Obamacare

How to Oppose ObamaCare

What critics of the president's health care plan can learn from Gandhi's methods of nonviolent resistance

|

President Barack Obama came into office promising hope and change. But he might get more change than he hoped for. By foisting ObamaCare on a deeply unwilling country he might have set the stage for the largest civil disobedience movement since the civil rights era, which, if it plays its cards right, could undo his legislation and his legacy.

President Obama is betting that come November the bruising, year-long battle that he has just dragged the country through will be a distant memory. But that profoundly underestimates the dismay of a large segment of the public that sees what he signed Tuesday as a fraudulent piece of legislation based on fraudulent thinking backed by fraudulent facts enacted through a fraudulent process. (Yes, Americans do care about "process," Mr. President. It's another name for representative government.)

President Obama tried for a year to convince the country that the cure for rising health care costs and the swelling ranks of the uninsured was a de facto government takeover of the health care system—only to be rebuffed in poll after poll. And if there was any doubt as to where the public stood, it was put to rest by Republican Scott Brown's stunning December victory in Massachusetts, the land of Big Government.

But instead of backing down President Obama went for broke using tactics more reprehensible than the "business as usual politics" that he had pledged to change when he came to office.

First, there were the budgetary magic tricks that he and his Congressional enablers got the highly respected Congressional Budget Office to perform. The last CBO assessment—that pushed the bill through—showed that the Obama plan would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. The reality, once all the double counting and fantasy savings are eliminated, is that it will add $562 billion.

But the CBO is not the only entity whose honor Democrats have violated—perhaps beyond repair. Federal taxpayers will also get royally screwed when they have to pay for all the sweetheart deals that Obama's Cogressional minions cut behind closed doors and whose true scope will only become apparent in the coming months. (Bart Stupak is rumored to have gotten $700,000 for airport repairs as his sell-out price.)

Worst of all were the shameless parliamentary tactics that Democrats deployed. The Founders deliberately constructed many roadblocks for new laws to prevent elected officials from straying too far from the will of the people. But Democrats could care less about parliamentary niceties.

They are poised to use the so-called nuclear option or "reconciliation" to square the House and the Senate bills. This option will allow the Senate to circumvent the normal committee process to make fixes to the House bill through a simple majority without risking a filibuster. But reconciliation is meant exclusively for budgetary matters—not ramrodding sweeping social legislation on a party-line vote. This is why the Senate parliamentarian—a completely nonpartisan figure—has to approve its use for every fix. But Democrats are poised to have Vice President Joe Biden overrule him should he dare to stand in their way. In short, instead of bending the cost curve, President Obama is bending the rules of accountable government.

It is hardly surprising then that Americans are feeling a growing panic as they watch their constitutional republic descend into a banana republic. President Obama is fond of quoting Mahatma Gandhi's line that "we should be the change we want to see." But Gandhi also said that "civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless and corrupt." Americans instinctively understand this which is why pockets of resistance to ObamaCare are already emerging. The question is only whether they can be constructively harnessed into a grassroots, Gandhi-style civil disobedience movement powerful enough to undo this monstrosity.

The prerequisites for any movement's success are credible leaders and a moral high ground. The first means that opponents of ObamaCare cannot—cannot—let Mitt Romney come within sniffing distance of their cause. He is trying to position himself at the forefront of the Repeal ObamaCare movement to further his presidential ambitions. But he couldn't be a worse spokesman given that as governor he was responsible for implementing a universal coverage program in the Bay State that is identical in every essential respect to ObamaCare, including the individual mandate. He has to be banished from every anti-ObamaCare panel, podium and platform lest the movement be accused of partisanship and hypocrisy.

As for maintaining the moral high ground, ObamaCare opponents have to be very careful when invoking rhetoric from the revolutionary period. Tea Partiers quote the Founders, especially Thomas Jefferson who said that the "tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants." But any hint of violence—even inadvertent—will compromise their cause because there are crucial differences between our colonial and current rulers. The colonial rulers were monarchs who used violence to extract taxes from Americans to enrich themselves and their motherland. But Democrats are imposing mandates to force Americans to do something for their own alleged good—and taxes to redistribute wealth among Americans. This is wrong and completely at odds with the spirit of American freedom and self-reliance. But the Repeal ObamaCare movement can only succeed if it convinces potential beneficiaries of redistributionist policies of the rightness of its cause.

This can't be done by threatening a civil war—even metaphorically—against them. Gandhi's ahimsa—or nonviolent resistance that seeks to change minds by a firm and calm expression of one's own conscience—is a far better strategy.

To this end, the perpetrators of ObamaCare must be defeated in November and 2012. But right now it is entirely appropriate for Senate Republicans to stall the reconciliation process as much as possible. They are right in calling every point of order that they can—if only to call attention to the bill's manifest corruption. Likewise, the 30-plus states that are issuing sovereignty resolutions and exploring ballot initiatives that would protect their residents from Uncle Sam's coverage diktat are on the right track. Even if these efforts are ultimately thrown out in court because federal law trumps state law, they will make a powerful statement against the coercive nature of ObamaCare.

But the lawsuits that have a shot at sticking in court are the ones that various attorney generals around the country are preparing under the Constitution's commerce clause. This clause gives the federal government expansive powers to regulate interstate commercial activity. But it has never before been invoked to force Americans to purchase a product as a condition of lawful residence in this country. This crosses a line that might well make five Supreme Court justices balk.

Any strategy of nonviolent civil resistance has to first make a good faith effort to achieve its end through the available political and legal means. But there comes a time when changing the law requires acts of conscience.

For opponents of ObamaCare that time is Dec. 31, 2013. That's when the individual mandate will go into effect. If ObamaCare hasn't been repealed by Congress or nullified in court by then, its opponents would be justified in urging Americans to refuse to buy coverage or pay fines and dare authorities to come after them.

By some estimates, Uncle Sam will need to hire an additional 17,000 IRS agents or so just to enforce the coverage mandate. But even if a few million Americans simultaneously refuse to abide by it, they could easily overwhelm the system. Self-rule or swaraj, Gandhi said, requires a collective understanding of the immense capacity of citizens to "regulate and control" the coercive apparatus of the state through mass nonviolent resistance.

President Obama and his fellow Democrats are counting on this resistance petering out. That could happen. But it will be a lot easier for opponents to maintain this zeal in the age of social networking. Facebook already has numerous groups with millions of members demanding the repeal of ObamaCare. It won't be impossible to mobilize enough of them when the denouement arrives.

After all, this issue is not just about the fate of an industry. It is about maintaining control over basic decisions about one's own life and health. The stakes are too high to let ObamaCare stand.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a biweekly columnist at Forbes. This article orininally appeared at Forbes.

NEXT: Heckuva Job-Creation Estimate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I kind of have a crush on Shikha. She looks lovely in her photo. And she has a way cool name.

    1. I read you loud and clear, buddy. I’ll back off and respect another man’s game.

    2. I’m out of your league, dude. Just move on.

      1. How about me?? Ill come down from the stars for you…………………….

    3. “And she has a way cool name”

      It’s pronounced Sheila Dale.

    4. I don’t know what it is about all these Indian-American women Libertarian intellectuals, but they sure are hot.

      Pia Varma
      http://web.me.com/dagtag/Site_6/Home.html

      (She’s running for congress, this site links to several others)

      Lila Rajiva
      http://mindbodypolitic.com/

      The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media (2005), published by Monthly Review Press, and the co-author of Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets, published by Wiley, which won the prestigious GetAbstract International Book Award for 2008.

      She’s written for Forbes, Washingtonpost, contributed to a lot of academic texts.)

    5. I don’t know what it is about these hot Indian women libertarian intellectuals

      Pia Varma
      http://web.me.com/dagtag/Site_6/Home.html

      (this site links to others, including her running for congress site)

      Lila Rajiva
      http://mindbodypolitic.com/

      Author of several books, contributed to academic texts and journals, appeared in a variety of publications.

    6. There seems, for some reason, to be a number of beautiful Indian-American libertarian intellectuals.

      Check out Pia Varma, running for congress

      Or Lila Rajiva, author of several books, contributed to academic journals.

  2. http://www.boingboing.net/2010…..e-car.html

    Apparently dogs are leading the charge against oppressive policing. Good dog. Good dog.

    1. They’re probably outraged at their friends being gun downed by swat teams. Either that or the smell of pork is driving them crazy.

  3. Short version = Resistance will foment in 2013!

    1. Let me guess, shrike… it’s only okay when MooOn.bOrg and Code Pink hold protests, right?

      1. MooOn.bOrg …. very clever. I will steal that.

  4. Why post this article written weeks ago today?

    And if you want to resist “health care” – go ahead. Don’t get it. Pay the 2.5% tax instead. Whats the big deal here?

    1. The big deal is being forced to purchase something for existing. The big deal is the Commerce Clause now overrides the rest of the Constitution, so there are no longer any effective limits to government power. Paying the tax would not be resisting either.

      1. Did you know that there is a MANDATE to hold a mortgage in this country?

        You see, they tax your income. If you go buy a house and get a mortgage on it, then you deduct the interest from your income – that part of your income is exempt from an income tax, hence, there is a MANDATE that you have a mortgage. Obviously.

        Did anyone here read the actual bill? It says you are taxed 2.5% on your income, and if you get yourself a mortgage…er, health insurance policy, you no longer have to pay the 2.5% income tax.

        Madness, i know. Never happened before in this country. Armageddon and all that.

        1. That’s a hilariously stupid analogy, and you know it. This is not a tax raise coupled with a tax credit; it’s an additional tax.

        2. Poor SM. The standard Demwit fallacies in moral reasoning. “Bush did it too!” “We already have interventions that cause problems and treat groups unequally.” “We already gassed some Jews.”

        3. I don’t own a house nor have a mortgage so how is there any mandate on me? If I’m simply alive then the health care mandate does apply to me.

          1. Wow, you really don’t get it.

            You’re paying more taxes than someone else just like you that has a mortgage.

            You’ll be paying more taxes than someone else just like you that has insurance.

            There is as much a “mandate” to get health insurance, as there is a “mandate” to get a mortgage, give to charity, have children, etc.

            Seriously. Someone here read the bill. Please.

            2.5% tax. Tax is waived if you CHOOSE to get insurance. Just like taxes are waived if you CHOOSE to get a mortgage, give to charity, have large medical expenses, have children/dependents, etc. Why is this so hard to understand?

            PS. We haven’t seen tax rates this high…since 2001. Where were the protests and all that before?

            PPS. After subsidies, its a tax cut for everyone up to 4x the FPL. Really, get over it.

            1. “Why is this so hard to understand?”

              It is difficult to understand because libertarianism is the sullen teenager’s bedroom of politics – a place where under no circumstances can the case be made that playing with matches is a worse idea than having fewer matches around.

              1. No libertarians want freedom, and that was a stupid analogy. Getting a tax credit for buying a house is also a dumb policy, but it hardly forces somebody to buy a house. It is just a tax credit if you do. The individual mandate fines you for not buying healthcare. If I choose not to buy a house, I see no penalty or gain. Under obamacare, if I choose not to buy health insurance, I get a penalty. That’s the difference. People who don’t get the tax deduction aren’t being penalized, or rewarded. They are neutral. If I don’t buy health insurance under the individual mandate I won’t be neutral, I’ll be in the hole. That’s the difference.

                Letting people keep more of their own money is hardly a “bonus.” It just represents less theft. Obamacare will punish me for not buying insurance by adding theft.

                You are comparing letting people keep more of their own money for engaging in an activity to making people buy a product at the threat of even more theft. I don’t know how many times we have to make this point.

                1. Again, no one is FORCED to buy a house OR get health insurance. But in either case, you pay a higher percent of your income in taxes if you don’t get them. READ THE BILL.

                  The government taxes your income. They give you deductions if you choose to spend your money on certain things they think are in your and their interest. Mortgage, education, and now health insurance.

                  But i’ve also never seen them give a subsidy for those other things like they will for this one if you’re under 4x the FPL. In which case, most people will end up with more money in their pocket when it comes to the totality paid/received from the govt.

                  1. Oh so the money game, from one hand, to another, to another, to one you can’t see, to another. Create 138 more agencies. Thats soooo much better than stay out of more bureaucracies. And it will continue. Its not over. What tax us for not living long enough, or too long? Not purchasing food from an approved government provider? Or breathing at the wrong time of day? Not providing paid leave? It will never end. If they can get this passed when 65% of the population is against it. They WILL pass amnesty. Re-district. Ban guns. Ban resistance. Then its over. ie. Hitler.
                    Anyone that loves this country should fight government by voting these morons out in Nov. & 2012. If we can’t, go to Australia, before they close immigration. Wait 4 years to establish residency. Immigrate back to the US and live of the government, like kings. Hopefully China hasn’t annexed the US by then.

                    1. Um yeah, ‘go to Australia’ where we have not just a tax levy that is waived if you buy health insurance, but also 100% taxpayer funded healthcare free at the point of delivery for all citizens.

                    2. Seriously, Hitler!? Why are you libertarians becoming such raving lunatics? You used to seem like reasonable people. Buying health insurance is the same as trying to annihilate the Jews? Are you trying to preserve the freedom of the middle class to become bankrupt if they get sick? Are you fighting to preserve the American way of paying the most for the worst healthcare in the industrialized world? Why aren’t you rallying against the requirement to have car insurance? Surely that’s tantamount to gas chambers as well, or concentration camps at least.

                    3. Auto insurance is NOT the same thing–you might chose to ride a bicycle, or walk, or call a taxi. But this new “healthcare” legislation is about fascist/communist control. Cram a govt-approved product down your throat; then cram a new GM econobox down your throat; then cram….

                  2. Do I get a tax credit for buying health insurance? No. Therefore it is not the same. You have stupid logic.

              2. O ne
                R eally
                E gotistical
                L oser

                H opeless
                A sshat
                Z yke
                A nd
                R etarded
                D emocrat

                1. Just another shrill democrat with an oral fixation for gov’t handouts. He’s really just a fascist parasite in drag, posed as a high-minded intellectual. He and this S&M will never understand what libertarianism is b/c they’re too busy seeing any opposition as mean Republicans. They are the worst sort of creature, along with fellow Republicans, who violate everyone’s liberties, and then their only justification is: where were you when the other side anal raped you? Well, libertarians have been screaming about this for the last 70 years at a minimum. Funny thing that politicians don’t listen to people who want to reduce their influence.

            2. The bill is horrid, but you may have a point with legality IF the bill was re-written – the gov’t could raise EVERYBODY’s taxes 2.5% & then offer a tax rebate if you got insurance. That’s the only way I really see it working legally. it’s a shitty idea, but legal.

              I’m also wondering if you realize that most of the people here actively dislike the renter’s penalty nearly as much as the mandate tax.

              1. I certainly do.

              2. Joshua has the right idea. They could just raise taxes and provide tax rebates for those who buy insurance. Heck, they could just take the rebates they give to employers and just give them to individual, but people had been suggesting that and the dems didn’t want any part of it.

              3. Did you read the bill? Really?

                How do you THINK its written?

                The bill states something like “amend section blah of IRS code…” and increases the income tax 2.5%, then waives the tax if you have health insurance and make under a certain income (200k or whatever).

                Just like your income tax is waived on charitable donations, waived on education expenses, waived on mortgage interest, etc, etc, etc.

                There is no “mandate” beyond that – that is just newspeak. Go to the source. Read the bill.

                1. pp. 321-322

                  ‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSEN-
                  TIAL COVERAGE.
                  ”(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSEN-
                  TIAL COVERAGE.?An applicable individual shall for each
                  month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and
                  any dependent of the individual who is an applicable indi-
                  vidual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for
                  such month.

                  ”(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.? 1
                  ”(1) INGENERAL.?If an applicable individual 2
                  fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1
                  or more months during any calendar year beginning
                  after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d),
                  there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the
                  individual in the amount determined under sub-
                  section (c)

                  Feel free to stop lying now.

                2. And from p. 167 of the reconciliation bill:

                  SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
                  HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

                  Clearly a penalty, not a tax credit. But you already knew that.

                  1. Clearly a penalty, not a tax credit. But you already knew that.

                    But of course, he did. His prevarication or lie is just part of the latest Leftist strategy for selling this abomination – just as was Obama’s insistence to George Stephanopoulos that the mandate was not a tax. The Leftys are a bunch of shape-shifters of the mouth, ie. a pack of pathological liars.

                    1. Wasn’t George Stephanopoulos the guy who pitched Tommy Douglas as ‘the greatest Canadian”?

                3. Nowhere does the law say that we have to pay extra taxes for not donating to charities or any of the other things that you’ve mentioned. Those are tax credits that are given after the fact to people who choose to. There is no direct desire to penalize those who do not choose to donate. I guess that our nit pick is more about semantic than I first though, but it doesn’t mean that obama and his ilk are any less weasely.

                  1. Exactly, the law says you have to pay a portion of you income to the IRS based on net income which is defined by the tax code. A tax credit for health insurance has been adovcated by groups like the Reason Foundation. With this you pay income tax and pay an additional tax unless you have some kind of helaht insurance. Traditionally a fee of this king is a fine and not a tax.

                  2. “Those are tax credits that are given…”

                    That’s not a tax credit, that’s a tax deduction. A tax credit is a kickback, you get money even if your tax liability is reduced to zero. A deduction just lowers your taxable income. Neither are the same animal as a completely new tax.

                    1. Right right. Sorry.

                  3. You are showing your ignorance or your mendacity. You get a tax deduction for charitable giving which lowers your taxable income. What the health care bill has is a new tax to punish not buying health care, that is not the same as tax credit which rewards certain activities or a deduction which fails to punish other activities. Don’t conflate those into a single concept, they are quite different.

                4. The real problem occurs when Obama and his ilk argue that the tax is a fine in front of the supreme court and then demand that the interstate commerce clause allows it. When this happens, a dangerous precedent will have been begun. If he passes it as a tax, he’ll have to admit that it is a tax, and the interstate commerce clause will not be invoked, and we all can just move on.

                  I believe that Obama wants it to be a fine, not a tax, so that he can

                  A)save face and say he didn’t “raise taxes”

                  B)Create a precedent under the interstate commerce clause that will allow much more horrid bills in the future.

                  I pray that obama makes your argument SM.

                5. You’re one stupid fuck. It’s a little surprising you can even read.

                6. Seriously, dude, fuck the bill. Even if your analogy works, it doesn’t justify the bill. In fact, both are just as tyrannical as the other. Thanks to you, we have two practices we can oppose as immoral and economically illiterate policy. Thanks for helping our cause, you mouthpiece for democrat-party politics. Then again, why should we read the bill when your own benefactors didn’t? We don’t need benefactors. We only want to be left alone from you moral busybody fascists.

                7. It doesn’t matter how it’s written…if it is written by the government you are getting fucked.

                8. NOT taxing me is not the same as giving me extra money for giving to charity. I don’t get taxed extra if I don’t give to charity, they just give me money if I do(or let me keep more of my own money). Dumb logic again.

              4. >most of the people here actively dislike the renter’s penalty

                Well, renters do get to take a standard deduction of about 10K instead of itemizing so you get comparative tax benefits. To boot, you don’t have to pay out $1000s in interest each year to earn it.

            3. Sm, first of all , it wouldn’t so bad if it merely offered a tax credit for buying insurance.

              But they have to completely fuck up the insurance market by doing the following additional things:
              a) force insurance companies to insure people who are already sick
              b) require all insurance policies to be sold through a government controlled exchange
              c) subsidize to the tune of nearly $1,000,000,000,000 insurance purchases for everyone who makes less than $90,000/year.

              Basically the law amounts to buying free insurnace for half the population, and requiring everyone else to pay for it at exhoribtant rates, so that nobody, anywhere, ever, has to say no to any treatment.

              Doctors will pretty much charge whatever they want, costs will continue to skyrocket until the government can’t afford the rates anymore, the entire market will collapse, and you’re end up with an utterly fucked dysfunctional system.

              1. and then, the government will step in to “save” us

            4. Technicalities and semantics can make a big difference in legal proceedings even if the net result is the same.

            5. If I have a mortgage and don’t take the tax credit the government doesn’t care, it’s to their benefit. If I refuse to get health insurance and I refuse to pay the tax and the G-men come to my house demanding the money and I resist I get murdered.

            6. Aaaah! I see that SM stopped posting after someone actually “READ THE BILL!!!!!!” (as he kept e-shouting).

              SM, back in your court. RE-READ THE BILL, you moron!!!!

        4. OK, you can call it a tax.

          Then I say Obama lied about not raising my taxes … not that I ever believed him in the first place.

          1. Fine. You win. But he provided you a way out.

            PS. He also raised your taxes if you choose to get tobacco, and choose to go tanning in indoor tanning beds. So you can yell about those too.

            1. We have and will.

            2. There is another way out, but you have to become a Christian Scientist to enjoy that option.

        5. Wow SM in 2700 pages all it says is a 2.5% tax huh?

          And you are DDF and will wear a rubber too, huh?

      2. Part of the big deal, also, is the unelected Medicare Advisory Board formed by the legislation–given absolute power to ration/determine the nature of “medical care”. Population control is covered by the legislation; and it appears that Obama’s claims regarding his executive order prohibiting abortion funding were trickery. Also, forced patient inclusion in computerized medical databases is a BIG DEAL, as is the fact that most patients will be treated by nurses or physician assistants, rather than by MDs (BIG DEAL, because larger premium for medical insurance will not even buy the current standard of care).

    2. SM no doubt stands for sadomasochist.

      This isn’t a 2.5% tax for better health care for all or some.

      It’s the end of good medical care and medical innovation, privacy and free choice, exploding deficits, and another giant government failure that will be a “shock” that will be another opportunity for the tax predator ruling class to demand more power, in particular a 20% national sales tax. The standard play book of late stage disaster statism.

      Off with your head, quisling.

      1. Bullshit.

        There is no end to “good medical care”.

        Don’t deface markets.

        1. Shrike – you are Chad, arent you?

    3. “And if you want to resist “health care” – go ahead. Don’t get it. Pay the 2.5% tax instead. Whats the big deal here?”

      The problem is that you’ve basically screwed the system up so bad that the kinds of treatment options that are going to be available aren’t gonna be what they were when you had more of a market, with insurance companies trying to differentiate themselves by product offerings as well as price…

      The Premier of Labrador recently came to the United States for treatment, and I think that’s where we’re headed.

      I don’t care if Asia does become a big market for healthcare and healthcare innovation, I want those choices available to me locally, and I don’t think that option is going to be available very much longer, even for the very wealthy…

      I mean, apparently, even if you’re the Canadian equivalent of the Governor of Maine, that isn’t well paid enough or connected enough to get the healthcare you want…

      So, anyway, that option you’re talking about? I don’t think that’s a real option. …maybe for the jet set. The rest of us will have to settle for the best service the post office can deliver. And I hate standing in line at the post office.

  5. This is a gem – “he (Romney) couldn’t be a worse spokesman given that as governor he was responsible for implementing a universal coverage program in the Bay State that is identical in every essential respect to ObamaCare, including the individual mandate.”

    I have 2-1 money on Romney as GOP nominee in 2012.

    1. You probably also have two to one money on the Nets winning the NBA title.

      1. Nahhh – there is no “there” there in the GOP.

        Even the Freepers hate Sister Sarah after her support of Juan McCain today.

        The Huck is working hard for the felon vote – I give him that. But I don’t expect more commutations for him to buy votes.

        Piyush Jingal? LMAO!

        Pence/DeMint/Gingrich//Hunter/Nixon?

        Same shit.

        Romney in a cakewalk!

        1. Since a CNN poll today has Obama tied with “anyone” on the Republican ticket, I don’t think the GOP’s all that worried right now. And if the economy gets as bad as anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of cause and effect thinks it will get, then in 2012 the Republicans probably can run “anyone” and they’ll win.

          Seriously. I think we’re way more fucked than we think we are.

          1. No doubt, they think it took 2,500 pages and a cost of 2-3 trillion to say its an optional 2.5% and it forces insurance companies to allow pre-existing conditions and not drop insurance if you get sick. Various Dems are already walking back from the wonders of Obamacare as they start lowering expectations.

            Its such a shit sandwich there is no way they are going to be able to defend it.

            1. I’m betting that LESS WILL BE MORE! How long do you think it will take people to figure out that they make money by paying the fine & paying out-of-pocket for required care. Heads they win; tails ObamaCare loses! Once their costs begin to approximate the anticipated premium less fine, they’re guaranteed issue! Premiums are based on averages–and the $multi-million low-birthweight babies and brain-damaged illegal immigrants skew these averages against reasonable people in the insurance-purchasing game. (Duh…why else would they try to coerce purchase by EVERYONE)?

    2. Underlying logic, ‘this (Obamacare) doesn’t change everything.’

      If true, Romney will be the nominee.

      If false, we actually have a small chance at getting Gary Johnson as our next president, if not him, definitely someone not in the usual Republican douchebag template’.

      Actually, I’m going with the later. This does change everything.

  6. OK, sure, I agree in all seriousness that this bill isn’t to the tipping point for violent resistance.

    I also don’t think its too early to start thinking about where that tipping point would be.

    1. The tipping point will be an event so trivial and stupid that no one will predict the enormity of the event in relation to what unfolds after wards. In other words, it will be something that comes out of Michelle Obama’s mouth.

      1. She’ll try to take away our burgers.
        …then we go all blood crazed.

        1. That’s kind of how I pictured it to. Mine went, ‘Porky, put down that bag of chips!’, and then Malia starts to cry.

      2. +4

    2. “OK, sure, I agree in all seriousness that this bill isn’t to the tipping point for violent resistance.

      I also don’t think its too early to start thinking about where that tipping point would be.”

      I think it’s probably like the LA riots.

      The verdict for the cops that beat Rodney King was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. …but it was just a random event, nobody saw that comin’. I was workin’ a hospital in Central Los Angeles at the time, and I knew it was time to get the hell outta dodge as soon as the verdict hit, but there’s no way anybody could have predicted that in the weeks before it happened.

      Gate’s LAPD was outta control for a long time, and there were several verdicts prior to that…

      It’s hard to tell what that point would be, but it may not be what we think. If there’s something that sets off a big reaction, it’ll probably be something random and unpredictable…

      The last time I saw this much activity on the right, anger and frustration really, it was after Waco and Randy Weaver…

      The militia types went over the edge first, and I haven’t seen them show up in force yet like they were back in ’91, ’92, ’93. I imagine they’re getting a lot of new support now.

      It all dissipated last time when Gingrich came to power, in the aftermath of Oklahoma City, especially, and then when the economy improved dramatically…

      It was about the economy. A lot of people are losing their homes and their savings were tied up in that… If we get a double dip recession, or worse yet, some really bad inflation, and I think any random lightening strike could set all that kindling off.

      It could be random. Like Waco or Katrina were. …but it needs an economic backdrop. Obama should be cutting capital gains taxes and betraying the far left now–I just don’t think he has a clue as to what makes economies go though.

      I think he’s a smart politician, but I think he’s dumb as a rock about how the reality thingy works.

      1. I think he’s dumb as a rock about how the reality thingy works.

        Most Leftys or Progressives are. A number of them think that reality is whatever they say it is – as if words, thoughts, or feelings had direct power to change things.

      2. I think it will be war. The “annointed-one” needs his World War III. Thus far, he has attempted to traipse down Comrade Roosevelt’s path footprint-by-footprint. War must be used in final attempt to pull the country out of its financial/economic/(by then)political & social COLLAPSE!

  7. Gandhi was resisting a foreign occupying empire on the decline. How is that at all similar to the health care situation in America today? We are resisting our own government.

    1. You answered your on question – we are a “foreign occupying empire on the decline”.

      Duhhhhh!

      1. You’re missing the point, shrike – WE are being occupied, by our own government.

        Which isn’t much better than the previous regime, but I’m sure you’ll disagree.

        1. And the occupying power has already issued an executive order sitting up structures to deal with uppity tax serfs:

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defau….._order.pdf

          1. Section 2(d)

  8. Yes, the non violent civil disobenience paradigm has its place; query how the Ghandi way would have fared in 1776?

    1. Owwweeee-Chii!

    2. In 1776 they would have executed you for treason, in India they would do something similarly opressive. Today they’ll fine you. So yeah peaceful means are the better option.

      1. Oppressive*

        I sneezed whilst typing

      2. Sensitivity training versus a beat down short of death. Though short of death wasn’t always part of the deal, I think I would take that risk. Sensitivity training is just too cruel and disrespectful of the human condition for a sensitive soul like me to endure.

    3. Or even Gandhi.

  9. Gandhi?!! You’ve got to be f$$king kidding me!!! I can’t wait for Tea Baggers to start carrying pictures of Gandhi at their rallies. Or Martin Luther King Jr. Why not invoke him as well? He had the same philosophy. But think about it; whose side do you think they’d be on? Yours? Think again.

    1. Ghandi was a racist pedophile, but that’s hardly the issue at stake. I don’t want ghandi on my side.

    2. Ends matter, but so do means. Surely they would support the means used to pursue the ends, even if they didn’t support the ends themselves.

  10. To me, what the individual mandate most resembles is the Vietnam-era draft. It is compulsory, unless one gets a deferment (e.g., congressional staffers) and failure to comply could ultimately land one in prison.

    1. Yes, exactly. A 2.5% tax if you don’t use government subsidies to get health insurance is the same as being shipped off to a foreign country to potentially get killed in a ridiculous war. Exactly the same.

      1. NO, getting health insurance is a net cost increase, as is paying the fine for not buying insurance. I agree that they could have just raised everyone’s taxes and just provided a tax break, which would be technically legal, but the dems also could have just given the tax benefits that employers receive to individuals. They didn’t want any part of that. The extra tax represents a fine, and it is a really ugly way of accomplishing something simple that could have been accomplished in some other way.

        1. “..hey could have just raised everyone’s taxes and just provided a tax break, which would be technically legal…”

          They did; its just not sold as such. Read the bill.

          1. Then he’s a weasel either way.

            1. This is being sold as a “penalty,” just to get around accusations of tax increases. I think they should have to admit that it is a tax increase then in order to get it past the supreme court. If it is just a tax increase, then they should call it that.

              1. This was all a round about way of getting obama to encourage more corporatism, but in a way that he could still claim that he wasn’t somehow, and he wasn’t raising taxes on anybody who wasn’t rich. There were much simpler solutions.

                1. SM is really just providing more rope that he can obama can be hung with. Lol.

                  1. The real problem occurs when Obama and his ilk argue that the tax is a fine in front of the supreme court and then demand that the interstate commerce clause allows it. When this happens, a dangerous precedent will have been begun. If he passes it as a tax, he’ll have to admit that it is a tax, and the interstate commerce clause will not be invoked, and we all can just move on.

                    I believe that Obama wants it to be a fine, not a tax, so that he can

                    A)save face and say he didn’t “raise taxes”

                    B)Create a precedent under the interstate commerce clause that will allow much more horrid bills in the future.

                    I pray that obama makes your argument SM.

                    1. Although it is really hard to argue that this is just a tax increase when it is clearly a penalty tied to whether or not you buy healthcare.

      2. Think of it this way: a 2.5% tax is the same as being sacrificed to the state after 97.5% of your life expectancy.
        Doesn’t sound too bad? Well, when you consider your overall tax burden is it worth dying at 48 when your life expectancy is 76 (35% overall tax rate (local + state + federal + medicare + soc. sec)?

      3. A 2.5% tax is a big deal on top of all the other statist bullshit we already pay, you idiot. It’s called thresholds, something your party-indoctrinated mind can’t get. It’s the difference between a movie with the children and not. But for you that is trivial. That is how corrupt your mind is. You don’t care about the children, only about your selfish, juvenile programs that always fail given time. You’re no different than the Soviet commissars who followed people around for a living. You are a parasite.

  11. It won’t matter in the long run – Obama’s Thought Police minions at Homeland Security will consider any right-of-center protest – even the calmest, quietest, most violence-free parking-lot rally – as a terroristic threat.

    Bet anyone five bucks on it. Takers?

    1. Exactly. Obama probably has an enemies’ list that would make Tricky Dick blush from embarrassment.

      1. Half of that list would probably be contained in the TSA databanks.

        “Hmm… you voted for Ron Paul. You’ll have to be cavity-searched, ma’am. Oh, Gunther… would you step over here, please?”

    2. A foolish bet considering what you predict is basically already being done.

    3. That he will state they are a terroristic threat or that the media will report them as such?

      1. Actually both rctl.

        That’s what happened with the Missouri Information Analysis Center “Strategic Report”:

        “It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.”

        And the media didn’t say boo until there was enough of a backlash.

        https://reason.com/blog/2009/03…..ob-barr-bu

        Fortunately, enough people said you’re a bunch of morons in Missouri and they were forced to withdraw that report.

        Yes Missouri, I’m a Libertarian, freedom and liberty advocating individual so I am a threat to you.

        Strangely enough, the LP convention this year is in St Louis. A whole bunch of extremists coming to Missouri.

        Thomas Jefferson said:

        “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

        1. Bleek, you’re interfering with commerce. I’m trying to set limited/specific conditions on this wager. I’d make TLG give the five to a women’s rights charity.:-)

          1. Make? Is coercion charity, or does the end justify the means?

            1. He’s a big boy and can handle any terms of a possible wager. A business transaction is just that and charity is not really in the perimeter of this venture. Does the end justify the means? I want to ponder a little but my first reaction was to say: sometimes.

          2. I’d be the last to interfer with commerce. If TLG wins, he should make you donate to reason.

            1. Bleek, you are a cruel man. That’s why I like you 🙂

              1. dichotomy.

                1. I see you had a little fun on my 10 second post.

                  1. Indeed. It’s been a slow day as far as trauma pages go, which is fine with me.

                    But the night is still young.

                2. GM, you are a kind man. That’s why I like you 🙂

              2. “Bleek, you are a cruel man. That’s why I like you :-)”

                I try my best and even that ends in failure.

                1. Failure? I read everything you write and enjoy every time we talk. That isn’t failure to me. How Have I been inadequate to you?

                  1. @rctl – I’m not always trying to be cruel but when I have tried, I’m not good it. Maybe I need remedial education in that area. You teach over the Internet?

                    1. I was teasing you Bleek but I love that you are damn sensitive. I bet you have never been cruel in your life but I will be your Socrates 🙂

                    2. See my attempt was not successful. Teach me Master Yoda.

                    3. Bleek, I didn’t even notice the attempt.:-)

                    4. but who do you want to be mean to?

                    5. It’s always better to have the skills and not use them as opposed to not having the skills and needing them.

                    6. Bleek, sounds a little dangerous to teach you grasshopper. What will the student teach the master?

                    7. How about believing in the individual instead of the state?

                    8. Already, a straight A student:-)

                    9. I’ll be observing the master to see if the student has had any effect.

                    10. Why do I cogitate chicken and egg here? You would be surprised by my politics. In fact, I am a contradiction. I was just thinking about your sister. Crap, that is hard. I’m contemplating, erasing those words. I know sometimes it is better to write as I think and not censor my thoughts. I have been wanting to ask you about how you are feeling? I thought you seemed a little down but is this like a cut and have I made it worse? Ignore this and forgive me, if it is the case.

                    11. Bleek, good morning

                    12. rctl, good evening.

                    13. Bleek, worried that you were upset with me. I need to learn to write less personalized.

                    14. rctl, not upset, just not time to read and comment lately.

                    15. I need to work too but I’m lacking discipline. Are you doing something creative or necessary?

                    16. Some of each. Mostly though I have been waking up later than normal due to the change to DST and I do my best work in the morning;)

                    17. I think I’ve heard that before

                    18. I work too late in the day to have much time to read and comment at night.

                    19. I thought you might have worked for yourself but I see you work for the man. What do you to for fun, other than at 4am?

                    20. Yes, I worked for a company, not myself.

                      “What do you to for fun” (sic)

                      That would be telling…

                    21. I learn from all my mistakes (ok, I try!) but you fell into the ‘Joez law’ trap. The grammar correction [sic] should be in brackets, next to the error. “That would be telling…” Leaves me intrigued.

                    22. You’re the writer rctl, I’m not an expert in the written word.

                      “That would be telling…”

                      That would be from the very libertarain series “The Prisoner”.

                      Number Six: Where am I?
                      Number Two: In the Village.
                      Number Six: What do you want?
                      Number Two: Information.
                      Number Six: Whose side are you on?
                      Number Two: That would be telling. We want information? information? in formation.
                      Number Six: You won’t get it.
                      Number Two: By hook or by crook, we will.
                      Number Six: Who are you?
                      Number Two: The new Number Two.
                      Number Six: Who is Number One?
                      Number Two: You are Number Six.
                      Number Six: I am not a number! I am a free man!
                      Number Two: [laughs]

                      My favorite line:

                      “I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own!”

                      Just like in the series, we keep electing new Number Twos.

                    23. feisty today. I like it.

                    24. It’s Friday and there is global warming in my office.

                    25. I guess casual dress friday does now allow you to go naked!

                    26. Not a lot of people here today but I’m sure someone would notice. Plus I have to go to the manufacturing facility and something could get burned.

                    27. Eunuchs have a lot of job security but I’m sure your wife would be very sad.

                    28. Time to go outside where it is cooler.

                    29. I would go to the bathroom. I’d hate to read that they put you on a list;-)

                    30. Not on a list, had to go to the mfg plant for a while.

                    31. Bleek, you called me out…again!

                    32. but I forgive you.

                    33. Where?

                    34. You are rctl, aren’t you?

                    35. Yes, it’s me. It was on the quote about children. Let me find it

                    36. Here it is. I was undercover. I swear Bleek, I am glad you work with numbers because you could never work with secrets!

                      https://reason.com/blog/2010/04…..nt_1641305

                      Why are you asking if it is me tonight?

                    37. Ok, rctl said:

                      rctl|4.2.10 @ 4:30PM|#
                      Heartless libertarians. Is there another kind?

                      https://reason.com/blog/2010/04…..nt_1641305

                      I said in response to that comment:

                      bleek obummer|4.2.10 @ 9:37PM|#
                      Yes, rctl, there is.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2010/04…..nt_1641711

                      (watch the indent of that thread – in many programming languages that determines what applies to what and so it is here)

                      That’s why I asked if you are rctl – I posted to the rctl comment and you went all multi-personality on me.

                      I don’t work with numbers (although my programs manipulate and output them) but I do work with secrets of a sort.

                      Calm down – I haven’t the time to follow all of your AKAs around and expose you. Only when necessary:) I suppose I could write some software to spot similar phrasing and zing you but why bother.

                    38. Hmm, I guess I am a little paranoid . Sorry! Speaking of ‘Zing” that was a reply to another post I made! “I do work with secrets of a sort” fun. Don’t ever write that software, It wouldn’t be fair.

                    39. Don’t worry, your secrets are safe with me;)

                    40. Good, I knew I could count on you. I hope you get to relax this weekend…and you had all those items on your list

                    41. Wanna help?

                    42. You need to get your honey to help with your list HDL.;-) and :-).

                    43. Bleek, like you have not come back to check for a reply! I think I’m going to call you my BBB.

                    44. Sorry no reply. Busy enjoying my time with my wife.

                      What is BBB?

                    45. What is BBB?
                      It could be several things. Bold Boy Bleek was what I hand in mind, after the “Wanna help?” remark. I screwed up my computer and changed the order of saved posts to alphabetical instead of order by the date saved. I can’t find anything! It would be my personal Obummer, if I couldn’t find the posts with you. Have a nice weekend!

                    46. Same to you rctl.

                    47. I was thinking about you and thought I would check. I am having the usual fun fights on the threads. What was that secret code you thought of posting after a remark?

          3. I’ll donate to the cause of MY choosing, rctl. Though it is interesting you’d choose that specific kind of charity. Do you consider me anti-female?

            Incorrectly, I must add.

            1. No deal then. Yes, I detect a little anti-female in you. I bet your ex-wife and friend with benefits would agree with me;-)

  12. Someone please tell me what page of the bill the “mandate” is on and quote the text.

    All i see is a 2.5% income tax that gets waived if you CHOOSE to get health insurance, but for some reason people keep talking about it like its a “mandate.”

    1. pp. 321-322

      ‘SEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSEN-
      TIAL COVERAGE.
      ”(a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSEN-
      TIAL COVERAGE.?An applicable individual shall for each
      month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and
      any dependent of the individual who is an applicable indi-
      vidual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for
      such month.

      ”(b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.? 1
      ”(1) INGENERAL.?If an applicable individual 2
      fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1
      or more months during any calendar year beginning
      after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d),
      there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the
      individual in the amount determined under sub-
      section (c)

      Feel free to stop lying now.

      1. Me thinks S&M’s butthole is sore from this raping. But, then again, he probably likes it, given his name.

    2. Okay SM, consider a hypothetical: you start out taxed at a 100% rate. On your 1040, you are presented with a list of specific industries. For each or your dollars that you can prove was spent in those sectors, you qualify for a certain % tax reduction.

      How, EXACTLY, is that different than the semantic game you’re playing above?

    3. And from p. 167 of the reconciliation bill:

      SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
      HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

      Clearly a penalty, not a tax credit. But you already knew that.

    4. And if I refuse to get health insurance and I refuse to pay the tax and the G-men come to my house demanding the money and I resist I get murdered.

  13. Oh – and when Bush I raised taxes to a HIGHER rate than they are now with the 2.5% tax increase (assuming you refuse to get insurance and refuse the subsidy and its 2014, when the tax goes into effect) – where was the tea party, the “non violent resistance” and all that? Anyone?

    1. Good point. That is why we should all be more vigilant. We should fight these things all of the time.

      1. Personally, I was only 4, so don’t blame me.

    2. They were still remembering how much worse it was before Reagan.

    3. Bush I? That’s the one-term president that people mainly remember for lying about “read my lips, no new taxes”, right?

      1. +2

    4. I would suggest you are deliberately not ‘getting it’ which frankly is making you look as dumb as a rock.
      It’s not so much the 2.5% tax credit (mentioned in one paragraph) but in addition, the stuff in the other 2,500 pages on top of the partisan spending and the massive debt increases.

      If you seriously think claming it is ‘just’ a 2.5% tax increase with a credit for insurance is going to be a winner come election time then I say, in the words of your overlord, “Go for it”

    5. People were generally more concerned about the Iraq War, but they woke up in 2006.

  14. How about if I choose not to get health insurance and choose not to pay the 2.5 per cent tax?

    How’s that for choice? If I can’t do that, what do you call it?

    1. Choose not to pay ANY income tax for all anyone cares.

      It is an income tax that is waived if you purchase health insurance. It is no different than any other income tax, and waiving it is no different than mortgage deductions, education credits, charity, etc, etc, etc. All those things cost you money and are a choice. You get a tax break if you make the choice. Same with health insurance.

      Point is you people are having a conniption over a tax that puts you below reagan, bush I and clinton rates STILL. And this is “armageddon” and requires “resistance”? Really?

      I know you disagree with income taxes. But unless you already refuse to pay them, your whining rings hollow. Nothing is changing. You’re not going to be 2.5% less “libertarian” in your head. Don’t worry…

      1. SM-

        I don’t whine-I speak truth to power.

        1. that’s what Bobby Buttrill said.

      2. All those things cost you money and are a choice. You get a tax break if you make the choice.

        Yes, and the federal income tax is voluntary, too, of course.

      3. Libertarians are fucked every which way by statists. If we choose to live by principle, we end up in jail. You call us hypocrites for not doing this. But if we end up in jail, then we are supported by taxes. So, no matter which way we turn, the statists have us nailed as hypocrites. There is no escape.

        1. Hunger strike in jail. At least you’re making an effort to save taxpayers money.

  15. We shall overcome
    We shall overcome
    We shall overcome some day

    Oh, deep in my heart
    I do believe
    Taxes will be marginally lower for billionaires and a kid with cancer will be denied healthcare… some day

    1. One day, liberals will rise up and understand the difference between price and costs. They will throw away the shackles of ignorance that prevent them from understanding how the tertiary nature of insurance, the origins of employer based insurance occurring through price controls, and official policy in relation to finance and finance industry incentives has driven reasonably priced fee for service medical care from these shores.

      I dream they will come to know how increases in technology in every industry but medicine has only led to efficiencies, and the lowering of cost, and how the policies they support reverse that natural condition in the health care sector, the only exception to a universal rule.

      That supporting bills with riders allowing hospital conglomerates to harass and prevent competition in their regional markets will worsen the quality of medical care in the long run. That the layers, and layers, and layers of bureaucracies that they somehow irrationally believe will improve access to health care while providing them with publicly financed make work jobs only stifle the dream for the betterment of mankind.

      1. I don’t think the day will come when progressives realize finally that it is their policies that impoverish people through market-distorting regulation, inflation by monetizing debt, and confiscatory taxation. No, that day will never come for the economically illiterate.

      2. Wow, MLL, I have a dream that someday, I will be able to write that well. Extremely well done.

        1. I smell speech writer;-)

      3. Very well said MartinLutherLibertarian. I love the name too.

  16. Belatedly, I wish someone had advised the tea partiers to chain themselves to the doors of congress last weekend. Or form a human chain around the capitol building.

  17. The coming of the Reichstag in America to control the voices of descent:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2135

    and……………………

    The defeat of the American economy by our new Marxist government:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2134… Report Reply

    1. Who said:

      “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

      A) Nancy Pelosi

      B) Adolf Hitler

      C) Barak Obama

      D) George Washington

      hint: It wasn’t George Washington

      1. A, b, and c all three?

        1. Pelosi doesn’t speak that well. I don’t think that Washington and those of his generation had the word “socalist” in their vocabularies. I suppose it is possible that Obama said that at some point in the past, but the language seems translated from another, so I am going to guess that it was Mr. Hitler, originally speaking or writing in German. Am I close?

          1. Well, they did. Look at some of things attributed to both Adams and Madison.

    2. “The coming of the Reichstag in America to control the voices of descent:”

      Are you talking about eugenics? 😉

  18. As a principled libertarian who hates the whole tone of the tea party crowd (in part because I’m a left coast elitist latte sipping libertarian) – I just can’t see them all of a sudden cooling down their rhetoric and acting all reasonable and principled like.

    1. How many tea partiers have you personally interacted with?

      I wouldn’t trust shit I heart in the MSM. Guarentee you they pick out the loudest, most obnoxious loons to film.
      Go form your own opinion.

    2. I just can’t see them all of a sudden cooling down their rhetoric and acting all reasonable and principled like.

      Who – Obama and his crowd?

    3. I’m not a Tea Partier, but I do suspect it may be the fact you hate that causes you to lump large groups of individuals together for labeling more than it is because you are a “left coast elitist latte sipping libertarian.” It seems a bit of a contradiction that you both state you hate and yet expect others to be “reasonable” when there is hardly anything reasonable about hatred. Possibly there is some chemical component contained in “elitist latte” that causes it’s sippers to expect of others what they are not willing to do themselves.

      1. Excellent Ratko.

  19. The healthcare industry has beeen slowly poisoned by socialist parasites like Roosevelt, LBJ, up thru Obama. When would “positive rights” end? No one deserves a health insurance any more than they deserve scented toilet paper. The only thing socialists deserve is extinction by genetic de-selection.
    To creators, starve them out: do not hire them, do not give them handouts, or they will turn, and eventually eat YOU.
    To the socialists: Get some dignity, stop holding out your soft hands, and get of the way of creators so we can help grow the economy and help our species SURVIVE.
    I’m not advocating violence but I am advocating that socialists really should kill themselves if they’re not going to help out.

    1. To creators, starve them out: do not hire them, do not give them handouts,

      That may be why so many of them seem to have government jobs.

    2. To creators, starve them out: do not hire them, do not give them handouts, or they will turn, and eventually eat YOU.

      Socialists will eat their own young.

      As for hiring them or giving them handouts, for many years I have had a strict policy of not hiring them nor giving them handouts by purchasing products they sell.

      As for killing themselves, I always encourage them to join their own Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Sure virtually all suicides are committed by socialists, no surprise, they are extremely materialistic unhappy people. They just don’t kill themselves often enough, possibly because others aren’t forced to do it for them, which of course defeats the whole purpose of suicide. Maybe it would be different if they just could understand it ends their miserable unhappiness while freeing the rest of us from their worthless non-productive burden. It truly is win-win-win for all.

      Seems you and I are on the same page.

      1. “for many years I have had a strict policy of not hiring them” I always thought it took one person to run a lemonade stand.

      2. They just don’t kill themselves often enough, possibly because others aren’t forced to do it for them, which of course defeats the whole purpose of suicide.

        Hey! Don’t blame me! I tried to advocate for assisted suicide but the State, in it’s infinite wisdom, wants to control both ends of the human spectrum.

        Both literally and metaphorically.

        1. You was robbed, buddy. But sorry, the government needs to make our decisions for us!

      3. You know, I’ve always believed that before a hot chick commits suicide, she should be required by law to have sex with a nerd. I mean, she’s going to die anyway so it doesn’t matter to her, and he’d be eternally grateful.

        1. be charged with assisted suicide;-)

    3. The “Medicare Advisory Panel” created by this new legislation is unelected & possesses all the powers of a death panel, and then some. MAKE SURE THAT NO FASCIST/MARXISTS ARE APPOINTED TO IT!

  20. Gandhi was a pussy. And I like cheeseburgers too much to go on a hunger strike.

    1. Cheeseburgers are wonderful. And I’ve never understood the purpose of hunger strikes. If someone wants to starve themselves do it. It’s not going to change any decision I’ve made. Show me my decision is wrong, I’ll change it without hesitation. Attempt any form of coercion and I won’t budge. My second told me she’d commit suicide if I didn’t take her back. I told her that would be her choice. She told me I didn’t believe she’d do it. I told her that was irrelevant. A few minutes later she drove her car into a rock wall at what they estimated was close to 100 mph. Wasn’t much left of her but somehow she survived. And I didn’t take her back. If I won’t do it for my own wife it’s safe to assume I’m not doing it for anyone. I fail to understand hunger strikes.

      1. What a story!

        1. My second? Wth, did the first one do?

          1. Her attempt was successful.

            1. Zoltan, are you the third?

      2. She was then transformed into RoboCoppette

  21. I love this article. It’s fun to throw the Left’s saints in their face.

    I’m not a pacifist. Arguably, no one involved in US politics is a pacifist. The IRS is not going to sit on my front yard and sing “Kumbaya” if I don’t pay my taxes, so anyone who supports any increase in taxes or spending is not a pacifist. Still, I like the metaphor of Ghandi=Tea Party and Obama=British.

    1. Whats with your beef with Ghandi?

      1. It seems unlikely anyone would’ve enjoyed some beef with Ghandi. Ghandi may have watched others having some beef, but I doubt he’d been willing to have any beef with them.

        *shrugs*

  22. I’m despondent – John beat me to the “I have a crush on Shikha Dalmia” post by…almost 4 hours.

    Shikha, if you haven’t said yes yet, I’d like you to go to the prom with me. Not mine – I’m 48. I’m chaperoning my son’s. I know it’s kind of creepy, but I don’t think it reaches Warty-level creepiness…

    Just sayin.

    1. I have no creepiness. You’re a homo, homo.

  23. Gandhi was an enema fetishist who hated black people. Hardly a role model.

    1. It is not necessary to accept all of his ideas to model one’s methods after methods that previously worked. It is an historical fact that his methods of non-violent resistance succeeded in their aims.

    2. Don’t see anything wrong with the first thing but yes, racism is bad.

  24. I don’t get the “White Liberation Theology” preached by Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Glenn Beck!

    WTF is that shit?

    1. HURR DURR HURRRR! DURR HURRR WHITE PEOPLE BAD HURR DURRR!

  25. Speaking of Ghandi, I saw this amusing B movie the other weekend ‘Nun of That’ – it’s about a crime-fighting nun.

    Her ‘training sequence’ is overseen by Ghandi, who teaches her martial arts.
    It’s hilarious.

    1. +1

      I’ve got to see that!

  26. So what are these anti-mandated health insurance people going to do? Make do without health insurance so they get fined? Sure, go cancel your health insurance.?? I don’t get it. Oh you don’t want health insurance…yeah right. And the lady who wrote the article is right on about the need to talk about the appropriate way to dispute the law. I am not seeing or hearing from well-reasoned voices against the health care law, I’m hearing from people who think it’s a good idea to make threats or put cross-hairs on elected officials’ faces. If you want me on your side it will be on the side opposite the violent wackos’.

    1. So what are these anti-mandated health insurance people going to do? Make do without health insurance so they get fined?

      Obviously, the people who can’t afford it will do so. More importantly, this bill outlaws a lot of existing insurance plans, so cancellation will not even be necessary for many people; they will lose their coverage automatically. I’m not sure why you are mystified that some people don’t want health insurance; it makes more sense to take care of groceries and rent first.

      I am not seeing or hearing from well-reasoned voices against the health care law, I’m hearing from people who think it’s a good idea to make threats or put cross-hairs on elected officials’ faces. If you want me on your side it will be on the side opposite the violent wackos’.

      Then you’re either a liar or willfully ignorant. Comb through the archives here for many well-reasoned pieces in opposition to the new law.

      1. I agree! Plus, refusal to purchase the insurance & pay the fine allows one to remain apart from #1 the rationing system imposed (unelected “Medicare Advisory Panel” with dictatorial powers)#2 the computerized “big brother” medical database. Once your “private” info is entered there, I’d assume it becomes “public”.

    2. Would it help you choose sides if one featured disorganized, paranoid, angry violence; and the other featured disciplined, self-righteous, legally sanctioned violence? Cuz if things start to go downhill, that’s what we’re looking at.

      1. Generally organized, legal, self-righteous violence is called “oppression”.

    3. Your inability to see the world through eyes other than your own in no way constitutes a requirement on my part to live according to your myopic misconceptions.

      I do not have, and do not want, health insurance. I have my reasons. That’s all you need to know.

      1. And when you get hit by a bus and I’m forced to pay for your emergency room care? Does it become somebody else’s business then?

        1. I don’t want any more care than I can afford. I’m not forcing anyone to care for me, and I absolutely do not support anyone who would force you to pay on my behalf; your problem there is not with me. Were I actually putting anyone at risk, I would have a different attitude here, e.g. while I have never bought comp & collision, I would always carry liability regardless of whether or not it was required by law.

          1. “”I don’t want any more care than I can afford””

            So how does that work? Do you wear a medic alert bracelet with you bank balance? Do you expect an estimate before they figure out what’s wrong with you?

            When you need serious medical care, you’re probably not in a condtion to object to what happens. You could wake up three weeks later from a comma and have a $100,000 hospital bill.

            1. Just because other people have an immortality complex doesn’t mean that I have to. If you decide to take care of me when I’m in a coma, what possible rationale could lead you to think that the one who’s taking an economic risk is me, rather than you?

              And I never said I’m unwilling to pay anyway — just that insurance is not part of my current game plan.

              Besides, for most of the scenarios in which I’m likely to incur a substantial cost, I’m already covered. My occupation and hobbies are extremely low-risk. For what remains, decisions would have to be made; I’m perfectly willing to make them, without asking you to foot the bill.

              In the end, I am very aware that I’m playing the averages; if I lose, I lose, and that’s that — I don’t figure the world owes me anything in particular.

            2. If he’s hit by a bus, society can sue the bus company for his care! Otherwise, hospitals are good at pulling credit reports to determine how much $$ potential patients can come up with!

        2. You WANT to be forced to pay for my emergency room care, Tony.

          Shut the fuck up.

          1. No, I want you to realize that healthcare is either a social issue, or it’s wealth-dependent. You guys are so confused on this issue it’s dizzying. Nobody seems to be advocating for the true free market system: health care if you can afford it. Because that would be an immoral and douchey attitude and nobody would buy it. So in the end you’re for some socialism in healthcare, just not for the middle class.

            1. It appears that your concern for people is eclipsed only by your general contempt for them.

            2. “”Because that would be an immoral and douchey attitude and nobody would buy it. So in the end you’re for some socialism in healthcare, just not for the middle class.””

              Any more immoral and douchey than demanding others pay your bills?

              I might agree we could work out a system that helps pay for life saving treatment depending on the details. There is no way I could agree to a law that force society to pay for their insurance.

              I can appreciate someone who actually has the balls to say if I can’t afford don’t give it to me.

        3. Tony, when people haven’t purchased mandated govt-approved “meal insurance plans”, does it become someone else’s business then? Almighty Fat Federal Govt pays out alot of OPM in food stamps, today!

    4. I’ve been “Making do” without insurance for a long time. Because I don’t fucking need it. Because I am careful about my health and safety and I save my money that I earn for emergencies. Liberals are trying to have their free-spending consumerism (which they claim at times to abhor but those lattes aren’t cheap) and still have some security that only prudence can make possible. Not gonna happen unless someone else foots the bill.

      Really, the pro-HCR people are missing the point of what’s being said here. It is the philosophy that the government can make a demand like this on citizens, however large or small, without appeal or due process that is being opposed. The mandate (which eventually goes as high as 6%, BTW) may be a small thing in itself, but it is a huge shift in the relationship between citizen and government. Just ask yourself what can now be justifiable. That’s all you need to do to see the oppositions side here.

    5. Yeah, jackass, I buy the cheapest health insurance I can so I can invest the rest. I don’t need it right now. Oh, what’s that? You know what’s best for me? Well, gee, sorry, massa! I jus’ go an’ sweep da’ flo’ now.

      1. Why bother even doing that? When you get sick you can get a gold-plated plan. Keep it for two months and then drop it when you get sick.

        1. Er drop it when you get BETTER.

    6. Um. I don’t NEED health insurance if I can buy it after I get sick.

  27. Let me fix that for you:

    “The colonial rulers were monarchs who used violence to extract taxes from Americans to FORCE AMERICANS TO DO SOMETHING FOR THEIR OWN ALLEGED GOOD, I.E., COLONIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEFENSE, AND TO enrich themselves and their MERCANTILE BUDDIES. U.S. STATISTS are imposing mandates to force Americans to do something for their own alleged good AND TO ENRICH THEMSELVES AND THEIR CORPORATE AND UNION BUDDIES?and, INCIDENTALLY, taxes to redistribute wealth among THE LESS HIGH-FINANCE-SAVVY OF Americans, I.E., MOST OF THEM.”

    There.

    Hmm…

  28. Now I feel a little bad. Jefferson is someone I’ve seldom ever quoted except when showing Democrats they haven’t a clue who the man they supposedly so much respect really was. But on the other hand there haven’t been many days gone by that I haven’t quoted one of the Founders at least once. If it’s truly wrong to do such, then I must be wrong to the core.

    Of course it’s highly unlikely feeling bad is ever going to change anything I do, I make a very determined point to keep thought uncontaminated by emotion. And there is no greater example of wisdom that I know of than that of this nation’s founders. It at times has even left me regretful my ancestory is Slavic and not Anglo as if that would somehow provide me with the same clarity of thought they had. Faulty reasoning, no doubt, since they were unique even among their own.

    Out of respect to Shikha no quote this time. Instead I would like to share this link to a really great short video by Black&Right;’s Bob Parks titled Rich Old White Guys.

    1. Wow, that was a great video.

    2. Great video!

  29. “Worst of all were the shameless parliamentary tactics that Democrats deployed.” That is the most alarming feature of this mess! Dems don’t care about anything but what they call “winning”; as though this were some sort of sport competition. The the shameless VP’s comments show the level of contempt this administration has for the Constitutional processes of this country. How low will they go. Repeal, recall, then retake this country they hold in such contempt.

    1. If the majority don’t value liberty, repeal will be impossible. There are huge, corporate, vested interests–obviously! Those earning over $200k stand to gain financially by protesting–whether or not they value liberty. Will the majority of those earning less than $200k opt to pay fines & tell Almighty Fat Federal Govt to get out of their lives?

  30. It’s a tactic that has potential – taking up the Gandhian approach. If you want to sway liberals, or at least shame them, then then take on the approach of a liberal hero. Do what Gandhi did, resist, but not violently all the while declaring that you hate the sin but love the sinner. Gandhi’s idea was to take the moral high ground, to essentially convert his opponents through shaming them. Not by shouting angrily at them or violently resisting; resistance without hatred approach (or better, even loving the opponent) made the opposition look like moral adolescents or worse, moral cretins. The one thing liberals hate more than anything else is being thought of as not humane enough – so, we outhumane them. It could be very powerful – using the same tactics as the hero of the opposition; even more powerful, as well as amusing, would be if the tea partiers suddenly became vegans, wearing love beads, approaching guardsmen at rallies with flowers, etc

    1. Corporatists/marxists are unlikely to be swayed by anything but their own elitist welfare. I doubt that the Gandhian approach can work, with them–no consciences. Were a majority to refuse to purchase the policies (pay the fines), ObamaCare would fail as the elite corporations lost money on this power-grab scheme.

  31. Non-violent resistence to health care–what a stupid fucking idea.

    1. As I assume you are not implying that violent resistance would be preferable (feel free to correct), your statement reduces to:

      ‘Non-violent resistence to health care–what a stupid fucking idea.’

      It then depends on what you mean by ‘health care‘; as declining health care itself requires neither violent, nor non-violent resistance, but rather simple abstinence, I must assume that you are not actually referring to health care itself, but something else. Likely, that would be legislation; again, feel free to correct. Assuming this to be the case, your statement further reduces to

      ‘Non-violent resistence to health care legislation –what a stupid fucking idea.’

      1. I’d like to reduce the number of teeth in your mouth

        1. Just to even things out, I suppose?

    2. And it’s cultural and historical tunnel-vision like this will keep the libertarian movement small and irrelevant.

    3. We’re not resisting health care. We’re resisting being forced to subsidize other people’s health care.

      1. This law requires people to buy their own insurance and subsidizes those who can’t afford it. It’s hardly the redistributionism of, say, medicaid. You have a lot of work to do if you want to end the real oppression in the system, the single-payer programs we already have.

        1. “”This law requires people to buy their own insurance and subsidizes those who can’t afford it.””

          If I can barely afford my own, how can I subsidize anyone else?

          1. You get the government to steal from someone else to buy yours, silly.

            1. But they can’t afford it either.

              1. TrickyVic, either you fall into the bracket of paying for your own or receiving help with subsidies. You have already stated that people should have insurance to avoid a $100,000 hospital bill. Pick one.

                1. “”You have already stated that people should have insurance to avoid a $100,000 hospital bill. Pick one.””

                  I didn’t state that at all.

                  1. “When you need serious medical care, you’re probably not in a condtion to object to what happens. You could wake up three weeks later from a comma and have a $100,000 hospital bill.” Are we playing semantics?

                    1. I don’t think it’s semantics as much as a failure to understand the issue of the conversation.

                      Clearly, by my own text, I did not state what you claimed.

                      The issue was being being able to dictate to the medical system, the limit of your purse. My reply was about one’s inability to limit the servics and cost when you’re unconscious. Not how those services would actually be paid. I was curious how Josey expected to pay when someone else made the choices.

                      You are misunderstanding the topic and convincing yourself I said something I didn’t to satify your misunderstanding. Not semantics at all.

                    2. Clearly, she abdicates accountability of any pre-consented health care debt to the system. My impression is that you feel personal responsibility is important but you demand it of those who evidently cannot afford the costs.

                    3. “”My impression is that you feel personal responsibility is important but you demand it of those who evidently cannot afford the costs.””

                      I have made no demands. But yes, I’m a believer of personal responsibility. I also believe in freedom which requires accepting the consequences of your actions.

                      I do not want to pay for people’s insurance period. If they are in a condition that requires procedures they can not afford, it would be nice if they didn’t have to go bankrupt. How to create that mechanism is very difficult.

                      Personally I think funding Medicare/Medicaid a little more would be better than the law that just passed. IMO, the government has too much power as it is, giving them health care just place people care in the hands of partisan politicians. Nothing can go wrong there, 😉

                    4. So (from reading other posts), I see you are not a fan of either party but you still see the need for Medicare/Medicaid. I deduce, you’re in the medical field and you recognize that the status quo is deficient. TV, most healthy adults believe in personal responsibility but the reality is that many of those uninsured emergency room cases are incapable of comprehending consequences. I do think tax dollars should be used for catastrophic care and to prevent bankruptcy. I would like insurance to be based on the HSA model but with an income protection tweak. I don’t know what the outcome of this new law will be and I think It may have unintended consequences for both sides.

              2. And that’s stopped the government when…?

                1. CZ, with regard to unintended consequences?

            2. Furthermore, the legislation states that those purchasing insurance are paying the costs of others’ medical care in addition to their own. (i.e., alot of shenannigans are included in the premiums & rationing system).

        2. Hardly any doctors take Medicaid. And Medicare is heading the same direction. So the market is taking care of taht for us.

          1. Cite stats

            1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04…..ealth.html

              In a June 2008 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress on Medicare, said that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24 percent the year before. And a 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association found that while 58 percent of the state’s doctors took new Medicare patients, only 38 percent of primary care doctors did.

              http://industry.bnet.com/healt…..-patients/

              This is the story, not only in Oregon, but across the country. By one estimate, state Medicaid programs pay, on average, only 60 percent as much as private insurance does. As a result, many physicians will not see Medicaid patients. A recent study found that 28 percent of physicians don’t accept Medicaid patients, and 19 percent accept some. Only 40 percent will take anybody on Medicaid.

              So, what’s next. FORCE doctors to work for below cost at the point of a gun?
              Build a wall around the country to keep them from leaving?

              1. So, what’s next. FORCE doctors to work for below cost at the point of a gun?
                Build a wall around the country to keep them from leaving?

                Don’t be so melodramatic, Hazel. We’ll just have a shortage of doctors. Those who are most politically-connected will get health care, and those who are not will have to wait. The important thing is that money will no longer be a consideration.

                And isn’t that all that anybody really wanted in the first place?

                1. We had a shortage of MDs & nurses before this legislation was enacted. Were Almighty Fat Federal Govt to desire lower medical care costs, it would have increased medical school/residency training slots! No, this is about nationalization of the US economy! (Obviously, double the number of MDs and costs would halve. Having MDs make half as much isn’t as politically correct as withholding care from the elderly, the retarded, and other undesireables).

              2. “said that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them” While you are right about the stats, I have read that the major cause has been the increase of Medicare beneficiaries patients, and the decrease of primary care physicians. I think we both can agree that the AMA control in the market is the primary issue.

  32. Remember March 23rd people because it is the “start” of Amerika’s entry into Socialism and then onto. This why Obama picked March 23rd! …………….

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21421

    1. That was lame. You remind me of a liberal circa 2005.

  33. Is this Gandhi who directed his followers – in the midst of WW2 – to “non-violently” destroy the British supply depots, railyards, shipping docks and other logistics base? His followers – not being such illuminated beings as he – couldn’t figure out what “non-violent violence” was, so they simply burnt, crushed, smashed and destroyed what he had directed them at. Same fellow? Same Gandi who encouraged Hindu and Muslim and Sihk violence against each other such that when the British were in the process of withdrawing their forces, wandering bands of these three religious groups slaughtered literally millions of their opponents, dragging some out of passenger trains and killing them in front of – as you would expect! – dismayed British passengers? Same chap? Yes, he’s certainly a good role model to follow, isn’t he? “You go out and burn and kill and rape and destroy and I’ll enjoy the power in the political process.” Yes, well, we don’t need a Gandi here and we don’t need to search around for some power-mad fakir to imitate him. Enough of that going on in the black community; don’t you think?

    1. Evidence please.

  34. Besides, Gandhi’s methods could only work – whether you choose to look at what he actually did or what it is said that he did – because the British were, at heart, decent people who hesitated to use brutal military force against the Indian people. Yes, I know, they actually did; but never on a large scale and never as a matter of policy. Our own government, on the other hand, is made up of people who haven’t the least idea of what decency or restraint or morality is. These are the men and women who believe that what they want is good and just and anything else is Evil and deserves death. What do you think their reaction to genuinely non-violent action and protest would be? Can you say water hoses and police dogs? Yes, I bet you can!

    1. the British were, at heart, decent people

      Evidence, please.

      1. don’t you know that showing opium down China’s throat (the 2 opium wars) is actually indecent? The British were, at the heart, decent people?…wow! That’s like saying that Mao treated his people well.

        1. The British bombed Germany at night, which killed a lot more civilians. The American commanders refused to do this. But keeping shoveling out the shit, Ike, sans any evidence.

  35. Are their any “objective” books out there on Ghandi’s civil disobedience methods. Something that was not heavily influenced by state bias?

  36. Based on recent articles, it appears that ObamaCare limits the enforcement techniques that may be used to implement the mandate. To paraphrase Alinsky’s tactics #4 “make them live by their own rules” I would suggest that someone begin a web-based petition, that commits the signatories to the INTENTION to defy the mandate. Get a million signatures on that and make the Left pass legislation to increase the enforcement techniques.

    Let’s get a non-violent resistance started now!

    1. @RK
      To paraphrase Alinsky’s tactics #4 “make them live by their own rules” I would suggest that someone begin a web-based petition, that commits the signatories to the INTENTION to defy the mandate. Get a million signatures on that and make the Left pass legislation to increase the enforcement techniques.

      It’s already happening on facebook

  37. Many Americans from 1776 would disagree with this.

    They rebelled against British rule for far less.

    1. “”They rebelled against British rule for far less””

      It was easier before electronic surveillence and combat aircraft.

    2. They didn’t have tracking devices, I mean cell phones, to worship.

  38. Underlying logic, ‘this (Obamacare) doesn’t change everything.’

    If true, Romney will be the nominee.

    I strongly doubt Romney will win the nomination.

    1) He’s a Mormon. This does not poll well in the South, which any Republican needs to do reasonably well in to win.

    2) Any candidate running close to Romney in the polls will point out that Romneycare is the equivalent of Obamacare.

    1. P, Kennedy couldn’t win because of Catholicism. Obama couldn’t win because he was a black man. You’re right, Romney won’t win because of Mormonism.

      1. Romney lost the last time around in part because of anti-Mormon sentiment. (Partly due to him being kind of a d-bag about other stuff, too.)

        There are a lot more Catholics and blacks than Mormons. When Mormons get to be a bigger percentage of the population (and they will, with their high birth and conversion rates), we’ll get a Mormon president.

        But I don’t think that time is now, especially with someone who pushed through an Obamacare clone.

        1. If someone had said, in 1920 or 1890 that a Catholic running on the then current presidential ticket could not win, they would have been right.

          If they had said a Catholic would NEVER be the U.S. President, ever, they would have been wrong.

          1. “Romney lost the last time around in part because of anti-Mormon sentiment.” Romney was a little too stiff and that hurt him. His business acumen will be his ticket this time around. Who else do they have to put on the ticket?

            1. Who were Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton in 2005, 1997, and 1989, respectively?

              And…wasn’t Romney’s much-vaunted business acumen his ticket last time around too? Sorry (not really though), but I’m pretty sure Romney is over.

              On the other hand, this is the Republican party we’re talking about…so, contrary to my above statement, he’s probably a shoo-in. If so, that means it’s going to be Obama for 7 more long ones.

              1. Josey, I really don’t have a dog in this hunt but my speculation is based on the present economy and the lack of any charismatic candidates. I also think the Romney team has the advantage of foresight that one gains by making a shitload of mistakes.

  39. Yes, the non violent civil disobenience paradigm has its place; query how the Ghandi way would have fared in 1776?

    Or how it would have worked in Hitler’s Germany, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

    Ghandi’s approach only works against a government that can be shamed into backing down by public opinion. Not so much against a government that ruthlessly kills dissenters.

    That approach might have worked with a different British monarch in 1776 — there were a substantial minority of Members of Parliament who opposed going to war with the colonies.

    It definitely could work in America, with a sufficient mass of voters shaming the government.

    1. In a country founded on political violence, there is a place for political violence.

      We are getting closer to that place with every additional day in this moron’s presidency.

    2. In a country founded on political violence, there is a place for political violence.

      We are getting closer to that place with every additional day in this moron’s presidency.

  40. I agree with S.D. that “the perpetrators of Obamacare” must be held accountable at the polls. But I worry that she means (and most people will assume) that incumbents who brought us this mess must be replaced by their opponents in the other major party — usually Republican.

    I hope we have seen by now that BOTH major parties are gutless to live up to their promises, even when they have remarkable power in federal government. I remember “Contract with America” Republicans vowing to eliminate the Department of Education, for instance, in the 1990s. They got their contract, and they reneged. Same for the Democrats, flagrantly breaking promises to THEIR base, now that they have commanding power in DC.

    We must recognize and act upon the fact that the perpetrators of ObamaCare, the financial bailouts, and many other of our current woes, were merely footsoldiers in the two-party “system” — or “scam,” as I think of it. As replacements for the “perpetrators,” it will do us no good to select opponents from the other major party in each case. That might cause ripples in the short term (as did the election of Brown in MA), but for the long term, I think the voting public can only be effective by looking outside the two-party system for what the Declaration of Independence called “new guards for their future security.”

    Let’s resolve to pay special attention to third-party and independent candidates on our ballots for the next several election cycles, and pledge — at least to ourselves — to vote for the less worse of the “major party” candidates only if all the third-party and independent aspirants are completely unacceptable.

    1. “”Republicans vowing to eliminate the Department of Education, for instance, in the 1990s. They got their contract, and they reneged. Same for the Democrats, flagrantly breaking promises to THEIR base, now that they have commanding power in DC.””

      And it’s not too tough to look beyond the partisan politics and realize this is an issue of power. Political party is irrelevant. The founders respected the amount of power that governments can wield like a electrician that respects high voltage. We got a constitution that limited government, and a warning about failing to be vigilant in keeping government limited. I wonder which ones betted against us.

      Allowing governemnt to expand further into the personal health of the citizenry is just a bad idea. From more than one angle too.

      For those for it, I’m curious how much of their paycheck they want to keep? How much tax is too much?

  41. Why isn’t the media finding out the truth for us taxpayers? Where are all the documents? Even just “one” of the them that is listed?

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21269

    and………..

    http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=23796#comment-28650

  42. I agree with the gist of this article, but I wonder why the author thinks it was OK for the Founding Fathers to rebel against a government that used violence to extract taxes from Americans to line the own pockets of the aristocrats but it’s not OK for today’s Americans to rebel against a government that uses violence to extract taxes from Americans to line the pockets of the aristocrats. It’s not like we can vote for somebody who won’t do that.

    I’m not advocating violence, but our government is far more oppressive than King George’s was.

    1. The sad thing is you probably really believe that.

      You’re just being a whiny bitch because your side lost the last election. It happens. Sorry. Grow up.

      1. Good evening Tony. Thought I would say something pleasant before ubiquitous attacks.

        1. I don’t think our government’s reached George III levels of oppression but that’s for lack of ability, not lack of desire. Politicians want to control everyone, and Obama wants to control more than most.

          Tony welcomes government control so long as the boot on his neck is stamped with a D. If a Republican administration had ever attempted near what this administration has done in the past six months Tony’s head would have exploded with rage by now.

          I look forward to Tony’s views on government overreach in January, when at least one house of Congress is controlled by people he doesn’t like.

          Tony’s principles begin and end at “Democrats rule, Republicans drool,” is what I’m saying. I’ve never seen the point of trying to discuss anything of substance with people like that.

          1. “”If a Republican administration had ever attempted near what this administration has done in the past six months Tony’s head would have exploded with rage by “”

            The republicans will get their chance. It might be a decade or so out, but they will.

            Mandated health care was originally a republican idea. The only reason dems aren’t against it is because they put forth the bill. If a republican introduced the same legislation, the dems would be screaming. Vice versa too. The only reason many republicans are against it is because they didn’t present it. Why would John McCain be against something he suggested in the 1990s?

            1. The Great Reneger: This is the best the Progressives could come up with for their party. Pathetic !

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdKmc9aBELM

              and………..

              Another Progressive, Senator Al Franken, can’t answer the simple question:

              http://biggovernment.com/jmatt…..ournalist/

          2. Tony is a retarded fetus. He will get his healthcare reform soon enough.

          3. If a Republican administration had ever attempted near what this administration has done in the past six months Tony’s head would have exploded with rage by now.

            All Republicans think is necessary is to cut taxes for the wealthy. If they were in charge we’d be in for many years of depression, and that’s a fact. Who knows, maybe we’d start a war with another Arab country and not pay for it. Of course we know they’d rescue the banks in a crisis–without imposing any rules in exchange for bailing them out.

            They wouldn’t even address climate change because they don’t believe in science that’s inconvenient for their corporate puppets. Education reform to them would be gathering all the white kids and subsidizing religious school for them while letting the poor schools rot. Oh, and the rest of the world would still utterly despise us.

            Things are rarely equivalent, except in lazy minds.

      2. And you’re being a whiny bitch because your side won the last election.

    2. It’s like this, Mark… it’s only okay if their side does the demonstrating and resisting.

  43. that was well spoken…if Gandi could do it, if Martin Luther King Jr. could do it…so can we…we can do it Obama!…we can take responsibility for our own lives Obama!

  44. In the end non-violence didn’t work out all that well for Gandhi.

  45. There is one sure fire way of bringing down Obamacare once it is imposed: the mere threat of a strike by, say, as few as 25% of the country’s doctors and nurses. They organize, and demand that the law be repealed, and real reform ushered in, or they’ll stop showing up for work. Obamacare immediately collapses, and Pelosi and Reid and their comrades march right back to the capitol to shamefacedly repeal what they so proudly enacted just months before. There is simply no way they could withstand such a strike.

    It comes down to whether doctors give their moral sanction to this abomination — or to the next stage which will follow after it, when it inevitably collapses financially and rationing and social control kicks in.

    The doctors in other countries (like Britain) have essentially been quislings for the fascist and all powerful state, and that’s why socialized medicine in those places stands. If American doctors do the same, we have no hope. If they rise in opposition, we have a chance to regain our freedom.

    1. Fascist and all powerful state? Really. You have no idea what fascism really is. It’s just a tawdry rhetorical flourish because you’re too lazy or scared to argue against social democracy. It’s much easier to scream, “They want to remake America as the Third Reich or CCCP!”

      You’re proposed strike would actually work against you and for what you supposedly fear. You are arguing that many doctors and nurses should threaten to and if necessary let their patients die rather than submit. That way lies madness for you will positively enable the coming of “rationing and social control”.

      1. No, AJ, Draco is far more precise in his characterization of matters than you.

        First, as a matter of structural constitutional fact, America is a republic, not a democracy, social or otherwise. The framers understood that democracy is for the less enlightened, the les able, the less productive, the less virtuous, for the rent seeker, the featherbedder, the usurper, the demagogue and for those that would favor redistribution of wealth.

        John Adams, in 1787, expressed his fears regarding the perils of democracy, particularly the inevitably of the majoirty voting itself an equal, if not superior, share of the pie of the industrious and productive. He called such a state of affairs “anarchy” and “tyranny.” See Volume I, Chapter 16, Document 15, The Founders’ Constitution, The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

        Thus, for Adams, and the framers, the notion that political majorities should have the right to confiscate the private property of those who make and produce and invent and employ and who provide superior services and who thereby improve and enrich the lives of all, was anathema. The protection of private property was the end for which government was instituted. The protection of private proprety did not include the administrative state, the welfare state, the regulatory state nor the warfare state; it most certainly did not inlcude progressive income taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, capital gains taxes, payroll taxes, social security taxes, windfall profits taxes, alternative minimum taxes, transfer taxes, sales taxes, value added taxes, personal holding company taxes, retained earnings taxes, and Obama taxes.

        Thus, Draco’s words are not inaccurate; rather you’re dismissal of his characterization by referring to the 3rd Reich and to the USSR (that was short for Russia) is flaccid.

        Tyranny and the all fascist state is not limited to, nor defined by, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. In other words, tyranny does not need death camps and gulags in order to exist.

        However, who would deny that in the prosecution of the drug war, our government (local, state and feds) has created its own camps, re-education, or otherwise? In the last 40 years, how many tens of millions have been arrested for possession of drugs who have not hurt any other person? How many of those were eventually incarcerated?

        How about the hundred of thousands of KNOWN, DOCUMENTABLE deaths caused by the state’s prosection of the drug war? How about the rampant police corruption, brutality and murder associated with the WOD? In a word, TERROR.

        How about the hundreds of thousands of folks who have dared to stand up to the IRS? Those who openly challenge the IRS become targets of harassment and theft and prosecution by the all powerful fascist state. In a free society, those who choose not to be extorted by any government goon, do not ger prosecuted.

        Look at all of the wealth that is extracted from folks. It is theft. It is inconsistent with the principles of a free society. Any paradigm which supports and encourages systematic transfers of wealth, at the point of a gun, from those who produce it to those who claim to speak for the people but who skim for themselves and pass unto to their cronies, is, by definition, tyranny.

        I submit that you are the one who is intellectually lazy, clutching to hackneyed strawmen and presenting such as if it were the very embodiement of enlightenment.

        1. “”First, as a matter of structural constitutional fact, America is a republic, not a democracy, social or otherwise.””

          I just though it was worth repeating.

      2. It won’t be the Doctors who strike, it will be SEIU United Healthcare Workers. They are running Advertisement now thanking the Congress fools who voted THEM in power of Healthcare. They are lovin it. Wait till your nurses aid is making $60-100 dollars per hour including benifits. Your $400 plan will now be $1000-$2000

    2. Alternatively, they could refuse to treat anything that wasn’t emergency or life-threatening. Similar benefits, but would let them retain more of the moral high ground.

      1. Yes, CoP, that would probably be the smartest way to implement the strike, given the altruist-collectivist premises which pervade our culture. For you see, for every one of us there are at least 5 or 6 people like “Apostate Jew” (above) whose morality puts the need of the sick and dying above the rights of the doctor. And they’d whine, and they’d bleat that “you are killing people!”

        No, need is not a claim (except, perhaps on the heartstrings of the charitable). And when there are no doctors? Then how can you cash in your “claim,” my altruistic friends?

      2. I think you haven’t read the bill. It includes provisions making Almighty Fat Federal Govt & its unelected, tyranical, Medicare Advisory Board responsible for payments to medical providers. None of them are anything but glorified Federal employees, now.

  46. I’ve started making fun of obammacare by always calling it ENRONCARE. The ENRON administration using phony accounting to fleece taxpayers.

  47. They’re probably outraged at their friends being gun downed by swat teams. Either that or the smell of pork is driving them crazy.
    http://www.christianlouboutinvips.com
    http://www.christianlouboutinvips.com

  48. I certainly do.
    I certainly do.

  49. Obviously, reason and rational thinking aren’t necessary to post articles on this website, as Ms. Dalmia shows. All you need is a handful of right wing talking points and you too can have your own articles on Reason.com! Sad.

  50. This past week marked the 235th anniversary of a speech by Revolutionary War hero Patrick Henry, the most famous line of which is “Give me liberty, or give me death!” The entire purpose of his monologue was to entreat the listeners to take up arms. Would those who say that violence is never an acceptable response to the loss of freedom condemn Mr. Henry? As Obama take away more freedoms and imposes more taxes on the people of this country civil disobedience will occur, hopefully peaceful. Ghandi’s India was different than that of the American revolution or America today. We have a constitution.
    http://www.suckitupcrybaby.com

    1. We have a constitution.

      Yeah and it’s an enlightened enough document to ensure that your children and grandchildren aren’t considered tainted by your treason.

      You lost an election. Change your diaper and get on with your life. Until there isn’t another election available to you, you aren’t being oppressed.

      1. Guess that pesky Tenth Amendment just gets in your way, doesn’t it, Tony…

        1. You are aware there are other parts of the constitution right? 10th amendment case law doesn’t treat it as nearly as important as you think it should be.

      2. The US Constitution/Bill of Rights have been ignored since 1913–but that doesn’t make it right! Rather, the populace was too non-violent to tar & feather Woodrow Wilson & Comrade Roosevelt…to say nothing of the Supreme Court, once Roosevelt threatened to add more justices & the Supremes suddenly knuckled under to his tyranny! Tar/feather a few of them, now, and Obama & Pelosi might wise up.

  51. BTW… point out the “treason”, Tony.

    1. Advocating violent overthrow of government is pretty much the definition.

      We have elections that are for the most part fair. They happen regularly. Just because the guys who won this time aren’t doing what you like doesn’t give you cause to take up arms against it. Liberals protested the massive abuses of the Bush administration plenty (with nothing but a faint cricket chirping sound coming from the antigovernment right, I might add), but we didn’t advocate violent revolution. Because we’re not pathetic crybabies.

      1. “”We have elections that are for the most part fair. They happen regularly. Just because the guys who won this time aren’t doing what you like doesn’t give you cause to take up arms against it.””

        Keep that in mind when the republicans control both houses of Congress and the WH and start modify the health care law.

        Come on, at least admit the stupidity of handing health care over to partisan politicians. I think I’d rather have a rabbi, priest, or Hanna Montana making health care decisions than politicians.

        1. They’re not making healthcare decisions, they’re making decisions about healthcare availability. If you care about universal coverage (i.e., if you believe in modern civilization) then there’s only one entity that can make it happen.

  52. As I expected, the Democrats hired their own campaign workers to break their windows for a Rev. Sharpton/Tawana Brawley style hoax http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_13203950

  53. The Great Reneger: This is the best the Progressives could come up with for their party. Pathetic !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdKmc9aBELM

    and………..

    Another Progressive, Senator Al Franken, can’t answer the simple question:

    http://biggovernment.com/jmatt…..ournalist/

  54. If you listen to Gov Rendell, apparently he doesn’t believe we have the right to know what our rights are. We are to assume that if Congress strong arms a bill then it’s legal. But Congress itself draws it’s power from the Constitution, so if it’s irrelavent, then so are LAWS

    1. YUP! Tarrings & featherings become lawful when officials refuse to uphold the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. (Did you note the 2nd swearing-in ceremony for Obama, which made him agree to uphold the US Constitution)?

  55. Just exactly what powers does 10th amendment reserve for the people? Anything the Feds & States don’t claim? Nothing! Take the guns, money, abort our children, take away salt & sugar & hydroginated fat. Must wear a seat belt and don’t touch that phone or they’ll arrest you.

    1. Problem has been the Supremes, since Roosevelt. Otherwise, Almighty Fat Federal Govt wouldn’t have usurped the states’ rights…and states wouldn’t have usurped individual rights. Overgrowth of govt was enabled by unconstitutional federal reserve system.

  56. Its the responsibility of the Tea Party movement and other conservatives to make sure the voters dont forget by November. Its also the responsibility of the movement to not let the Socialist propaganda machine to go unanswered on any scape goating or other hate mongering.

    This where the Bush administration failed originally and where the RNC continues to fail.

  57. Of Course if the Obama administration continues to force extremist legislation through one after the other, the mood will extremely ugly by election time and none will have to be reminded to vote against the socialists.

  58. As far as I know, under this law the Federal Government still does not recognize the medicinal value of marijuana.
    A few years ago, Andrew Sullivan, when he was more sane, wrote that civil disobediance in the defense of one’s health is justified.
    So in regard to civil disobediance and government health care policy, here is an example I think where c.d. is right and might even work

  59. News headline:
    President Obama scratches left testicle; Republicans protest.
    Story:
    http://www.scrambledneurons.com

  60. We need your participation to get this off the ground:

    Your Constitution is at stake.

    http://teapartyrevolution.com/

  61. FAGETTABOUTIT…………GHANDI NEVER FACED THE TOTAL STUPIDITY AND VIOLENCE OF TODAY’S LIBERALS.
    GHANDI WITH A WHIP OR M16…..OK

  62. truth,,,,obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led.”
    “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.”
    “All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.”
    “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”pelosi don’t see much future for the Americans … it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities …obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance … everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it’s half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries… Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit? The media’s justification is apparently “because it’s out there”, truth be damned. STOP THIS COMMUNIST OBAMA ,GOD HELP US ALL .THE COMMANDER ((GOD OPEN YOUR EYES)) stop the communist obama & pelosi.((open you eyes)) ,the commander

  63. Yes, Tea party protests are scheduled for April 15th. Ya’ll come on out and join the fun. Common sense and understanding is not required, and may actually detract from the experience.

  64. Oh so the money game, from one hand, to another, to another, to one you can’t see, to another. Create 138 more agencies. Thats soooo much better than stay out of more bureaucracies. And it will continue. Its not over. What tax us for not living long enough, or too long? Not purchasing food from an approved government provider? Or breathing at the wrong time of day? Not providing paid leave? It will never end. If they can get this passed when 65% of the population is against it. They WILL pass amnesty. Re-district. Ban guns. Ban resistance. Then its over. ie. Hitler.
    Anyone that loves this country should fight government by voting these morons out in Nov. & 2012. If we can’t, go to Australia, before they close immigration. Wait 4 years to establish residency. Immigrate back to the US and live of the government, like kings. Hopefully China hasn’t annexed the US by then.

  65. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke.

  66. Thanks for posting this. Very nice recap of some of the key points in my talk. I hope you and your readers find it useful! Thanks again

  67. Many years after receiving my graduate degree, I returned to the State University of New York at Binghamton as a faculty member. One day in a crowded elevator, someone remarked on its inefficiency. I said the elevators had not changed in the 20 years since I began there as a student.
    When the door finally opened, I felt a compassionate pat on my back, and turned to see an elderly nun smiling at me. “You’ll get that degree, dear,” she whispered. “Perseverance is a virtue.”

  68. “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.”

  69. I think that we need to just give it a try. If they really are wanting to support it as much as they have there needs to be some kind of benefit to it. If things don’t work out according to plan then we can go and change things. It isnt like the whole deal is set in stone. There can be revisions and changes made.

  70. update
    So lons V inson, Hudson
    strike PPACA (h. care ‘reform’) down,
    find it UN-con…

  71. I think you are interesting. Your writing style is great and you make a lot of sound points in this article. I love this article.

  72. It’s curious that if it’s such a good thing for all of us, how come Obama himself, Congress, judges, and many labor organizations have been exempted from some or all of its requirements? Don’t they also deserve its enormous benefits?

  73. archs who used violence to extract taxes from Americans to enrich themselves and their motherland. But Democrats are imposing mandates to force Americans to do something fo

  74. easily overwhelm the system. Self-rule or swaraj, Gandhi said, requires a collective understanding of the immense capacity of citizens to “regulate and control” the coercive apparatu

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.