Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center provides a peek at how just how ObamaCare can be stopped. Before continuing, keep this quote from Gandhi in mind:

40,000 British troops cannot force 300 million Indians to do what they will not do.

Power in numbers. If Americans don’t want ObamaCare, we don’t have to accept it. We have been conditioned that we must accept it, or that we must rely on the Supreme Court or Congress to save us, but what if the problem is the Supreme Court and Congress? What then? Micheal Boldin provides the answer:

Now that Heath Care legislation has passed, the obvious question for opponents is this: Now What? My answer is best summed up with just one word:

Marijuana.

No, I don’t mean that you should go out and smoke away your anger and frustration. Instead, you should feel empowered. The best way to explain this is by telling the story of a disabled mother from Northern California.

ANGEL’S STORY

Angel Raich has been permanently disabled since 1995. She has an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and other serious medical conditions. In 1997, her doctor felt that marijuana would be an effective medication.

Angel used homegrown marijuana, and she and her physician claim that it’s helped significantly. You may not agree with Angel’s choice, but it’s one made in accordance with California state law, which allows for such use. The federal government, however, has not shown much respect for state laws in recent decades, and chose to take action. After DEA agents seized and destroyed all six of her marijuana plants, she sued to stop them from doing so again.

The suit went all the way to the Supreme Court, and in Gonzales v Raich, Angel lost. The 2005 ruling made clear that the federal government did not recognize state laws authorizing the use of marijuana – in any situation.

The culprit here is the Commerce Clause, first defined in loose terms by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden. Justice Marshall is famous for his legislating from the bench and turning the defeat at the Philadelphia Convention of the nationalists, who believed in a strong central government with powers over the states, into a victory. Future Supreme Courts would take even more license with the Commerce Clause to grant Congress virtually unlimited powers – even under so-called conservative Chief Justices and conservative courts.

Mr. Boldin continues:

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

The court ruled that control over a plant grown and consumed on one’s own property was authorized under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “regulate…commerce among the several states.” It has never been amended.

Like any legal document, if the words of the Constitution mean today what they meant at the moment it was signed, we must understand just what those words meant at the time of its ratification…

…With this in mind, the Supreme Court, which is not a set of nine infallible gods, ruled incorrectly. But rule, they did. Thus, all three federal branches agreed that State-level laws allowing marijuana were a no-go. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas gave a stark warning:

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

If this is starting to make a bit of sense, it should. The Supreme Court ruling should have ended the matter, right? Even with the incorrect assumption held by most Americans that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution it did not. More than half a million people are registered users of medical marijuana, with millions more unregistered. So who is the final arbiter of the constitution? The states are, as our founders clearly wished it to be. Remember the nationalists were thumped at the Philadelphia Convention, it was only Marshall’s legislating from the bench that began to form the illusion the Supreme Court was all-powerful. Mr. Boldin continues:

RESIST DC

Even though she lost the case, Angel indicated she’d continue to use marijuana. At the time of the ruling, there were 10 states that had such laws. Not one of them has been repealed. Since then, another 4 states have passed similar laws, and many others are considering them, including South Dakota, Kansas, and New Hampshire…

…What’s been the result? The federal government will occasionally arrest some high-profile users, but taken in the perspective of the multitudes consuming the plant, the threat is quite low.

And, in mid-2009, recognizing a need for “efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources,” the Justice Department announced that it would back off the prosecution of medical marijuana patients even further.

Now it’s time to segway into the health-care arena. What, pray-tell, does the above have to do with ObamaCare? It’s the lesson, actually that, as Mr. Boldin states:

When enough states pass laws defying federal laws, and enough people actively defy them too, D.C. simply doesn’t have the manpower to arrest and prosecute all of us.

Many of us are relying on a political solution from Washington to solve our problems. Or perhaps we are putting our hope the Supreme Court will come to the rescue and not interpret the Commerce Clause in some novel way that will increase the power of Congress to control our lives to stunning new heights. For those who place their hopes in such entities I only have to say, good luck. Past experience dictates that such hopes are sure to be dashed, and even if a battle is won, the war will be lost until the people take action and not rely on the power of others to do the work they need to do. Never in history have people been rescued from tyranny by the very enablers of that tyranny, and the march to big government will always continue under both parties. It is only a matter of degree. As Dr. Larry Hunter points out in Who Lost Healthcare? (emphasis mine):

What do Harlem Globetrotters basketball, professional wrestling and American politics all have in common? They are FAKES…

…The sad thing is, most conservatives actually think American politics is a real contest between different visions and alternative practical courses for America. Au contraire. Politics in America today is between two Establishment political parties that need each other as foils—gotta’ have that “bad guy”—egged on by the mouth-radio carnies. The dirty little secret is most of the participants fundamentally agree on the need or the practical necessity of perpetuating and growing the welfare/warfare state. They differ only in degree, not kind.

The proof of this assertion is unambiguously clear: Government in the United States continues relentlessly to get bigger, more intrusive and oppressive no matter which political party is in control, no matter for how long. Yes, each party proceeds at a different pace and by different routes but they all herd us to the same destination nonetheless, confirming Thomas Jefferson’s observation that, “The natural tendency of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.”…

…The joke is on those Americans who actually believe a restoration of limited government, individual freedom and personal liberty are the objectives of either political party. The poor saps have spent their entire lives paying the full price of admission to cheer on the Washington Generals. How pathetic is that? Pitiful.

So, when the history of the government takeover of healthcare is written and the question asked, “Who lost healthcare?” the answer will be unambiguous: “Republicans, who failed to take a political risk and refused to employ every parliamentary device at their disposal to stop ObamaCare from being enacted into law.”

Conservatives, irate at the Democrats, will make heroes of Republicans for fighting the good fight rhetorically and overlook their unwillingness to act. They will flock to the polls and throw lots of Democrats out of office. Republicans will claim a mandate—but a mandate to do what, slow the boil?

So where do we go from here? Back to Michael Boldin and nullification:

This kind of activism – while it clearly carries personal risk – should be a real blueprint for people that have been consistently unable to find constitutional relief in Congress, the Executive, or the Courts.

Marijuana users: Love ‘em or hate ‘em, but show some respect for them, as many have suffered greatly for doing what they believe is right. People who believe strongly about other issues, like health care mandates, would do well to learn from them.

What should be done about federal control over health care? The same thing that should be done for every unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or mandate – Nullify Now!

If the politicians in Washington fail us (and there is already plenty of backtracking on promises of repeal) and the Supreme Court rules against the people, what then? By ignoring a perfectly good approach to taking back power from a tyrannical few in DC, we have only ourselves to blame. By putting our eggs in the federal basket and failing to pressure our state leaders to pass laws nullifying ObamaCare and coordinating with other states to do the same, we miss a real opportunity. An opportunity to send a message to Washington that, even if the Supreme Court sides with you and even when you back down from pledges to protect the people, we can still win. There are millions of us and only a few of you. We refuse to accept your tyranny and we do so without firing a single shot. All we have to do is ignore you, just like you ignored us.

Be sure to check out other posts at the Tenth Amendment Center that describe how legislation is shaping up, what local Sheriffs should do, how a state can react when Congress threatens to remove federal funds, and other items. Also, check out Nullification – Our Constitutional Option.

Remember, sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Relying on politicians and judges to save us is a perfect example of why this little pearl of wisdom is still good advice.

In other news:

Andrew Breitbart Offers $10,000 to United Negro College Fund

Some Republicans Still Don’t Get It

AP: Say, guess what we just found in ObamaCare!

Keep the Hopenchange: Personal incomes drop

ObamaCare: What the GOP could (but probably won’t) do now

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

I have worked with these guys in the past and this strategy is the best chance we have of stopping ObamaCare. The exact same type of strategy saved us from ObamaCare last year:

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…to convey this outrage to the Senate Republican leadership through letters, e-mails and telephone calls from the grass roots to GOP senators’ offices.

Pass this on. The Patient Opt Out team includes Dr. Larry Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan, current CEO of the Social Security Institute, and one of the authors of the Contract With America. The strategy involves an email buy and are quite costly – $10,000 or more for one million email addresses – with the email creative directing the viewer to a page where they can fax all members of Congress.

Last year, this same approach lead to GOP obstruction in the Senate. Without the dedication and work of the groups listed above, the Scott Brown victory last year would have occurred AFTER the passage of ObamaCare.

Help kill ObamaCare now.

Fred Barnes’ eye-opening op-ed in the Washington post is a wake-up call to wavering Democrats and even those leaning yes or committed yes. The Pandora’s Box that is the current health-care reform legislation best be left with the lid on, wrapped up in chains, and chucked into the deepest depths of the ocean:

America will be in a constant health-care war if ObamaCare is enacted. Passage wouldn’t end the health-care debate. Rather, it would perpetuate ObamaCare as the dominant issue for decades to come, reshape politics, create an annual funding crisis in Congress, and generate a spate of angry lawsuits. Yet few in Washington seem aware of what lies ahead.

We only have to look at Great Britain to get a glimpse of the future. The National Health Service—socialized medicine—was created in 1946 and touted as the envy of the world. It’s been a contentious issue ever since. Its cost and coverage are perennial subjects of debate. The press, especially England’s most popular newspaper, The Daily Mail, feasts on reports of long waiting periods, dirty hospitals, botched care and denied access to treatments.

And the people of this country, contrary to what our dear leader continues to spout, are very tied into the process, understand reconciliation and the “Slaughter Solution”, and not liking what they see:

Democratic leaders believe the public doesn’t focus on the process of how legislation is enacted. But in this case they’re wrong. I’ve been amazed at how many people understand “reconciliation”—a process that allows budget and spending bills to pass in the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of 60. Many voters are also now studying the details of the “Slaughter solution,” which would allow the House to “deem” the Senate health-care bill to have passed without actually voting on it and then to vote through changes to the Senate bill. These legislative shortcuts are already infuriating ObamaCare’s opponents.

Also contrary to the Democratic leadership’s position is that ObamaCare will not go away as an issue – not know, not next year and not in 2012. Lawsuits, party platforms and campaigns that run on repealing or de-funding enough aspects of ObamaCare to virtually kill it, will drag this out and make it the issue. Senate comity will be all but destroyed with dire consequences and partisanship in government will reach new unimaginable confrontational heights. This bill is absolute poison to the system, exposes the slimy “inside the Beltway” machinations, and indicates to the American people the fundamental lack of fairness when a small group of people can control the lives of 300 million others, while showing contempt not only for the Constitution, but the people of this country, and the will and best interests of a majority of the electorate.

Power and a complete lack of reason has gripped the Democratic party, heralding their demise and the ultimate demise of ObamaCare. The people will not rest nor sit idly by to be lorded over by a bunch of power-hungry elitists so disconnected to the reality outside their bubble that some actually believe they know what is good for us better than we and are willing to destroy the best healthcare system in the world in the process. Take a look at the NHS. Great Britain has 60 million people. You are about to try an experiment with 300 million people with 1/6 of the U.S. economy. The law of unintended consequences is the real law under consideration of passing. It is also called Murphy’s law.

I’d seriously consider what your doing. The consequences of your actions will not ultimately lead to the enactment of ObamaCare – we will see to that in one way or another – and you will have fallen on your sword for an President and a leader who, in the end, look at you as a pawn they are all too willing to sacrifice. Their contempt for you should anger you, not motivate you to vote yes.

Things are changing, and the old rules are out. Those who make decisions based on the now antiquated habits and culture that is DC politics are in for a shocking surprise. The electorate is awake and watching. We know what’s going on and the rules have changed.

Tread very lightly.

Last Wednesday, all 41 Senate’s Republicans signed a letter promising to hold Democrats to the letter of the Senate rules concerning reconciliation. These rules determine what items may be included in a package of alternations to the health bill Democrats intend to shove through Congress violating minority rights in an effort to take over 1/6 of the U.S. economy while simultaneously inserting themselves between you and your doctor.

Will it be enough to scare Democrats in the House? I have my doubts. I believe the GOP must shut down the entire Senate now on all legislation until ObamaCare is moved off the Senate and House calendar and both leaders promise to keep it off the calenders until the next Congress. However, I am hearing from inside sources the Senate GOP is skittish about this approach. Skittish about protecting our liberties? As one strategist put it who has created enough decision trees on the matter to wallpaper a house:

…the only viable strategy I can see is for the Republicans to begin the process of shutting down the U.S. Senate until the Democrats agree to MOVE ON — move off healthcare until the 112th Congress convenes.

I hope the Senate GOP knows what it is doing. I would not put it past VP Biden to overrule the parliamentarian and force this through. I have seen no evidence to the contrary that the entire Democratic party is in self-destruct mode and displaying outward signs of an obsessive-compulsive disorder bordering on seriously neurotic behavior when it comes to ObamaCare.

Related:

Constitution Butchers: Stop Pelosi’s Slaughter House; Update: Dems don’t have the votes

Obama flip-flops on dealmaking for ObamaCare

Reconciliation bill posted; Update: Shell bill

Great deeds are not accomplished by great men and women; great deeds are done by normal people facing extraordinary circumstances. It is through actions during troubling and trying times taken by those of us who are ordinary that mold and shape what will become a great and historical figure. Right now, in the Senate and the House, a single Democrat or group of Democrats have the chance to become great in the eyes of this nation. From broken promises of transparency to outright lies, the Obama administration and the leaders of the Democratic Party in the House and Senate have consistently taken this country down a path it does not want to travel.

Who among you is willing to remove the “for sale” sign on your vote? Who among you is willing to demand in a loud voice for the transparency promised eight times to televise health care negotiations? Who among you will stand up to the strong arm of Chicago style politics and stare down the administration with an icy glare? Do this for the country and we will forgive all past transgressions. Show us that greatness is still a quality that means something. Step up and protect us from this madness.

The profligate vote buying in the Senate has gotten out of hand. The special treatment granted and federal lucre handed out to the states of a few balking Senators has been disgraceful. This is not compromise, it is bribery pure and simple.

As neither party in the Senate truly understands what is in the health care bill, the law of unintended consequences demands a deliberative and transparent process. The purpose behind rushing through this bill is political and completely disconnected from serving the best interests of this country and the people who live in it.

It is time for a new style of politics, not one of obfuscation, hidden backroom deals, and broken promises. Yet lately it seems many politicians in the Democratic party are pitting themselves against the will of the American people, both liberals and conservatives. America needs someone of great quality to stop this madness—someone who understands the responsibility derived from freedom and position.

Someone once said, “The ear of the leader must ring with the voices of the people.” The Democratic party appears deaf in this regard. We the American people implore Democrats in the Senate to stand on principle, to separate themselves from the pack, be the guardian of freedom and demand total and open transparency on our behalf. We urge you to vote against this bill. We urge you to lift the veil of deafness and hear our voices.

Related:

Pelosi: We’re “very close” to a deal with the Senate on ObamaCare. Perhaps Senator Blanche Lincoln will do the right thing.

Press corps grills Gibbs: Um, didn’t Obama totally shamelessly lie about C-SPAN?

Darkness reigns: Obama and the Vampire Congress

I find it interesting the Department of Homeland Security deems it necessary to warn of rightwing extremists, as they ignore the fact of leftwing extremism. As a point of fact, making its rounds within the United States is a little book titled The Coming Insurrection. From the product description on Amazon:

The Coming Insurrection is an eloquent call to arms arising from the recent waves of social contestation in France and Europe. Written by the anonymous Invisible Committee in the vein of Guy Debord—and with comparable elegance—it has been proclaimed a manual for terrorism by the French government (who recently arrested its alleged authors). One of its members more adequately described the group as “the name given to a collective voice bent on denouncing contemporary cynicism and reality.” The Coming Insurrection is a strategic prescription for an emergent war-machine to “spread anarchy and live communism.”

Written in the wake of the riots that erupted throughout the Paris suburbs in the fall of 2005 and presaging more recent riots and general strikes in France and Greece, The Coming Insurrection articulates a rejection of the official Left and its reformist agenda, aligning itself instead with the younger, wilder forms of resistance that have emerged in Europe around recent struggles against immigration control and the “war on terror.”

Hot-wired to the movement of ’77 in Italy, its preferred historical reference point, The Coming Insurrection formulates an ethics that takes as its starting point theft, sabotage, the refusal to work, and the elaboration of collective, self-organized forms-of-life. It is a philosophical statement that addresses the growing number of those—in France, in the United States, and elsewhere—who refuse the idea that theory, politics, and life are separate realms.

I eagerly await the Department of Homeland Security’s admonitions of the dangers of leftwing extremism.

Our own Declaration of Independence – a bit more eloquent – was used as a preamble to describe the abuse of power by Great Britain and subsequent call-to-action for independence. The beginning is a generalization of the human condition under any form of tyrannical government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.

Civilization is a thin veneer that separates us from the hardships of raw survival. While western civilization has provided us with the opportunity to enjoy the more heady pursuit of philosophy, our love affair with the mind and its capacity for abstract thought often precludes us from noting the ephemeral nature of civilized discourse. Such is the blessing and the curse of living in a society such as ours. In our ignorance of the transient nature of civilization we are freed from a constant anxiety visiting itself upon us, blinding us to a harsher reality that peeks from just around the corner – that mass violence can, and has, occurred in America.

The start of the Revolutionary War did not come about through “light and transient causes”, but through “a long train of abuses and usurpations”. Historians estimate that approximately 40-45% of the colonists actively supported the rebellion against England, 15-20% of the population of the thirteen colonies remained loyal to the British Crown, and the remaining 35-45% attempted to remain neutral. While hard to gauge how many males would support violence as a means to secure liberty from oppression, I believe the number not to be small. How many of these would consider it their duty “to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security”? I am of the impression, given my arguments below, that any such action taken by the citizenry of this country would quickly escalate, swelling the numbers of those opposed to a power grab by a centralized government and willing to take up arms to settle their grievances. If one believes I am a fear-monger, think of this: America has enjoyed one of the longest stretches of peace within our borders than almost every other nation on this planet. There were those who thought something like 9/11 could not happen here. They were wrong. Given the current supercharged political climate and the blistering pace at which standard pillars of American society are falling, I do not belong to the “it can’t happen here” crowd. I do, however, hope it does not happen here. Unfortunately, the signs I see do not point me in a direction of comfort concerning this matter. Many whom I have spoken to share the same sentiments. Unless the current administration changes course and desists in usurping the personal rights held dearly since the birth of this nation, it is my belief that a great violence shall overtake our nation.

Continued at the Wolves of Liberty

In other news and opinion:

The cartoon jihadists never forget

Just say no to jihadi-dumping in your backyard

Cone of Shame Award: Democrat Rep. Melissa Bean

ACORN Watch: What happens in Vegas…

MSNBC: Guys Carrying Guns to Rallies Are Racists, Especially This Guy Whose Skin Color We Will Now Proceed to Hide from Your View

Detonating the narrative: MSNBC and the gun-guy at the Obama rally

McCain: You might be seeing the beginning of a peaceful revolt in America.

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

Update: The Nightmare That Is The Senate Finance Committee Healthcare Proposal – RINOCare Gone Wild. Are you ready for governement controlled health insurance cartels? Socialized healthcare vs. fascist healthcare, the dangerous bi-partisan compromise.

The endgame is here and the most important aspect that could kill the above linked post concerning the Senate Finance Committee healthcare bill and any other form of ObamaCare is being ignored by not only the media, but major bloggers everywhere. The only other reference I can find other than on the Social Security Institute website (see link below) is from FreedomWorks. Given that these two amendments kill any chance of reconciliation, I am at a loss to explain the complete lack of interest in this topic.

There were two amendments offered by Senator DeMint prior to the health bill conferences and debate in the Senate – a point-of-order amendment and instruction to conferees. The following is taken directly from an email Mr. Uhler received from Dr. Lawrence Hunter of the Social Security Institute that was forwarded to me and placed in the first link above. Dr. Hunter also has a very long and distinguished career and served as policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan during Reagan’s second term. He also served as a Member of the Board of Advisors for the NTLC:

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Prior to the above statements by Dr. Hunter is information of great importance:

However, with a united Republican front in the Senate, Democrats would be hard pressed to jam a bill as comprehensive and detested as ObamaCare down Americans’ throats. Current polls indicate that more people oppose ObamaCare than support it. Moreover, Senate Republicans stand on very strong procedural grounds for resisting a bum’s rush on government-run healthcare through the Reconciliation process. It would take an act of extraordinary arrogance and recklessness for the Democratic Leadership to use Reconciliation this way.

If agreed upon to be enforced, the Demint amendments would in effect kill the reconciliation process and force 60 votes to pass ObamaCare in its present form – even with the co-operative option, which is nothing more than a Trojan horse for what ultimately will become a single-payer system. Mr. Uhler has identified five Republican Senators that need to align themselves with the party and forgo their proclivity to reach across the aisle. If this story goes national and pressure is brought to bear on these five Republican’s to stand firm with their party, then it is reasonable to assume the above conclusion from Dr. Hunter to be correct. Under these circumstances I do not believe the Democrats in the Senate would have the votes to commit “an act of extraordinary arrogance and recklessness”. However, wide public knowledge of the amendments and the subsequent pressure on Senators to follow their own rules requires national exposure. The average American is completely unaware of the procedural hurdles that Senator Jim Demint placed to block the ramming of a very unpopular plan onto the American people.

One could reasonably ask themselves why the public must follow rules, where the Senate can choose to ignore them. It will focus attention on the contempt that some Senate elitists have for the public. However, to date no major conservative talk show, media outlet, or think tank has covered this tactic. Everyone is talking about Blue Dogs killing the legislation. While certainly one strategy to pursue, I personally believe Blue Dogs have a habit of growling but, at the end of the day, many of them will roll over. I prefer a multi-pronged strategy that would include the above approach outlined by Dr. Hunter. On the legislative front, what is called for is combining public pressure on the Blue Dogs in the House and placing pressure on five Senate Republican’s to stand firm with their party and not negotiate ObamaCare Lite with the cooperative option replacing nationalized health care. Instead the public should insist the Demint rules be followed. This could very well kill the bill as it exists today. We could then press the reset button and start talking about real reform.

Using Reconciliation to force feed ObamaCare to an unwilling nation would backfire in ways that Democrats will find difficult to imagine. That is the type of atmosphere some liberals, such as Chuck Schumer are willing to create now and for the foreseeable future.

Here is the link to the story on the Social Security Institute article from Dr. Hunter:

In other news and opinion:

As the Byrd Rule Flies: Why Dems Can’t Use Reconciliation to Pass Radical ObamaCare

Co-ops a federal-subsidy trough

From Moe Lane at Redstate: Howard Dean threatens primary challenges on public option ‘no’ votes.

Is ObamaCare Constitutional?

Blue Dog: Hey, maybe we should start over on ObamaCare. Won’t happen, but this can be killed in the Senate. I am still astounded nobody has picked up on this yet.

ObamaCare: Does the media matter?

That’s a question asked by Joe Gandleman at The Moderate Voice (whatever that means). Channeling Marc Ambler from the Atlantic, Mr. Gandleman asks:

The emerging narrative in a lot of the major press coverage of heatlh care reform is that President Barack Obama has lost control of his message, which is why he was out on the hustings today at a town hall meeting. But now The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder writes that he now senses a slight relief at the White House.

Why? Because, according to Ambinder, there’s a growing feeling that the Republicans may have lost control of their message and that GOPers at Town Halls have provided a picture of some of the party’s most extreme, angry elements — which won’t convince the Blue Dog Democrats to panic and not support the plan and could well scare off independent swing voters.

Here are key portions of what he says in a post titled “How Conservatives Are Blowing Their Chance.” He notes that the mood at the White House has changed from one week ago:

A week later, and the Atlantic’s tricorder readings are picking up much calmer electromagnetic energy from the White House. Getting Democrats to attend the town hall meetings was really an intermediate goal. But Democrats are beginning to notice that opponents of health care reform have discredited themselves. They ramped up much too quickly. When smaller, conservative groups Astroturfed, they inevitably brought to the meetings the type of Republican activist who was itching for a fight and who would use the format to vent frustrations at President Obama himself. There were plenty of activists who really wanted to know about health care, and some who were probably misinformed — scared out of their chairs — to some degree, but the loudest voices tended to be the craziest, the most extreme, the least sensible, and the most easy to mock.

Ambinder suggests that conservatives had a window of opportunity to make their case seriously which “required a certain restraint — and a willingness to traffic in at least approximate truths — and an ability to make distinctions within their own ranks about which tactics were valid and which tactics were venomous. It also required a sophistication about the media.”

And what about the media? Ambinder contends media reports were not helpful to the GOP because reports were done in either two ways: “they credulously reported the louder, angrier voices (inherently damaging to Republicans in this case) or they reported on the political architecture of the town hall meetings, which plays down the substance of the protests.”

The Blue Dog Democrats’ swing constitutes aren’t angry,” he writes, “and the Blue Dogs know this. They’re political independents for whom the sanctity of the process is important. These are the type of voters who like President Obama because he appears willing to bring people together even though they don’t agree with their policies.”

In short, he argues, the right has lost control of its message, much as the left did under Bush. Lawmakers of both parties:

…found their meetings full of engorged spleens. Unrestrained, these town hall meetings are going to turn off the type of voters Republicans most need to pressure Blue Dog Democrats — independents who don’t have red genes or blue genes.

This has been the problem with the GOP in recent years: most of its pitches, when the rubber meets the road, eventually boil down to arguments that seem aimed at wavering Republicans and the style and tone of the rhetoric is — as we have called it here — the confrontional, angry and demonizing talk radio political culture. That works fine with Republicans, but it can only cause a counter reaction in wavering liberal Democrats who began to sour on Obama and independent voters wanting to follow a debate don’t get much substance hearing people yell about socialism, Marxism, Nazi Germany or Obama death panels.

In the end, this may come down to which side discredits itself first. Getting media coverage isn’t always positive if the images that come out are unpleasing to others who are not just not on your side but on the fence deciding which is the side worth joining.

So does this mean that Obama is on the descent as Ambinder suggests due to the images the meetings are emitting?

Not necessarily. Political veteran David Gergen has a different take on it and can foresee health care reform being defanged or even derailed due to the angry protests, which he notes don’t just involve talk radio and special interest group types but other Americans who distrust the change:

In this week’s issue of the National Journal, correspondents Brian Friel and Richard E. Cohen provide a valuable insight into possible endgames. They report that there are four possible outcomes:

(1) A major bipartisan reform bill is passed;
(2) A major Democratic reform bill is passed over nearly united Republican opposition;
(3) The Democrats cannot agree among themselves and pass Health Care Lite, a very watered down version of reform;
(4) Failure

Looking at the chances today, in the midst of all this brouhaha, one would have to say that the odds for outcomes one and two are going down. It is hard to see how a lot of Republicans will sign up for a bipartisan bill in the teeth of this opposition; similarly, it may be tougher for moderate Democrats, especially new members from Republican-leaning districts, to sign on to a Democratic-only bill. That means the odds are going up for outcomes three and, yes, four.

Does this mean that reform is dying? Not at all. It is still possible that if the protests continue at a high decibel level, more people in the middle will grow disgusted and rally to the President. And given his political and rhetorical talents, it is more than possible that Barack Obama himself can turn this around. But for the moment, the raucous clips coming out of Senator Specter’s session with his constituents along with other clips from other town halls — as offensive as they are to many (including me) — are also presenting a growing threat to reform.

So pick the theory of your choice — and come September, see which proved to be correct.

I could not help myself and commented as follows (I add additional information below not found in the original comment):

The first theory ignores the real data – polls. Nothing is mentioned about the polls because the first theory fails on its merits if polling data is included int the analysis.

Polling indicates a growing dissatisfaction with ObamaCare that drops by the day. He is losing seniors big time – and they are the largest voting bloc in mid-term elections. He is also losing independent voters big time. Many independents are experiencing buyers remorse and know the bait and switch Obama pulled on them. If you attempt to argue that no independents are attending town halls and shouting angrily as politicians literally lie to their faces, then you present an opinion that is patently absurd. As the town halls became more vocal, support for ObamaCare eroded further – not something one would expect of a backlash. Blue Dogs and other Democrats are quite aware of this and it is the poll numbers that will dictate their voting behavior. Should they choose to ignore the polls and vote for ObamaCare, look for a real backlash in 2010. So theory one looks like Swiss cheese upon further scrutiny and is not worthy of additional discussion (the extra CO2 required would exacerbate global warming).

Marc Ambinder of the Atlantic is following the media script of “backlash, backlash, backlash!” in an effort to silence the town halls, because they are eroding support for ObamaCare. Of course, nobody is listening to such nonsense. Whatever does pass – if anything at all – will be a watered down version of reform. August 22nd is national recess rally day – look for some real fireworks by millions, not a few hundred at a town hall. It won’t be so easy to dismiss that level of protest. I can’t wait to see Nanny State Nancy try. She is the gift that keeps on giving.

Blue Dogs are also aware of the opt out amendments in Florida and Utah and up to ten other states that will be using the 10th amendment to fight ObamaCare. Throw that dynamic in the mix.

If you want real backlash, check out Little girl at Obama town hall has not-so-random political connections. Documented, proved and case closed. Obama lies once again, stating the members of his town hall were not screened. Of course, anyone with half a brain knew better. Look for further plunging poll numbers, the obvious dynamic described as: Obama opens his mouth on the subject the numbers drop. Marc’s sense of “relief” at the White House belongs in the same boat as Obama stating he was never for a single payer system – fabricated.

Obama’s coattails are becoming an anchor.

Update: Backed up by Mickey Kaus (via Glenn Reynolds)

In other news and opinion:

Democrats now taking refuge at SEIU offices

BUSTED!: “Obama As Hitler” Poster Was A Democrat/Union Plant At John Dingell Townhall! UPDATED with video interview!

If you are a liberal, how do you live with yourself? First, you have the tape where Obama admits he wants a single-payer system – exhibit A evidence. Then, his admission in yesterday’s town hall that he has never been for a single-payer system – exhibit B evidence. Conclusion: Obama Lies.

Now you have Obama claiming there were not plants or screening in his town hall – exhibit C evidence. Michelle Malkin dispels that myth – exhibit D evidence. Conclusion: Obama Lies.

Now a plant by Dingell at a Town Hall?

If one has to resort to lies and underhanded tactics to make a point or sell a product or piece of legislation, it stands to reason that a sane person would begin to question the peddled snake oil and become either cautious or outright distrustful of the whole thing.

Video: Nelson strikes back against ObamaCare

How much can we now trust this: GA congressman describes hate mail, Nazi graffiti after protests

Okay people, time to wake up. Gateway Pundit: Bus–ted… Obama Bussed In Supporters For New Hampshire Town Hall (Video).

Funny… During the meeting Barack Obama told his supporters:

“I don’t want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants in here.”

No, we sure wouldn’t want that to happen.

People might think it was all a staged dog and pony show.

One of the comments for the Gateway Pundit called it:

it was a pony and horseshit show, without the pony……..

Read about ObamaCare from Peter Ferrara at The Heatland Institute: Rationing, Higher Taxes, and Lower Quality Care. The pdf of the entire study can be found here. Print it out, read it, move it forward. The report is a scathing and frank overview of ObamaCare. Peter Ferrara’s bio can be found on Limit Taxes:

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

From The Heart Land Institute article introduction:

President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are rushing to enact legislation that would overhaul the way health care is financed and delivered in the United States. It would dramatically increase the role of government in virtually all aspects of health care. Such an initiative should be carefully studied to determine whether it actually solves problems in the health care arena or makes them worse.

National health plans similar to what President Obama is proposing have been adopted in other countries. They always start out promising universal access and free or reduced-price health care. But they end up with massive institutional bureaucracies whose purpose and function are to deny health care and medical services. Often they fail to control spending despite resorting to withholding care to politically weak groups.

President Obama insists that his plan to fundamentally restructure health care is needed to reduce costs. He has touted a report from his Council of Economic Advisors that specifies exactly how that would be done. That report, however, elaborates a policy of thorough government health care rationing achieved through government control of the financing and delivery of care.

This study will explain how the health policy changes President Obama and Congressional Democrats support would cause millions of Americans to lose their choice of doctors and insurance coverage, require that access to care be strictly rationed, and cause the quality of care to deteriorate. Despite all this sacrifice, nationalizing health insurance in America would require major tax increases, slow economic growth, and increase the national debt.

Part 2 of this study describes the Obama health plan as it is presented in legislation being debated in Congress. Part 3 explains how the Obama health plan would result in the loss of freedom of choice. In particular, it shows how you would not be free under President Obama’s plan to keep your current health insurance because employers would “dump”millions of people into a one-size-fits-all government-run program. Part 4 explains how the Obama plan would give government the power to ration health care, including the power to deny access to the elderly, who need it the most.

Part 5 explains how, despite rationing, the Obama health plan would increase health costs. Part 6 describes the intractable entitlement crisis America already faces based on the undeliverable promises made for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Obama health plan would recklessly add yet another unfunded middle-class entitlement program, this one giving subsidies for families earning $88,000 per year and more.

Part 7 discusses the health policy reforms America should adopt, based on expanding patient power and choice in a market-based health care system. These reforms would provide a true health care safety net that would ensure no one suffers without essential health care while reducing costs and preserving those parts of the current health care system that work. Part 8 presents a brief summary and concluding remarks.

Today, Americans enjoy the best health care and medical services in the world, an important part of our high standard of living. President Obama has said “my view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.” But that is not what his plan would do. Instead, he would tear down what is good about the current system and replace it with old-fashioned and outdated socialized medicine policies adopted by other countries, reflecting their lower living standards. It would be a terrible mistake.

Move it forward.

Related: Read My Discussion With Lewis K. Uhler – How 5 Republican Senators May Hold The Future Of Healthcare In Their Hands. Lewis K. Uhler held many positions under Ronald Reagan and is the Founder and President of the Limit Taxes organization. I cannot express the importance of getting this information out there. Call Sean, Rush, or Glenn and get the message out not only of the information in the post concerning Mr. Uhler, but the above information from Peter Ferrara as well. Send it as a tip to your favorite mega-blogger.

Get. The. Word. Out.

In other news and opinion:

White House: You’re not un-American, but you are still corporate shills so just pipe down

Be careful: DOT inspector general challenges O’s stimulus spending.

Overflow crowd at Maryland town hall.

Obama Kabuki theater in Portsmouth; crowd chants “YES, WE CAN!;” little girl laments “mean things” on protest signs; O lies about single-payer supportin-portsmouth/

Correcting misinformation about ObamaCare

You have got to be kidding me. Obama: Government health care will be like, um, the post office.

More here (emphasis mine):

In a just-completed New Hampshire town hall meeting, President Obama stated that he never said he supported a single-payer health care system. But as clearly evidenced by this video, in 2003, he declared: “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.”

Meanwhile, at another point of today’s town hall meeting, Obama was pushing back against the idea that the creation of a new government-run plan would drive private insurers out of business, and he said that UPS and FedEx were doing fine, but “it’s the post office that’s always having problems.” Oops!

The gaffe arose from the inherent contradiction of those arguing for the introduction of a government government-run plan. On the one hand, Obama and other supporters of the idea argue that we need to have a strong government plan to create more efficiency, drive down prices, and “keep private insurers honest.” Yet at the same time, they have to make it appear weaker to push back against those of us who argue that it will threaten private insurance and move us toward a single-payer system. So then you get statements in which Obama, in the course of arguing for a government-run system, takes a shot at the government-run post office.

And Obama makes our case for us. Case closed and thanks Barry!

Another Obamian slip.

UPDATE 1: 9/9/2009 The Nightmare That Is The Senate Finance Committee Healthcare Proposal – RINOCare Gone Wild. Pay attention to what the Senate is doing right under our noses. It is important to understand what the Senate Finance Committee healthcare proposal means to you. Hint: it’s not good.

Update 2: Finally someone is talking about the constitutionality of ObamaCare. It is this very issue which strengthens the case made by Dr. Lawrence Hunter to use the two Jim Demint amendments and pressure five Senate Democrats on the Finance Committee to stand with their party. What Senator wants to stake their careers on a bill that may pass only to be repealed later? The real question comes down to how long can the states tie up this legislation in the courts. We only need three years. Is ObamaCare Constitutional?

Watch for more of this to come. Utah is looking into using its state constitution and the 10th Amendment protection of states rights from an encroaching federal government to opt out of ObamaCare should it pass Congress.

SALT LAKE CITY — Republican Utah lawmaker Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, wants Utahns to have the option not to take part in a federal health care program.

He says he’s drafting a proposed amendment to Utah’s Constitution; one he believes will get overwhelming approval.

“We’re going to pass a state Constitutional amendment stating that people will not be forced by the national government to purchase health care insurance and that small businesses will not be forced to provide them,” Wimmer said.

Voters, of course, would have to pass the amendment, and it would have to get at least two-thirds majority in the Utah House and Senate. But Wimmer says it’s worth it, no matter what comes out of the Federal health care reform effort.

He says it’s a state’s rights issue and that Utah has made good progress on its own reform plans. “We don’t need help from the Federal government figuring this thing out, we know how to do it and we’re able to do it far more efficiently than they are,” he says.

Such an amendment could lead to cuts in federal funding and to lawsuits, but Wimmer says it’s time states “wean themselves” from federal dollars and that lawsuits may be the only way to “turn the tables” on the Federal government.

The course for the ObamaCare ship is in uncharted waters, while ways to defeat it are not as difficult as one might think. First, Congress needs a bill for the President to sign. In this and the prevous post I outline the process whereby this can come to pass. These are not my ideas, but come from two very distinguished gentlemen, their biographies presented in my previous post. Keep reading.

Even if passed by Congress, expect strong resistance with a slew of state’s rights movements via the 10th amendment and subsequent lawsuits. There is plenty of time to tie this legislation up in the courts. Long enough, in fact, for the opportunity to derail the legislation by repealling it in a future Congress. However, if enough states fight Obama’s attempt to sieze control and increase the powers of federal government the fissures and fault lines created by this backlash would not favor ObamaCare. What vulnerable Senator or Representative really wants to stake their careers on legislation that may pass, only to possibly be killed later, or that would create such an outcry against federal powers as to start a movement of decentralizing power back to the states? In the end, polling and passion will win the day and minds will be changed. We are living through history, and many of us are actively a part of it. As Obama has shown us, we can no longer take liberty and freedom for granted. It is the duty of every American who cherishes liberty for themselves and future generations to take to the streets and town halls, to encourage state legislatures to resist the federal governement, and to call Senators and Representatives and make their voices heard. This is a beast that can be slaughtered.

Florida is also asserting 10th Amendment State’s Rights under the U.S. Consitution (emphasis mine):

On the heels of a successful state-level resistance to the 2005 Real ID Act, activists and state legislators alike are focusing their efforts on state governments as a way to resist new federal programs.

The latest? Health Care.

In response to what some opponents see as a Congress that doesn’t represent their interests, State Legislators are looking to the nearly-forgotten American political tradition of nullification as a way to reject any potential national health care program that may be coming from Washington.

The most recent effort comes from Florida State Senator Carey Baker and State Representative Scott Plakon, who this week filed a proposed State Constitutional Amendment (HJR37) as a means to prevent Floridians from being affected by any Federal Health Care Legislation. If approved by the legislature, Florida residents could be voting on it as early as 2010.

HJR37 would deny the ability of any new law to impose demands, restrictions or penalties on health care choices on Floridians. Versions of proposed federal health care reform legislation have included insurance coverage mandates, and certain penalties on employers who fail to provide employee health insurance.

It states, in part:

(1) A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system

(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

A similar measure, called the Health Care Freedom Act, has already passed in Arizona, and residents of that state will have the opportunity to vote on it in 2010. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say that more than ten other states may see such proposals introduced in the coming session.

Of course, this may not even be necessary as outlined at the Social Security Insitute here by Dr. Larry Hunter:

While a constitutional amendment is a sound and desirable backup measure, and a powerful prophylactic against future over reach by Washington, Wimmer and his compatriots are strategically positioned to drastically reduce the chances of nationalized healthcare ever occurring in the first place. To do so, they need to prevail upon Republican U.S. Senator Bob Bennett to stop trying to negotiate a version of ObamaCare Lite with the White House and his Democratic Senate Colleagues.

Senator Bennett’s version of ObamaCare, which he has introduced with Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden as The Healthy Americans Act (S. 391), is really nothing more than ObamaCare in drag—a Trojan RHINO with ObamaCare hiding inside ready to be smuggled into the country disguised as a “bipartisan compromise.” Bennett’s “solution” to the problems afflicting the healthcare system is not a conservative, market-based solution that one would expect a conservative Republican Senator to promote; it is not a plan that encourages and promotes individual self-reliance; it is RHINOCare (Republican Healthcare In Name Only) that simply wraps ObamaCare in a Republican skin and does not reflect conservative principles and values.

The bill would end the employer tax exclusion for employer-based health-insurance benefits and replace it with a combination of direct federal subsidies and individual tax deductions. In other words, it would increase people’s dependency on Washington dramatically. Mandatory insurance premiums would be collected through automatic payroll deductions from workers’ paychecks, which would be enforced by the IRS. Employers also would be required to pay into the nationalized healthcare system on a payment schedule based on number of employees, employer revenue and an average-plan premium—clearly a tax on employers to fund universal heath coverage run by the federal government.

Senator Bennett’s bill would replace the employer as the tax wedge in the health-insurance market with a direct government tax-and-subsidy wedge designed to drive the after-tax price of healthcare below market-clearing levels—it’s called price controls and it will lead inevitably to healthcare rationing. Hence, the bill would replace one poison with another: Rather than having the employer make critical decisions about what kind of healthcare is available to workers, as the current system does, government would assume a much more direct and active role in making these determinations. For example, the Wyden-Bennett plan would replace the current health system with one that is heavily regulated by the federal government. Individuals would have access only to plans permitted by the government, and they would be required by federal law to purchase such a plan.

The federal government would standardize the entire insurance market through direct mandates and regulations. The federal government would determine which health plans people could buy. The bill would establish a standard benefits package.

The bill requires all individuals to purchase government-defined health coverage without any real choice for individuals to pick a plan that best suits their needs. Senator Bennett even requires that all health insurance policies pay for abortions.

The plan would use direct government regulation to “squeeze out inefficiencies” in the system. In other words, the system would rely upon a new federal bureaucracy to implement “cost-control” measures that would ration and delay care to reduce overall healthcare spending.

Let’s call a spade a spade: Wyden-Bennett represents a form of healthcare fascism in which government and private insurance companies work hand-in-glove (an insidious “public-private partnership”) to control who spends how much, on what medical goods and services, for whom, under what circumstances and on what schedule. While the bill would leave a private-insurance façade on the system, Senator Bennett is actually proposing to turn healthcare over to the government to run, making private insurance companies and healthcare providers essentially agents of the federal government.

Dr. Hunter continues to describe why there is an important political reason for Senator Bob Bennett to stop negotiating with the White House on health care, how the Democrats could ram through a version of health care reform via the reconciliation process, and how Senator Jim DeMint offered a point-of-order amdenment (passed unanimously) and motion to instruct the Conferees (79 yeah votes) that would all but kill the reconciliation process, only to have Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, ignore the 60-vote requirement and allow it to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference. Everyone lives by the rules, unless you’re and Senator. It is elitist and dishonest, in the least, to ignore rules while expecting the rest of us to live by them. Call your Senator and Representative and ensure they commit themselves to the rules that, in one case, all of them voted for. Read My Discussion With Lewis K. Uhler – How 5 Republican Senators May Hold The Future Of Healthcare In Their Hands.

Dr. Hunter makes an excellent point that a constitutional amendment is a sound and desirable backup measure, and a powerful prophylactic against future over-reach by Washington. Even if ObamaCare passes, it is this my belief that states around the country draft resolutions and amendments that reassert state’s rights, putting the federal governement and the Obama administration on notice to tread lightly and expect one hell of a fight if they even attempt to tip-toe on our rights. Time to put the lot of them in thier place or throw the bums out. Many inside the beltway should thank their lucky stars that tar-and-feathering are out of fashion.

Stay out of our lives.

In othe news and opinion:

A must see video that should be passed on. The Public Plan Deception – It’s Not About Choice. Three public statements advocates of single-payer health insurance explain that a health care bill with the “government monopoly option” would move America toward a single-payer government health care system. In the video Professor Jacob Hacker admits, publicly, that:

Someone once said to me this is a Trojan Horse for single-payer. Well it’s not a Trojan Horse, its just right there (audience laughter). I’m telling you, we’re going to get there, over time, slowly, but we will move away from reliance on employment based health insurance as we should, but we’ll do it in a way that we won’t frighten people into believing they are going to lose their private insurance.

Watch the entire video. Email it. It is damning to the narrative of the Obama administration and its liberal allies – it pulls aside the curtain and allows us to peak behind the stage where we find the naked emperor.

The gift that keeps on giving. Dick Durbin, who as you remember compared America to Nazi Germany opens his pie hole and ticks off another segment of the public content until now with sitting on the sidelines. He accomplishes this task, free of charge, by stating the town hall meetings are clearly orchestrated and insulting a growing segment of the American public. I mean, you can’t buy that kind of motivation, the type of motivation that awakens a growing number of us to get out and make our voices heard. If any orchestration is going on, it’s people like Dick Durban and Nancy Pelosi, and Obama who are the wind in our sails, and I thank them for that. Keep up the good work and watch as more of us join the largest movement since Civil Rights. Note to self – liberals unable to follow simple logic. The more they open their mouths and accuse people like me and you of being automatons when it is clearly their side that is orchestrating violence at the town hall meetings, clearly liberal organizations such as the SEIU that are robots at the beck and call of Obama the citizen spy master, the more of us show up, the angrier we are, the more desperate they look, and the more the poll numbers for health care plummet. Anybody home in that brain there Dick? Obama? Rahm? Nancy? Any liberal?

Please, keep talking. Don’t ever stop. It’s like free advertisement when liberal leaders decide to bloviate ad nauseum and explain how good their version of health care is for us, yet refuse to back a resolution that would require them to “enjoy” the same benefits as their own constituents. An on August 22nd, when the recess rally occurs, liberals like Dick will look like fools and skulk back under their rocks. At that time, only a few brain dead liberals will buy the already lifeless meme of orchestrated resistance when they see millions of people taking to the streets. Ahhh, I love the smell of crybabies in the morning.

The Washington Times agrees, the polling data does not back up the protesters are scripted. Drooping polls undercut scripted protest claims

CRITICAL: White House continues spy campaign: White House Launches Health Tattle-Tale Site on another .gov website. The site is here. Don’t forget to turn yourself in by using the contact section of the page. Ask them to address this video. Amazing how many lies these people will attempt to propagate in a vain attempt to spread the meme of “ObamaCare” is good for you. Watch this one backfire and the polls to drop even lower. Perchance the older site was inundated with millions of emails? Let’s do it again. Melt the phone (202-501-0282) and email of Lee Ellis (lee.ellis@gsa.gov), policy administrator of the GSA Federal Acquisition Service which assign .Gov domains and creates the guidelines for the use of .Gov domains. Be courteous.

More protests in Austin. Some protests in Massachusetts. Did I just read that?

Death panels? What death panels? Oh, those death panels

Rep. Tsongas tries to explain why Congress is exempt from Obamacare. Fails.

“Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

Tsongas (D-MA): I won’t take ObamaCare because I have better options. Wow, the truth from a Democrat!? Quick, somebody turn her in to flag@whitehouse.gov. She’s spreading disinformation! It’s fishy I tell you!

It appears as if Obama’s coattails have become an anchor. Net approval for Dem Senators declining twice as fast as GOP counterparts

Dems Continue “Listening Tour”– Fists, Boots, Bullhorns, Stomping Heads, Smashing Faces, Assaults Included. I can’t wait for the 22nd. A little camera off in the background to document a few things, some thug(s) about to commit an act of stupidity their tiny brains can’t begin to comprehend, and then me. By the time I am done defending myself, said thug(s) will be spending so much time in the hospital they’ll name a wing after them. It will be called the Stupidity Wing – fully paid for by the SEIU.