrote in his Construction Construed and Constitutions Vindicated, “a jurisdiction, limited by its own will, is an unlimited jurisdiction” ([1820] 1970, 131). With the states stripped of the power to construe the Constitution, the enforcement of constitutional limitations on the central government would be chimerical. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the convictions under the Sedition Act were appealed to the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court. The Republicans did not want to give the Court an opportunity to set a dangerous precedent.

If we remain sheep, apathy lays the foundation for us and our descendants of a people enslaved to the whims of a capricious few. Nullification begins with the state legislative and executive bodies, when the previously lorded over sheep transform into self-reliant wolves. It requires of us and our state leaders great strength of character and leadership. If they are not up to the task – we can replace them. At times, we must be prepared to stand with them shoulder-to-shoulder – literally and figuratively. The goal of any nullification movement is critical mass. Using ObamaCare as an example – assuming it passes, if enough states nullify the law and governors coordinate the effort with the will and strength of the people at their backs, ObamaCare will collapse. Federal repercussions will be swift:

When I talk to people about these principles – most agree, like Martin Luther King Jr. said in his famous “Letter from Birmingham jail,” that there is a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. But, they’ll often ask, even if states pass laws to nullify unjust and unconstitutional federal acts, the feds will still continue to tax us and punish our states financially for not complying – so what can we REALLY do?

One idea, which will take a great deal of courage on the part of the People and their state governments, is to establish what’s being called a “Federal Tax Escrow Account” or a “State Authority and Federal Tax Funds Act.”

Already introduced in Georgia (HB877), Oklahoma (HB2810), and Washington (HB2712), such laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people.

Naturally, the U.S. Supreme Court would label such an act unconstitutional, but as stated above, such an action by the Supreme Court amounts to empty words and rhetoric. The natural progression of such actions, given enough states and a determined populace, will be the nonviolent return of federalism. While it is possible events unfold in such a manner leading to a showdown between, for example, national guard troops and/or civilians and the U.S. military, it is highly unlikely the U.S. Military will follow orders that are obviously unconstitutional. After the forceful removal of guns from citizens in the aftermath of Katrina, many in law enforcement and the military began a serious a deliberate debate on the issue. Oath Keepers states the following on their site:

The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” — Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

Such a time is near at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army — and this Marine Corps, This Air Force, This Navy and the National Guard and police units of these sovereign states.

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.

Included in the link is a list of orders member will not obey.

We can take great lessons from Martin Luther King, Jr. and his approach to the civil rights movement, as well as Gandhi and the issue of British colonialism in India. A passive-aggressive approach can work if executed correctly.

It is no longer the case that most of us sacrifice for our freedoms. We know of those who did so in the past and do so even today. We honor them on special holidays and then go about our business. Lately, some find themselves prone to attend rallies, send faxes, call and email their federal representatives, only to sit back and watch Washington arrogance ignore our calls for sanity.

It is now clear to many the way forward – the only way forward – is through the states. We may slow our slide into fiscal disaster and European style socialism with leveraged federal pressure, but inaction at the state level – read nullification – we only delay the inevitable. So now is the time to begin. Now is the time to transform.

The sovereignty of the British at the time of the War of Independence was in the Parliament. The founders knew this and ensured the constitution would not allow for concentration in a centralized power for a few to lord over the many. The final arbiter of the constitution is not the Supreme Court, but rather the states. This is something rarely taught in law school and constitutional courses concentrate on case law and not on the historical context of the founding document itself. When the historical context is reviewed, it is clear, as Jefferson warned, that allowing a federal judicial system to check the federal powers was patently absurd.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, written in secret by Jefferson and Madison in response to the Alien and Sedition Act, which would have jailed them for speaking out against the government, clearly made the above case and the case for nullification. Nullification is not secession – it is a state saying the federal powers have no right to execute a law within the borders of that state. Now look back to the context of the War of Independence. A tiny island off the coast of France has now been replaced by a city in DC. We are back where we started.

Perish as sheep, or thrive as a wolves.

Highly Recommended Reading:

The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (The Politically Incorrect Guides)

Related:

Listen to Judge Napolitano as he talks about nullification and secession. Personally, I don’t believe secession is necessary nor really an option. The very thought of it conjures images of violent battles. Nullification is the peaceful means to taking back our liberties under the Constitution.

More reason to start now: New House Dem strategy on ObamaCare: hostaging

How do you spell “tone-deaf?”; Update: Obama joins the cheerleading squad

State Sovereignty is About You!

The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe

Health Care Nullification: Things have just gotten underway

Nullification: The states have a “nuclear option,” too

Federal Law is Always Supreme. Right?

Hoyer: We could totally draft an anti-abortion bill that will get considered … by Democrats

Note To GOP: Our Freedoms Are No Longer Negotiable

Will Stupak be bought on Demcare?

So… What Next?

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.

Major Update: The Senator Jim DeMint Healthcare Amendments – Why They Matter. A Strategy To Kill Reconciliation. This is a must read post that outlines a strategy only the grassroots could execute – a strategy that decreases the likelihood the votes exist in the Senate even for Reconciliation.

So this is compromise. From government run socialist healthcare to a government run fascist healthcare. And it looks like a number of Republican Senators are practically wetting their pants over this copout as opposed to opting out altogether and standing up for their constituents.

For these Republicans, the danger of believing this agreement finally closes the door on a painful August with expectations we will all fall in line like mindless robots is these politicians seem to forget how quickly we now pick up on the details. Gone are the days when many Republicans could count on an apathetic electorate. The lesson of August? Ignore us at your peril.

Any Republican that votes for this blatant destruction of personal liberties may as well save themselves the time and start packing their bags now. Complicity by any Republican will exile them to the political wilderness, and don’t be afraid to let them know that. This bipartisan RINOCare compromise takes us from big government to a big government, big business collusion. Republican politicians call it a “public-private partnership” between big insurance and the federal government. But what is the reality? It is a nefarious entity best described as a government maintained insurance cartel. For details, read Obama’s Health-Insurance Cartel (emphasis mine).

For all his talk about choice and competition, what Obama proposes is more of what we already labor under: corporate-state bureaucratic decision-making. The status quo is not the free market. It is a system of government-business collusion that, among other things, welds workers to their employers. Obama’s scheme would simply be more of the same. The reason Big Pharma and Big Insurance favor the scheme is that everyone would be forced to buy their products or coverage for their products, with the taxpayers picking up most of the tab.

Note the words corporate-state bureaucratic decision-making. If you think the Senate Finance Committee rids us of rationing and death panels (that’s right, I used that phrase), then your in for a surprise. Instead of a government bureaucracy making your decisions for you, you know have the monstrous child of the union of government and big insurance. Either way, the decision about your healthcare is taken from you and your doctor and handed off to the uncaring hands of self-serving companies and bloated government.

While I disagree with Obama and Gibbs on pretty much everything and loath Obama’s overt attempt to socialize this country, this is very telling:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs criticized the Senate Finance Committee 24 hours before President Barack Obama is set to address Congress, questioning why lobbyists have a copy of the committee bill before the administration.

Gibbs said it is “not surprising” that K Street lobbyists have the proposal, which does not include the controversial public-option plan, before the president does.

Anyone who thinks this Orwellian piece of legislation trash is good for America is now forewarned (emphasis mine):

Well Ladies and Gentlemen of the grass roots looky here: Now emerges from the shadows the hand holding the smoking gun spotted earlier of the Big-Business/Big-Government bipartisan conspiracy to conscript the entire population into a government-run healthcare system. Today, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) released details of his healthcare plan that would impose fines of up to $3,800 on a family that refuses to purchase health insurance.

Although this plan is being introduced by a top-ranking Democrat, the framework of the program is shaping up to be very similar to the Republican-designed blue print the GOP already foisted on the nation under the Medicare Part D prescription drugs program, which I described some time ago about three fourths of the way through this radio interview.

There is, consequently, good reason for the White House to remain optimistic about achieving a “bipartisan compromise.” The President’s Senate operatives are embracing Republican thinking and going over to the Red Side to entice GOP Senators to join in the healthcare takeover:

“The plan from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana would make health insurance mandatory, just like auto coverage. . .It would provide tax credits to help cover the cost for people making up to three times the federal poverty level. . .Those who still don’t sign up would face hefty fines, starting at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families.

For those who earn more than three times the poverty level and refuse to purchase insurance, the penalty on individuals would jump to $950 and the penalty on families would jump to $3,800.

Senator Baucus says he is hoping his plan can win bipartisan support. And, why not? Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is known to be secretly negotiating with the White House to impose just such a mandate. Senator Chuck Grassley already stated publicly that he, and many in his party, support imposing a mandate on individuals to purchase healthcare. To wit: Four other Republicans (Bennett, Alexander, Crapo and Graham) already (co)sponsor a bill (S. 391, Wyden-Bennett) the central organizing principle of which is an individual mandate.

And, as one liberal wag put it, the insurance companies are not the problem holding up healthcare reform, “Since they desperately want an individual mandate passed and will accept anything short of having their CEOs pushed out of an airplane door to get it.” It looks like six Republican Senators are just dying to jump out of an airplane to give it to them.

All that is required now to seal the deal is to put a Potemkin front on the public option and paint the words “Insurance Cooperatives” over the door. Presto magico, a “bipartisan compromise,” a.k.a. RHINOCare…

…The momentum is building toward a negotiated RHINOCare compromise on healthcare reform. If it happens, it will be just the latest in a long string of lurches toward a government takeover of everything engineered by Republicans in the name of freedom, security, privacy and free markets.

It is positively Orwellian.

In a match made in hell, powerful Republicans are brokering a RINOCare deal between the White House and big business to replace an employer mandate with an individual mandate (see here) and pave the way toward cartelization a health insurance market cartel (see here).

So President Obama has jettisoned the public option right on cue. The pivot is being portrayed in the press as an effort to salvage ObamaCare from ferocious opposition to the public option from the right, which is true but it is not the whole explanation of what Obama is doing and why he is doing it.

This move is not occurring in a panic, as some pundits would have people believe. This political pivot has long been contemplated within the White House as part of the Administration’s strategy to devise a healthcare package acceptable to the insurance industry, which in turn the President hopes will provide a “compromise” conservatives can live with. The trick is to do so without so alienating the left wing of his own party that he gets mouse trapped in the middle.

Now the following makes a bit more sense: Tide turns against public option on eve of President Obama’s address. Obama may pay lip service to the public option in his address to Congress tonight, but as to losing sleep over the loss of the public option – don’t count on it. The takeover of your healthcare is right on schedule and the dealing is positively Machiavellian.

There is no need for a massive overhaul of the healthcare industry to address the problems we are facing today. Simple free-market solutions exist which can drive down costs without liberty destroying legislation that favors big government and/or big business and without the budget busting pricetag attached to all these proposals. I live in Texas and the benefits of tort reform are quantifiable and beneficial to both patients and doctors.

Contact your Senator now and demand they hit the reset button and start over with real reform. If you Senator is Republican, demand they either stop or do not enter into any negotiations on any of the existing bills. It’s time to start over, keep big government out of our lives, and kick the special interests to the curb. This is about you and me – not them.

If your Senator is one of the following I recommend getting a few friends to get a few friends to get a few friends to contact them: (Gregg, Grassley, Snowe, Collins, Bennett, Murkowski, Voinovich, Corker, Alexander, Enzi, Graham, McCain, McConnell).

If you think its time to panic, it just might be. Educating the grass roots about this is probably one of the most important tasks at hand right now, and it must be done fast. I humbly hope this post meets with some success in providing the background necessary to fight this tooth-and-nail.

Update: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) looks like he is all over this “compromise” business and is ready to sell us out. Send letters, faxes, emails, and phone the sellout Senator (now there’s a nickname). His contact information is: Phone: 202-224-2541 FAX: 202-224-2499. Tell him no compromise on ObamaCare. It’s time to hit the reset switch.

Update: Right on cue: Reid endorses healthcare co-ops as Speaker Pelosi signals flexibility.

Baucus noted that the policies Obama outlined closely match the proposal Baucus presented to his bipartisan group last weekend, which will be the basis of a bill he will introduce next week and mark up in the committee the following week.

In other news and opinion:

Senate Republican Leader Sticks His Foot In GOP’s Mouth:

In today’s Washington Post (“Senate Finance Committee Chair Holds Out Hope That Bipartisan Accord Can Be Reached”), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stuck his foot in the Republican Party’s mouth:

“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) signaled Tuesday his party may retreat from the ‘just say no’ approach [on healthcare reform] that was effective this summer. Doing nothing, he said, is not an option. ‘At this point, there really should be no doubt where the American people stand. The status quo is not acceptable, but neither are any of the proposals we’ve seen from the White House or Democrats in Congress,’ he said. What people want, McConnell said, is a less costly effort with a less ambitious scope. ‘They want reforms, but they want the right reforms,’ he said.”

Is this the sound of professional Republican politicians beginning to cave in on a government takeover of healthcare? Was the Republican Leader signaling their willingness to cut a deal with the “right reforms,” such as an individual mandate and healthcare cooperatives, which Senate Democrats are now promoting and numerous Republican Senators are on record supporting? Or is it the sound of a tactical misstep by the Senate Republican Leader putting his foot too close to the edge and finding his footing collapsing beneath him?

The minute the Senate Republican Leader accepted the President’s patently false premise that “doing nothing is not an option,” he stepped out onto a slippery slope. Unless his colleagues pull himself back off it immediately, he could pull the entire Republican Party down to ruin along with him…

The K Street tax cheat who’s lobbying to save Obamacare

Czar backlash builds: Democrat calls for removal

Blue Dog: Town halls convinced me to oppose public option

ObamaCare Will Result in Lower Future Living Standards

Paul Krugman Vs Sarah Palin On Health Care

Government rejects Card Check as “unreliable”

Video: Democratic disarray

Boustany rebuttal: start with what we ‘agree upon’

Jim DeMint to Obama: Let’s go over ObamaCare line by line

Will the Speech Tonight Plug the Dike?

Behind closed doors: Baucus wooing Grassley and Enzi. Putting lipstick on a pig.

If you want to go fast – go alone. If you want to go far – go together.